- Home
- Muslim Converts to Roman Catholicism
- Embryo Vote: Should ‘conscience’ come into it?
- Tony Blair Website
- The Enemies Within
- Fighting fire with fire – the Botros Phenomenon
Comment at end
25th March, 2008 – UPDATE on Free Vote for MPs
Click to read Brown’s letter to his MPs explaining why he has capitulated … er … decided
A FREE VOTE: GORDON’S BLOWN IT – AGAIN!
Capitulating to the consciences of the ministers and backbenchers in his party who were determined or persuaded that their consciences must override all other considerations, the present prime minister has stoked up yet more trouble for the final stages of the Embryology Bill. On three controversial parts of the bill, IVF research, saviour siblings and Admix embryo Brown has, belatedly, allowed them a free vote.
The prime minister said if those plans were backed by MPs, he expects all Labour MPs to vote in favour when there is the final vote on the whole bill.
Just how can he be secure in this? Those who NOW vote against will STILL vote against at various stages throughout the process. And unless he gets it all through on a large majority in the final vote, he will lose. Would you believe the lack of foresight? Where are his helpers?
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is designed to bring existing laws on fertility treatment and embryo research into line with scientific advances.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, Mr GB/PM. Hate to remind you, but did I mention below that your predeccessor would have seen this problem coming and planned accordingly?
//////////
24th March 2008, Easter Monday
SPIN DOCTORING AT PRAYER?
It’s been a busy Easter. Full of political/religious symbolism. Just a few weeks after widespread and indeed worldwide criticism of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s confused and convoluted call for accommodation with Sharia Law in this country, we are now treated to this worrying vision.
The Christian Church learning nothing from earlier clerical wrong-footedness, and using a Christian celebration to prove it.
This time it is mainly the Roman Catholic Church in trouble and not the Anglicans. But still they all seem to drift over into politics as though they had been elected so to do.
The furore seems to me to have several strands, centred around Ethics and Conscience:
Easter message to the faithful & to the secular; re-affirming the Church as THE voice of conscience; interpreting and presenting what Jesus’s message would have been were he around today; a dig at a government which they see as too powerful and/or unethical; a vain attempt at (wrongheaded) inclusivity of ALL the people; a struggle to re-establish the rules of conscience of the Christian Church as if written in stone and as though above scrutiny or challenge. And to top it all, the Church leaders seem to have conspired to conflate the Easter message of Jesus’s life and death into their political religious/moral/ethical message.
I’m tempted to describe this as spin doctoring at prayer.
LORD WINSTON, LABOUR PEER ACCUSES CARDINAL OF LYING
This morning Lord Robert Winston, Labour peer and a fertility expert, waded into the argument over embryo research. And he hasn’t pulled his punches accusing Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the leader of Scotland’s Roman Catholics, of lying.
Excerpt from BBC report:
‘A Labour peer has accused the leader of Scotland’s Catholic Church of misleading the public over the government’s embryo research proposals.
Fertility expert Lord Winston said statements made by Cardinal Keith O’Brien were discrediting the Church.’
//////////
DO BRITISH MUSLIMS “GET IT” WHILE CHRISTIANS DON’T?
IF SO, THANK ALL THAT’S HOLY (in any religion)!
Perhaps we should be applauding British Muslim clerics and reject the present Christian bullying of MPs which is verging on sanctimony. And you won’t often hear me say that!
Those of us who consider ourselves ‘secular Christian’, (if that is not an oxymoron), should be uneasy about these reminders to MPs to follow their consciences or to follow the teachings of the Church. Coinciding as it does with Easter it is worse than it seemed at first glance.
Easter, like Christmas is a time when we can expect some suitably religious words from our Christian leaders about Jesus’s life and death and the messages of both. We normally appreciate them. They are timely and appropriate. Normally.
But, this Easter weekend has seen a dangerous undercurrent of political interference in the elected government’s freedom to govern its people. Most of you will know that I don’t have a high regard for this government post-Blair, but with friends like our Christian leaders, they might as well switch off all the lights at Westminster and await the next edict from on high.
