Another dispatch from a parallel Britain

As Matthew Turner has noticed, Melanie Phillips is fast running out of friends. In just two days, she has decided that the Conservative party, the Metropolitan Police and the Daily Telegraph have somehow deserted her in one way or another: the Tories are turning into a “non-opposition opposition”, the Met sponsoring a Muslim “rabble-rousers’” conference in the Docklands, and the Daily Telegraph has allegedly lost its moral compass by printing a picture of the mother of the most recent suicide bomber.

Look at the Daily Telegraph article that Phillips complains about, you’ll notice that print the picture is all the Telegraph did. The impression given is that the mother is not proud of what her son did and probably did not encourage it or approve of it, since one who had would no doubt be glad that her son had achieved his goal and supposedly gone to Paradise. Phillips alleges that by printing the picture, the newspaper “drew a moral equivalence between the grief of the bomber’s mother and the grief of the victims he murdered”. “Moral equivalence” is a phrase Phillips uses often, as if by putting a name on something, you demolish it. Of course, the Telegraph did no such thing; the comparison is entirely in Phillips’ imagination, and one might note that the shock and grief felt by members of the July 2005 bombers’ families (particularly Jermaine Lindsey) was given much press coverage.

Phillips of course has to have something to say about the Peace and Unity Conference, held over the weekend in the ExCeL centre in the London Docklands. The event does not seem to have got much media coverage - The Times and the BBC have write-ups of the event. Since Phillips could apparently not be bothered to attend the conference, she reproduced Carol Gould’s version of the event.

Gould saw Michael Mansfield QC wearing a kefiyyeh and “shouted into the mike about the heinous crimes of the Western coalition countries” as the audience “chanted and thundered its appreciation”. George Galloway, perhaps rather typically for him, threatened riots. As Yvonne Ridley, dressed in a “chador” and looking as if she might “self-immolate, such was her fury at the Zionists, the Americans and her fellow Britons”, gave a speech apparently attacking the Police, “the enormous, simmering crowd of what looked to me like the angriest gathering of young men and women with whom [Gould had] ever had the misfortune to be seated in my lifetime” responded with cries of “Allahu akbar”.

I wasn’t at the event myself, so I’m not in a position to confirm whether her accusations are true or not. Remember, this is the woman who thinks we Brits are all so reverential on Poppy Day, and said so on Front Page Magazine, the homepage of a parallel universe. On that site, things are so often entirely different to anything you have heard elsewhere; as an example, the Chilean poet Pablo Neruda is dismissed by Stephen Schwartz as no more than a Stalinist and a useless poet, and claims that other Spanish-language writers are overshadowed by his reputation, with fellow Chilean Nobel prize winner Gabriela Mistral “unknown north of the Rio Grande today” (well, I’d heard of her).

As an example of an obvious distortion in Gould’s article, she refers to a speech by the former cricketer Imran Khan, whose “power over world Islam was such that he gave one short speech and riots ensued across the globe, including the horrifying flag-burnings in London’s Grosvenor Square”. The incident to which she refers was the work of members of al-Muhajiroun, who turned up uninvited to another group’s rally. I’ve pointed this out on more than one occasion here, and these facts can be easily ascertained with a simple Google search.

A recurrent theme in Gould’s pieces in which the British Muslim community are depicted is their supposed total ignorance of recent British history. Barring of course the possibility of whether Gould is simply lying, the facts remain that not everyone in this country know who the Luftwaffe were even if they know that this country fought two wars against Germany, and that a fair number of white English are woefully ignorant about British history also. (Ironically, World War II is one of the less neglected aspects of the subject.) She also brings up the old accusation about the community’s “multitude of organisations, mosques and even its own Parliament”, which has been debunked so many times that one can only assume that its continued mention is malicious.