//////////
INSTRUCTIONS/ADVICE TO MPs IS NONE OF THE CLERGY’S BUSINESS
MPs are old enough to know when to follow their consciences without being spoken to like schoolchildren. And it’s worse than that. With children we’d be told we were interfering with their human rights if they were leant on in this way! It is none of the clergy’s business as to how MPs vote. The MPs were elected by voters of all religions and none; they were not elected as catholics, anglicans, jews or muslims; not elected to follow a religious creed or doctrine to the letter. THAT is the lot of the clergy, and not all of them have made such a great fist of their calling, if truth were told.
And the interesting side to this story is the silence on this matter of Muslims in this land. Easter to them is a time which commemorates the death of the “prophet” Jesus, and not a religious holiday. They were never going to send us an Easter message. But the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches from Canterbury, throughout England, Scotland and Wales have been sufficiently politically aware to use this Christian holiday to make political points.
I haven’t found ANY British Muslim voices raised on the current and divisive issue of embryo research.
Perhaps we might have expected something different from them; more conservatism; less tolerance towards scientific advancement; more “respect” for the embryo at any stage of its existence. And perhaps they DO feel strongly, but I have been pleasantly surprised not to have heard from British Islamic leaders on this issue. As surprised as I have been disturbed by the Christian voices raised overtly or subtly against the embryo research bill.
Why? Why on both counts? Why no Muslim voices and why the Christian furore?
Well, this might be an explanation of Islamic non reaction.
Muslims voices have been muted recently following the Archbishop of Canterbury’s ill thought through words on Sharia Law. It raised the temperature, and they got it.
The message: religion does NOT interfere with politics in OUR liberal democracy. Sadly the Christian Churches do NOT seem to have “got it”.
A DANGEROUS GAME
And that’s exactly WHY I am so ashamed and embarrassed by the response of many of our Christian leaders.
It brings me to my second question: Why the Christian (Catholic) Church furore?
They seem to be talking with an absent understanding of the facts; they seem to have little regard for medical advancement in some as yet dreadful and incurable diseases; and they seem to be insistent that their ethical moral compass is the only one pointing in the right direction.
And Dr Rowan Williams recently warned us all that we shouldn’t make such decisions resulting from scientific discoveries because society is not up to it! It seems we are not suitably armed with the intestinal fortitude, or the vision to work out the end results and how we should cope if they are worse than expected.
Well, hey! Life is often worse than expected, except when it is better!
We do not need despairing cries, oh woe is me.
Also, it seems rather insulting to medical scientists and to the rest of us to say, “don’t touch … can’t cope!”
And yet a minority of people in this country follow Christian teachings to the letter. And a minority of the population attend Church. If a majority say that they believe in God, as has been shown in recent polls, this God is often their own interpretation of a deity, and private to them. Not always as handed down to them by established churches – the ‘Compleat God!’ Many describe their belief as “spiritual”, leaving that vague description … well, vague.
I believe it is setting a dangerous precedent to attempt to conflate the Christian Easter message with a politically important decision for the lives of future generations. As Blair once said when as an Anglican he was asked to stop attending Catholic mass, “I wonder what Jesus would have thought?”
[Pic: Archbishop of Canterbury at Easter Sunday sermon]
Church leaders cannot have it BOTH ways.
Either religion in its limited political, scientific or wider ethical understanding does NOT interfere with our parliamentary democracy or it DOES. Period. And if it does, it cannot criticise Islam for trying to do the same.
Many other Christian leaders spoke out against Dr William’s Sharia Law remarks, and in that THEY better represented general public opinion. We do not want another (religious) law interfering in our democracy and legal system. MPs make the laws of the land. Equally we do not need to be told from on high what serves us and future generations best as ethical caring human beings. We can read and understand the arguments.