Unlike just about everyone else, Gould claims to be scared out of her wits and suggests that Americans, Israelis, Jews and Hindus get out of here as soon as they can. She claims she attended just before ending a five-month stay in the UK to return to her home country, the USA. If she had not decided to mention it, she might have continued writing her fanciful stories and nobody would have noticed the difference, as they already bear scant resemblance to the country in which the rest of us live.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Possibly Related Posts:


FacebookTwitterIdenti.caDeliciousDiggStumbleUponWordPressShare
Phillips, MelaniePermalink
  • Atticus

    I attended the event, but I don’t have the time or the patience to point out all of Gould’s distortions, exaggerations and outright lies. She seems to manufacture a unique brand of hysteria that is way beyond reason.

    Although the event was not without its problems, overall, I thought it was remarkably balanced. Sure, the likes of Yvonne Ridley, Tariq Suwaidhan, Imran Khan, George Galloway, Iqbal Scrawny and ‘Lord’ Nazir made some candid speeches (surprisingly so in some cases), they did not say anything that many Muslims do not think or feel. If the likes of Gould don’t like that, tough tits! What she deliberately fails to mention are the prominent figures from government that were also given a platform; most notably, Charles ‘fatty’ Falconer, the Lord Chancellor (and one-time room-mate of the prime minister) and Mike Obrien, the Solicitor General. Both went out of their way to congratulate all that were involved in the event, delivering speeches with especially contrived quotes from Qur’an and Hadith. In fact, Falconer’s speech even quoted Ghalib, the Mughal romantic poet, which I found quite surreal.

    I can also state, as an absolute fact, that Michael Mansfield was NOT wearing a Kefiyyeh. You may think I am joking when I say this, but he was wearing a sky blue silk scarf with white polka dots - this could clearly be seen not only by those sitting at the front of the auditorium but also on the dozen or so huge screens at each tier. I remember it so precisely because it was unusual and, I thought, rather stylish. I would want one were it not for the fact that it was silk :) Either Gould has extremely bad eyesight, or she was in a mental state that rendered her incapable of telling a Kefiyyeh from her arse. She can’t have been paying much attention to his speech either. Michael Mansfield doesn’t do shouting, it’s not his style; his speech was perhaps the most controlled in tone and content. I don’t know where the ‘thundering’ crowd was, apart from some mild excitement generated by George Galloway’s speech, the crowd was remarkably placid considering it was 25-30,000 strong.

  • Old Pickler

    they did not say anything that many Muslims do not think or feel.

    Hmm. And that is reassuring is it?

  • Saggal

    That Neocon scum Stephen Schwartz should try reading Canto General.

  • Atticus

    Hmm. And that is reassuring is it?

    I’ll respond for the sake of that small part of your brain that may yet be capable of some fairness beyond the bigotry that infects the rest of it. The theme of the event was ‘Global Unity and Peace’ and these are some of issues people spoke about:

    - The war in Iraq and the war on terror in general. Global terrorism.
    - ID cards, internment, extraordinary rendition, torture and human rights.
    - Palestine.
    - Role of Muslims, especially Muslim women, in British society and responsible citizenship in general.
    - Contribution of Muslims to British society, past, present and future.
    - Disaster relief.
    - The environment.
    - Neoconservatism/neocolonialism.
    - Democracy and support for democracy in the Middle East.
    - The role of the media and Muslim representation within it.

    I can honestly say that the majority of views that were expressed on these issues were wholly uncontroversial and would find support among most sane, thinking people in this country and worldwide, Muslim and non-Muslim. I guess this is reassuring for those who want to achieve ‘Global Unity and Peace’ through consensus rather than cruise missiles.

    Imran Khan did express some pretty strident views about a post 9-11 conspiracy against Muslims, but I don’t see why this is particularly controversial because it’s just a rehashing of the idea that most of what ensued after 9-11 was the work of a neocon cabal within the Whitehouse. According to his advisor, this is something that even Colin Powell believes. Khan, quite rightly, also criticised General Perv. Busharraf. Incidentally, Khan was made Chancellor of the University of Bradford a few days ago, hardly the credentials of a fanatic.

    Yvonne Ridley was also controversial in her scorn for the self-appointed, self-serving Muslim ‘representatives’ that seem too eager to please reverend Blair. This was awkward given that the MCB helped in organizing the event. But as I mentioned in my previous comment, Iqbal Scrawny went further in condemning government policy than I have heard him before.

    The only other point that some non-Muslims would take issue with was support for the Sharia as expressed by an academic from Kuwait; for Muslims, however, his views were very orthodox. Other than that, George Galloway was at his fiery best.

    As for those who still want to see these events as some manifestation of the Nuremberg rallies (minus the Luftwaffe of course) it says more about their own psychosis than anything else.

  • ahmed weir

    Good post Yusuf. I read Phillips’ article, so it’s nice to see the truth of the matter. I guess Gould is an outright liar which makes one wonder about the morals of the belief system/ideology Phillips subscribes to if she thinks it alright to promote such people.

  • Shamil

    “Good post Yusuf. I read Phillips’ article, so it’s nice to see the truth of the matter. I guess Gould is an outright liar which makes one wonder about the morals of the belief system/ideology Phillips subscribes to if she thinks it alright to promote such people.”

    Well the neo-cons do believe that truth has no moral value.

  • Sir Toppenhat

    I think we need more people like Ms. Philips; she is one of the few sane voices in Britain.

    Atticus

    “George Galloway was at his fiery best.”

    Indeed.

    “‘I can only support the Chairman of Islam Channel in his call for Engagement of the Muslim Community in British Society, but this engagement must be one based on a position of strength and not weakness. We must let the Government know that if anymore of our cities, Damascus, Iran or anywhere alse is attacked, we will not only protest in Parliament but we will Riot on the streets of Britain. Every single Terrorism legislation has been aimed at the Muslim community and I tell you this Mr Blair, you can criminalise who you want, but I will carry on supporting the Intifadha in palestine, the Intifadha in Iraq and all the other Intifadhas.’

    That’s great. An open rally for revolution against the infidels. Where oh where are the moderate Muslims? That’s right, there’s no such thing. Ah, so much to look forward too.

    Ahmed,

    Just curious, do you make your parents address you by your new Muslim handle and do your old non-Muslim friends tease you? I’m just wondering, my boy knew of a someone who converted, changed his name, started going around in Muslim Mufti, and grew a VERY public beard. He was teased endlessly. And oh, he was also a real prick.

    Old Pickler,

    A shame about David Davis, no?

  • Mike

    Yoy! Toppenhat!

    You take any off the cuf remark and blow it WAY out of proportion. You dont want to talk about what matters, ie torture in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib,Kyoto, rainforest depletion, the seal hunt in Canada, And now also CIA toture in East European countries too it turns out.

    Shamil:”

    Speeaking of neo-CONs. I just heard on teh that Saddam Husein won’t even recognize that theres a trial against him. Well ther eyou have it. Talk about stimied. Waht are the Neocons gonna to do now? Just another thing they should of thought of before they did the wrong The Iraq War on Iraq.

    The truly ironic (tragic sense ironic) thing is that if you had said to a neo-con in early 2003 “Oh YEAH but what are you gonna to if you invade Iraq, succesfully occupy Baghdad in 3 weeks nad oust Hussein regime, then capture Saddam, you hold elections for provisional goverment, a draft constattion is drafted, and going to be elections on that, and your gonna put Saddam on trial, but then all of the sudden he refuses to recognize the trial date?”, he’d of probably just brushed you off. It’d be like “We’ll just deal with that when we come to it as best we can” bla bla bla(no plan whatsoever). Its the same old story with these Neo-Cons.

    Their was a story in the newspaper about the Iraqi freedom Fighter Al’Zarqawi 1966-? The columnist whent on in her arrogent, high-falutin, neo-colonial way that this guy(Al’Zarqawi) is a terrorist. I said to myself WHOA! Dude this guy just wanted his country back!!!!!”

    Can you believe these peple?

  • Shamil

    “I think we need more people like Ms. Philips;”

    What? Jewish Nationalists who try to pass themselves off as mainstream conservatives. You’re right that it is actually fairly rare in Britain. It’s a fad in America though that will probably spread here eventually.

    “she is one of the few sane voices in Britain.”

    If by sane you mean lieing about your true convictions then yes she is?