The Archbishop slipped up badly with his Sharia Law speech. But now many of the clerics who criticised him feel it is absolutely within their right to remind MPs that they should either vote AGAINST the Bill, or at the very least, vote according to their (religious) conscience”.
WHAT? CONSCIENCE ABOVE ALL? ALWAYS?
I repeat: we have never voted for MPs on the basis of their religion. They are representatives of ALL of their constituents, of ALL religions. Their precious conscience should, in my humble opinion, NOT, or very seldom come into decision making. Conscience mustn’t get in the way of the facts. MPs can always be kicked out at the next election if the public feel strongly about their decisions.
No MP is elected as a Catholic/Protestant/Jew/Muslim. NOT in this state. Not EVER, I sincerely hope. MPs are accountable to their constituents, their government and their party. In which order is arguable, but nowhere does the Church/Synagogue/Mosque enter this equation. And nor should it. Their party’s manifestos are the “bible” in this decision-making.
CLERICS AND THE ONGOING POLITICAL MESSAGE
Of course we should not forget that clerics have an honourable history of political message sending. And they like to sup with a long spoon when they feel they are not listened to. All in a civilised, caring way, of course. As though their message was the only message worth listening to and the unreceptive are to be pitied for their lack of grasp.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, (Head of the worldwide Anglican Community) (watch video) washed feet on Maundy Thursday, as did Jesus to his apostles before his crucifixion.
But he felt compelled to make a political point again (when asked his thoughts) on Iraq …“we are still a long way from any solution there. It is an illustration that some kinds of military action when not thought through to their conclusion just don’t deliver the goods. […] Sadly one of the effects of action in the Middle East has been to make Christians feel more unsafe in their own homelands. Asked about Sharia Law and the ‘policy’ of the Church of England he said the Church had only one real agenda, which is the gospel of Jesus Christ […] “some of the implications have bearings on … how we relate to other faiths …”.
Hhmmm …
Not overly impressive Dr Williams.
With all due respect, Dr Williams, why don’t you just hand over to Dr John Sentamu, The Archbishop of York? Now there’s a man who seems to understand. He has his finger on the pulse of modern secular Christian peoples with more instinctive understanding than any other Christian leader, including the Pope, in my humble opinion.
On Radio 4’s The World This Weekend he said that Christianity is the foundation on which the country is built. And on that he is right. Whether believers or not, religious or not, this country and we who live here are secular Christians and we should strive to keep Britain that way. I have yet to read his thoughts on the embryo question, so I await correction on my present high view of him.
The (RC) Archbishop of Westminster – A Free Vote
The Head of the Catholic Church, added his voice to the growing debate on embryo research. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster and Head of the Roman Catholic Church in England & Wales, calls for a free vote for MPs on the Embryo Research bill.
Religious leaders are simply WRONG to try to interfere here. And as a lobby group they are as powerful as any. Like many lobby groups they might well be wrong.
Archbishop of Canterbury warns on ‘greedy’ states in Easter message
The Archbishop is making a political point here. The thinking goes that “nations’ greed” is the motive for such interventionism as Iraq. We CAN read between lines, Dr Williams.
I wonder how the Churches would have responded if a Prime Minister or government were to interfere in how religions conducted their business. And I do NOT wonder that the previous PM “did not DO God”, until after he left office.
‘The Archbishop of Canterbury has used his Easter Sunday sermon to warn against nations’ greed for oil, power and territory.
Dr Rowan Williams said the “comforts and luxuries” we take for granted could not be sustained for ever and prophesied that civilisation would collapse one day.
We face a culture in which thoughts of death are “too painful to manage”, he told worshippers at Canterbury Cathedral.
Dr Williams lightened the sermon’s sombre tone by reminding people of Christianity’s Easter message that death will be overcome.
But he said death was the end “in an important sense” and urged Christians to prepare for it by constantly striving to let go of “selfish, controlling, greedy habits”.
The Archbishop went on: “We face a culture in which the thought of death is too painful to manage.