  • Sir Toppenhat

    Is being a Jewish nationalist a crime? I mean how harmful to Britain could that be. I’ve never visited Israel but I hear it’s a lovely place. In addition, yes it would be refreshing if the majority of British conservatives didn’t sound like Robert Fisk. A little balance is all I’m asking for.

    “If by sane you mean lieing about your true convictions then yes she is?”

    Muslims practice this all the time.

  • Shamil

    “Is being a Jewish nationalist a crime? I mean how harmful to Britain could that be.”

    Are you actually reading what you’re writing?

    I assume then that you approve of white and black nationalism and wouldn’t mind having such people writing in British newspapers.

    There’s nothing wrong with being a jewish nationalist its only the using the cover of conservatism I object to. If she said it directly I’d have no objection to that. Although I doubt she’d have many readers after that.

    “Muslims practice this all the time.”

    The only muslim I’m aware of in the media is Yasmin Alhibia Brown. I think you’d be hard pressed to demonstrate any of her fundementalist tendancies. Although I’m not actually accussing Melanie Phillips of being a jewish fundementalist. Nationalism is not really applicable to Islam though.

  • Bikhair

    Sir Toppenhat,

    “Muslims practice this all the time.”

    Why and with what authority? Be specific please.

  • Mike

    A bit of happy news today in Iraq. Confirming what Howard Dean said about USA can’t win in Iraq. Did you hear. The Iraqi USA puppet “Vichy” goverment got one of it’s planes shot down and it killed like 116 soldiers what was in the air plane plus some more on the ground probably. It was the insurgents ie Iraq patriot resistence forces what done it.

    And plus they killed a American mercenary.

    Keep in mine they are fighting on their home turf its like the USA army is playing an away game “every day”. There’s no way to beat those guys, give it up face reality, join the reality base community, assholes.

  • Atticus

    Talking of Pablo Neruda, here’s a link to Harold Pinter’s Nobel Lecture - he won the prize for literature this year. The lecture makes some fascinating points about differences in the notion of truth between art and politics and includes a devastating critique of US foreign policy. There’s also a quote from a poem by Neruda. The first 10 minutes may not be interesting to those not familiar with his work, but after that he gets very political. It’s powerful, eloquent stuff and well worth a listen. A full transcript of the speech is also available.

    For those short on time here’s a summary from the Grauniad.

  • Bikhair

    Mike,

    Huh?

  • George Carty

    Mike,

    Oppose the Iraq occupation by all means, but please don’t defend al-Zarqawi. He’s a nihilist wacko - the Islamist version of Pol Pot.

    Eric Margolis suggested that al-Zarqawi is a terrorist mercenary. I wonder who’s paying him - Saudis (to prevent democracy in Iraq)? Chinese (to weaken America by forcing it to continue its occupation)? Israelis (to keep Iraq on its knees)?

  • Shamil

    “He’s a nihilist wacko - the Islamist version of Pol Pot.”

    I find it strange that people describe Zarqawi and other like minded people as nihilists.

    Nihilists are people who believe that morality can have no rational basis.

    You can’t really apply the term to people who are openly religious. I’m sure he believes some things are immoral just not blowing up people. It seems kind of a contradiction to call them strict fundementalists and nihilists at the same time.

  • George Carty

    What word would you use then, Shamil? The point I’m trying to get across is “al-Zarqawi is to Islamism what Pol Pot is to socialism”.

  • Shamil

    I know what you meant.

    I’m not sure what word you’d use. I’ve always though of atheism as being a precondition of nihilism though so I think nihilist is out of the question.

    However one point I’d say is that Pol Pot was an educated ideologue. I believe he was part of the French communist party at one point and studied in Paris. Zarqawi on the other hand is just a fighter.

  • Saggal

    I hope bro.Yusuf doesn’t mind my posting this request here:

    I REALLY NEED to get hold of a copy of ‘Reliance of the Traveller’ -translated by Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller. I need it to prepare a Halaqah talk. Does anyone know any bookshops in London that have it, or anyone that could lend me a copy? The only Islamic bookshop where I get most of my books (in the East End) does not have it in stock. Don’t really want to have to order it from the U.S if I can help it.

    Shukran.

    Saggal

  • thabet

    “Nihilists are people who believe that morality can have no rational basis.”

    But surely this is a good description of such people.

  • http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/ Yusuf Smith

    Saggal: have you tried any of the bookshops in the NW1 area? Dar al-Taqwa or IIDC, for example? There is also Sakinah (sp?), in Shepherds Bush next to the H&C line station.

  • Shamil

    “But surely this is a good description of such people.”

    Nihilism is a term coming out of POST-religion Europe ie. People stopped believeing in God but after that some decided that morality could have no basis without religion and so they abandoned the concept of morality.

    The term is only applicable to secular people. It has no relevance in a religious context.

    Maybe Zarqawi is really a nihilist. How knows?

    You can’t call him a nihilist and a fundementalist though.

  • anonymous

    This country with no public health service for its citizens goes all the way to Iraq to spend billions of dollars of overthrowing a government thousands of miles away. A gesture of goodwill to the people of Iraq. I thought charity would have began at home.

  • Sir Toppenhat

    Mike,

    The aircraft in question went down in Iran, not Iraq.

    Atticus,

    Do you really believe Mr. Antonia Fraser deserved this prize? Mark Steyn, a genuine wit, once summed up Pinter’s dramatic technique as “a pause, followed by a non sequitur.” The same could be said of Mr. Fraser’s views on politics.

    George,

    “Eric Margolis suggested that al-Zarqawi is a terrorist mercenary. I wonder who’s paying him - Saudis (to prevent democracy in Iraq)? Chinese (to weaken America by forcing it to continue its occupation)? Israelis (to keep Iraq on its knees)?”

    Perhaps he is just a good Muslim and is inspired by the holy Koran. I hope you don’t take anything seriously that Mr. Margolis writes.

  • Saggal

    Toppenhat wrote,

    “I hope you don’t take anything seriously that Mr. Margolis writes.”

    In the same vein, I hope you don’t take anything seriously that Mr.Steyn writes. We all know who Steyn is. A genuine wit?! Mr.Steyn?

  • Saggal

    JazakAllah khair brother Yusuf. I don’t believe I have ever been to any of the bookshops you mention -will phone them now.

    Saggal.

  • anonymous

    Perhaps he is just a good Muslim and is inspired by the holy Koran. I hope you don’t take anything seriously that Mr. Margolis writes.

    No, you got it wrong. If he is indeed behind all of the atrocities we hear about, no he is not a good muslim. He is just a good copycat artist, following in the footsteps of the British and American forces and who went there without much brain cells only to jeopardise the lives and security of millions of innocent men, women, and children.

    They have no brains, like yourself, to think deep on how to resolve conflicts. Their style has always been invading and bombing. Barbarians. That is why they spend their lives amassing weapons of mass destruction. They are barbarians, just like you.

    The terrorists are less of a barbarian tho. You know why? Because they are reactionary and are simply copycat artists.

  • Saggal

    Thanks again Yusuf, Sakinah have it and I can pick it up this evening after work.

  • Shamil

    “Mark Steyn, a genuine wit,”

    I’m beginning to see a pattern here.

  • thabet

    assalamu ‘alaykum

    Shamil,

    I get you’re point about fundamentalists/nihilists. But I didn’t call al-Zarqawi a “fundamentalist”.

    There are many types of nihilism. I happen to believe that “al-Qa’ida in Iraq” and their imitators are nihilists of a kind as it appears they engage in violence with no aim, not even ostensible ones.

    Plus, I think it was Neitzsche who made a case for Christianity as a nihilistic religion. So yes, it can be used in a ‘religious context’.

    wasalaam

  • Shamil

    Well you don’t know which groups are carrying out which attacks.

    Most of the indicriminate violence is generally aimed at Shi’ites. So from Zarqawi’s point of view it has a purpose.

    My comment about fundementalists wasn’t aimed at you. It’s just that some people try to portray al-qaeda as backward, oppressive, reactionary etc and at the same time nihilistic or as death worshippers.

    I remember one time Christopher Hitchens said two of his criticisms of al-qaeda were that they were nihilistic and had repressive attitudes towards sex.