“Individuals live in anxious and acquisitive ways, seizing what they can to provide a security that is bound to dissolve, because they are going to die.
“Societies or nations do the same. Whether it is the individual grabbing the things of this world in just the repetitive, frustrating sameness that we have seen to be already in fact the mark of an inner deadness, or the greed of societies that assume there will always be enough to meet their desires – enough oil, enough power, enough territory – the same fantasy is at work.
“We shan’t really die. We as individuals can’t contemplate an end to our acquiring, and we as a culture can’t imagine that this civilisation, like all others, will collapse and that what we take for granted about our comforts and luxuries simply can’t be sustained indefinitely.
“To all this, the Church says, sombrely, don’t be deceived: night must fall.” ‘
//////////
Protesters Arrested at Dr Williams’ sermon
Two protesters were arrested during the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Easter Sunday sermon, police said.
Two men with placards bearing the words “Support the persecuted church” and “No to Sharia law” stood in front of the pulpit at Canterbury Cathedral as Dr Rowan Williams began to speak, but were swiftly removed by officers.
EMBRYO DEBATE & The Bishops – More Words of Wisdom
The Archbishop of Liverpool has backed two of the country’s most senior Roman Catholic clergymen in the debate over the Embryology Bill.
‘In his Easter Day sermon, broadcast live on BBC1 at 11am, the Most Reverend Patrick Kelly spoke of his support for senior English Catholic Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor and Scottish counterpart Cardinal Keith O’Brien, who have both appealed to Gordon Brown to allow MPs a free vote on the Bill.
The Bill will allow the creation of hybrid animal human embryos that will be used to seek medical breakthroughs for conditions such as Parkinson’s, diabetes and motor neurone illness.
Speaking at the Solemn Mass of Easter Day in the Metropolitan Cathedral, in front of a congregation of 1,000, the archbishop said: “That freedom we now proclaim by renewing those promises, that echo the day when in the waters of baptism we were born again to become children of God.
“A yes to life; a yes to life fittingly spelt out by Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor and Cardinal Keith O’Brien this Easter; a yes to the Holy Spirit in our hearts; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.”
Cardinal O’Connor referred to the creation of animal human embryos as “hideous” and “grotesque” in his Easter sermon at St Mary’s Cathedral in Edinburgh.
He added: “One might say that in our country we are about to have a public government endorsement of experiments of Frankenstein proportion – without many people really being aware of what is going on.”
In his monthly message on his website, the Archbishop of Liverpool said he had written to his local MP Louise Ellman and to Gordon Brown expressing his concerns about the Bill.
He writes: “I have put one request to the Prime Minister: that members have a free vote on all matters brought up in this bill and if such freedom of conscience be denied to be told on what principle such a denial is based.
“Please miss no opportunity to become well informed in all this debate and act: letters to members of parliament make a difference, the more personal the better.”
“Well informed”? We might well ask the same of our churchmen.
BROWN FORCED TO COMPROMISE?
You know, I don’t believe that Blair would have been forced to compromise on this, even if he had “conscience” doubts himself, religious, denominational or whatever. If he had read the runes, he’d have worked out the compromise quietly long before the Churches in their omniscience worked it out for him. But I DO wonder how he would have coped if he were today in Brown’s position.
This lateness and dilly-dallying in decision-making on the present PM’s part is a sure sign, if any more were needed, that Brown is losing the confidence and support of his MPs.
Alan Johnson, the erstwhile “I’ve got one (friend)” Blair chum sounded rather perturbed on his World This Weekend Radio 4 interview on Sunday, as well he might. He said in exasperated tones that the embryo debate has “nothing to do with creating Frankenstein Monsters. […] That would be a criminal offence.” He continued, “It is a horrendous misrepresentation … we’ll talk colleagues through this … some with particular moral or faith issues … they will be recognised and we will not force people to vote against their conscience.”
And …
“We will respect people’s conscience on this, and I am saying specifically look at the House of Lords, find me anyone who was forced to vote against their conscience. The actual practical way (of respecting MPs’ conscience ) is a matter for the Chief Whip and the Whips as we approach the second reading. It’s not a topic for an Easter Sunday debate.”
CONSCIENCE & FREE VOTES – Who is running the Government?
If this increasing tendency towards conscience votes and more free votes, we will be right to ask – “who is running the joint?”
The slippery slope argument indicates that if and as more votes are left up to individual MPs’ consciences and personal preferences (free vote) this will have an input into who we elect into parliament. And if that happens, it should be a warning to all of us who disparaged, rightly, imho, Dr Williams’ Sharia speech.
And today a group of 200 leading charities have written to all MPs calling on them to back the Embryo Research bill.
What Do Others Say?
This Catholic writer has NO doubt that Gordon Brown & his government is “sinning” in intent. Excerpt:
‘A good Roman Catholic does not turn to a Protestant Scot with a public record of immoral attitudes to family life implemented for over ten years, who assists in the undermining of Catholic schools and a Catholic upbringing, and who wishes to force all of us into the acceptance of a sin so grave as the crossing of human with other species’ life forms.
The pressure to remove Brown and his junta from the leadership and control of the Labour party will be exerted by every means, private, personal, formal, institutional, by associations, and organisations, from every parish in the country.
The man is an occasion of sin.’
My thoughts: Sharing a religion with people who speak in those terms is hardly comforting for the unity of Christianity in this country.
POPE SPEAKS OF PEACE – Now that’s more like it!
VATICAN CITY – Decrying modern “wounds that disfigure humanity,” Pope Benedict XVI used a rain-soaked Easter Sunday to make a plea for the “moderation and forgiveness” that can bring peace to troubled parts of the world, especially the Middle East and Tibet.
Also, in (just perhaps) another political message to a different audience, he praised the ongoing “miracle” of conversion, just 12 hours after baptizing as a Roman Catholic one of Italy’s most
controversial Muslims.
Yes there is an argument that Church leaders have a responsibility to speak out on important ethical issues. They invariably do. The abortion, capital punishment debates being but two.
But perhaps we do need a return to the kind of statement mocked here – innocuous, signifying the Christian message.
Politics seems at times beyond the Church’s comprehension, although it affects ALL of us, more, perhaps than we think religion does. Yet politics and religion have ALWAYS been intertwined.
WHAT IF JESUS HAD NOT BEEN CRUCIFIED & RESURRECTED?
I’m sure NONE of the aforementioned Church leaders would have committed Jesus to death 2000 years ago. Of course not. THEY would have had none of it. THEY would never have taken the political rulers’ side against such a good man. So, as a consequence, if it had been up to them we would never have had the crucifixion upon which so much of our Christian belief relies – Jesus’s exemplary life of good deeds, loving one’s neighbour, turning the other cheek, forgiveness, resurrection, everlasting life.
But that begs the question:
What then would the promise of everlasting life be based upon had Jesus Christ lived to a ripe old age and died of natural causes with NO resurrection?
If Christianity does not flow largely from the resurrection following his pain, suffering and death, what IS it all about?
Twenty twenty vision is of course flawless, as it seems is the conviction of those of deep religious faith. If clerics feel duty bound to ask questions of politicians as though the politicians had never given a second thought to complex issues, clerics must expect to have their own thoughts, or lack of thought questioned too.
Perhaps we need to admit that at times it can all get a bit beyond belief. Meanwhile we need to let the earthly politicians get on with their jobs without virtual crucifixion.
This is not Roman Jerusalem.
Listen to Beyond Belief on Resurrection, Radio 4, 24th March 2008
Blasphemy is, as I understand it, no longer against the law here in the UK. Though I must admit I cannot yet find reference to its having gone through the usual parliamentary channels. But we can expect that it is on its way out – if only pour encourager les autres. Yes, we can say what we like about Christianity in our freedom-loving, free-speaking liberal democracy – ditto the religion of anyone else who comes to live here – of ANY religion. Got it? Good.But in other EU countries they struggle to accommodate the dichotomy between Islam’s internal hyper-sensitivity to criticism and freedom of speech. Not that doing away with an ancient British law will protect us all from all extremists. The enemy, to coin a well-used phrase, is still within.
A BRAVE MAN IN THIS WORLD OF FOOLS
“Though he is little known in the West, Coptic priest Zakaria Botros — named Islam’s “Public Enemy #1” by the Arabic newspaper, al-Insan al-Jadid — has been making waves in the Islamic world. Along with fellow missionaries — mostly Muslim converts — he appears frequently on the Arabic channel al-Hayat (i.e., “Life TV”). There, he addresses controversial topics of theological significance — free from the censorship imposed by Islamic authorities or self-imposed through fear of the zealous mobs who fulminated against the infamous cartoons of Mohammed. Botros’s excurses on little-known but embarrassing aspects of Islamic law and tradition have become a thorn in the side of Islamic leaders throughout the Middle East.
Botros is an unusual figure onscreen: robed, with a huge cross around his neck, he sits with both the Koran and the Bible in easy reach. Egypt’s Copts — members of one of the oldest Christian communities in the Middle East — have in many respects come to personify the demeaning Islamic institution of “dhimmitude” (which demands submissiveness from non-Muslims, in accordance with Koran 9:29). But the fiery Botros does not submit, and minces no words. He has famously made of Islam “ten demands,” whose radical nature he uses to highlight Islam’s own radical demands on non-Muslims.
The result? Mass conversions to Christianity — if clandestine ones. The very public conversion of high-profile Italian journalist Magdi Allam — who was baptized by Pope Benedict in Rome on Saturday — is only the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, Islamic cleric Ahmad al-Qatani stated on al-Jazeera TV a while back that some six million Muslims convert to Christianity annually, manyof them persuaded by Botros’s public ministry. More recently, al-Jazeera noted Life TV’s “unprecedented evangelical raid” on the Muslim world. Several factors account for the Botros phenomenon.
First, the new media — particularly satellite TV and the Internet (the main conduits for Life TV) — have made it possible for questions about Islam to be made public without fear of reprisal. It is unprecedented to hear Muslims from around the Islamic world — even from Saudi Arabia, where imported Bibles are confiscated and burned — call into the show to argue with Botros and his colleagues, and sometimes, to accept Christ.
Secondly, Botros’s broadcasts are in Arabic — the language of some 200 million people, most of them Muslim. While several Western writers have published persuasive critiques of Islam, their arguments go largely unnoticed in the Islamic world. Botros’s mastery of classical Arabic not only allows him to reach a broader audience, it enables him to delve deeply into the voluminous Arabic literature — much of it untapped by Western writers who rely on translations — and so report to the average Muslim on the discrepancies and affronts to moral common sense found within this vast corpus.
A third reason for Botros’s success is that his polemical technique has proven irrefutable. Each of his episodes has a theme — from the pressing to the esoteric — often expressed as a question (e.g., “Is jihad an obligation for all Muslims?”; “Are women inferior to men in Islam?”; “Did Mohammed say that adulterous female monkeys should be stoned?” “Is drinking the urine of prophets salutary according to sharia?”). To answer the question, Botros meticulously quotes — always careful to give sources and reference numbers — from authoritative Islamic texts on the subject, starting from the Koran; then from the canonical sayings of the prophet — the Hadith; and finally from the words of prominent Muslim theologians past and present — the illustrious ulema.
Typically, Botros’s presentation of the Islamic material is sufficiently detailed that the controversial topic is shown to be an airtight aspect of Islam. Yet, however convincing his proofs, Botros does not flatly conclude that, say, universal jihad or female inferiority are basic tenets of Islam. He treats the question as still open — and humbly invites the ulema, the revered articulators of sharia law, to respond and show the error in his methodology. He does demand, however, that their response be based on “al-dalil we al-burhan,” — “evidence and proof,” one of his frequent refrains — not shout-downs or sophistry.
More often than not, the response from the ulema is deafening silence — which has only made Botros and Life TV more enticing to Muslim viewers. The ulema who have publicly addressed Botros’s conclusions often find themselves forced to agree with him — which has led to some amusing (and embarrassing) moments on live Arabic TV.
Botros played the key role in exposing this obscure and embarrassing issue and forcing the ulema to respond. Another guest on Hala Sirhan’s show, Abd al-Fatah, slyly indicated that the entire controversy was instigated by Botros: “I know you all [fellow panelists] watch that channel and that priest and that none of you [pointing at Abd al-Muhdi] can ever respond to him, since he always documents his sources!”
Incapable of rebutting Botros, the only strategy left to the ulema (aside from a rumored $5-million bounty on his head) is to ignore him. When his name is brought up, they dismiss him as a troublemaking liar who is backed by — who else? — international “Jewry.” They could easily refute his points, they insist, but will not deign to do so. That strategy may satisfy some Muslims, but others are demanding straightforward responses from the ulema.
The most dramatic example of this occurred on another famous show on the international station, Iqra. The host, Basma — a conservative Muslim woman in full hijab — asked two prominent ulema, including Sheikh Gamal Qutb, one-time grand mufti of al-Azhar University, to explain the legality of the Koranic verse (4:24) that permits men to freely copulate with captive women. She repeatedly asked: “According to sharia, is slave-sex still applicable?” The two ulema would give no clear answer — dissembling here, going off on tangents there. Basma remained adamant: Muslim youth were confused, and needed a response, since “there is a certain channel and a certain man who has discussed this issue over twenty times and has received no response from you.”
The flustered Sheikh Qutb roared, “low-life people like that must be totally ignored!” and stormed off the set. He later returned, but refused to admit that Islam indeed permits sex-slaves, spending his time attacking Botros instead. When Basma said “Ninety percent of Muslims, including myself, do not understand the issue of concubinage in Islam and are having a hard time swallowing it,” the sheikh responded, “You don’t need to understand.” As for Muslims who watch and are influenced by Botros, he barked, “Too bad for them! If my son is sick and chooses to visit a mechanic, not a doctor — that’s his problem!”
But the ultimate reason for Botros’s success is that — unlike his Western counterparts who criticize Islam from a political standpoint — his primary interest is the salvation of souls. He often begins and concludes his programs by stating that he loves all Muslims as fellow humans and wants to steer them away from falsehood to Truth. To that end, he doesn’t just expose troubling aspects of Islam. Before concluding every program, he quotes pertinent biblical verses and invites all his viewers to come to Christ.
Botros’s motive is not to incite the West against Islam, promote “Israeli interests,” or “demonize” Muslims, but to draw Muslims away from the dead legalism of sharia to the spirituality of Christianity. Many Western critics fail to appreciate that, to disempower radical Islam, something theocentric and spiritually satisfying — not secularism, democracy, capitalism, materialism, feminism, etc. — must be offered in its place. The truths of one religion can only be challenged and supplanted by the truths of another. And so Father Zakaria Botros has been fighting fire with fire.
Tags: 1. Tony Blair, Alan Johnson, anglican, archbishop, bishop, Brown (Gordon Brown & his Labour Government, from June 2007), canterbury, cardinal keith o'brien, christian, Cormac Murphy O’Connor, easter message, embryo research bill, Government 20, jesus christ, john sentamu, kelly, labour, liverpool, lord winstone, MP, muslim, Roman Catholic, rowan williams, the pope, westminster, york
Tony Blair 
March 25, 2008 at 11:53 am |
[…] post by keeptonyblairforpm delivered by Medtrials and […]
May 12, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
[…] O’Brien’s video statement can be seen here. This has been met with the usual protestations that the church has no business discussing what Parliament does and how MPs vote. Clearly the […]