    Those don’t fit together.

  • Saggal

    From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

    Nihilism, in fact, can be understood in several different ways.

    Political Nihilism, is associated with the belief that the destruction of all existing political, social, and religious order is a prerequisite for any future improvement.

    Ethical nihilism or moral nihilism rejects the possibility of absolute moral or ethical values. Instead, good and evil are nebulous, and values addressing such are the product of nothing more than social and emotive pressures.

    Existential nihilism is the notion that life has no intrinsic meaning or value, and it is, no doubt, the most commonly used and understood sense of the word today.

    Therefore discussions about a ‘muslim fundamentalist’ who is also a nihilist surely don’t make much sense(?)

  • George Carty

    Thanks Saggal - I guess I’m talking about “political nihilism”, which does indeed seem to be characteristic of Qutbist movements in general.

  • Shamil

    “Existential nihilism is the notion that life has no intrinsic meaning or value, and it is, no doubt, the most commonly used and understood sense of the word today.”

    I think this is what Nietzsche meant when he said Christianity was nihilistic because the actions of man are less emphasized in it then lets say Judaism and Islam. Its all about God’s love for man rather than the quest for man to redeem himself.

  • Shamil

    “Thanks Saggal - I guess I’m talking about “political nihilism”, which does indeed seem to be characteristic of Qutbist movements in general.”

    The revolution in Sudan didn’t come from the abolition of all previous structures and beliefs. That would have meant getting rid of Islam too. That was qutbi.

    Qutbis tend to be less sceptical of technology as well. Less so than the ulema anyway.

    I think the words your looking for are utopic or totalitarian.

  • Atticus

    I happen to believe that “al-Qa’ida in Iraq” and their imitators are nihilists of a kind as it appears they engage in violence with no aim, not even ostensible ones.

    I’m yet to find a serious analyst that would believe such a statement. Shamil makes a valid point that raises an interesting issue about how the likes of Al-Qaeda are described. Of course Bush and Blair have an interest in promoting the ‘medieval nihilists’ tag, but it really does fly in the face of reality. There is nothing medieval about the way such groups exploit the media and the internet to get across their message and their willingness to do so means that their aims and objectives are quite transparent - you only have to read one of Zarqawi’s of Al-Zwahiri’s statements. And let’s not forget that one of these groups managed to influence the outcome of an election in a European democracy! That takes some calculation. I’ve even read a thesis that uses such evidence to describe the ‘modernist’ tendencies within Al-Qaeda. And they are also known for drawing up lists of targets (individuals and countries) and make no secret of their reasons. Describing such groups accurately does not mean you condone their methods. And the politicians who want us to believe that the likes of Bin Laden wake up each morning, eat an infidel baby for breakfast (washed down with the blood of jews of course) and pick a random target on a world map are doing us a great disservice and taking us further from resolving this threat.

  • George Carty

    Medieval nihilists? If I heard someone say “nihilists” my first thought would be “nineteenth century Russian terrorists”. Don’t know any medieval examples…

  • Shamil

    I wasn’t trying to defend them atticus.

    I was just saying that I don’t think they can really be called nihilistic at the same time as being called “islamic fundementalists”. However if we were to speculate that maybe religion is less of a motivating factor for them than we are told then that changes the picture.

  • Shamil

    “Medieval nihilists? If I heard someone say “nihilists” my first thought would be “nineteenth century Russian terrorists”. Don’t know any medieval examples…”

    I think he was describing how the media pigeon whole them as either medievel or nihilist.

  • Saggal

    Medieval nihilists? If I heard someone say “nihilists” my first thought would be “nineteenth century Russian terrorists”. Don’t know any medieval examples…

    Me too George.

  • Saggal

    Medieval nihilists?

    I too understood Atticus meant Medieval and/or nihilists is what most of the media and B&B would have us believe about Al-Qaeda. I wasn’t saying it’s Atticus’ invention.

  • anonymous

    How can religion be a motivation for them? What kind of religion is that?

    These are confused people, however less confused than some western governments.

    For instance compare Bin-laden’s speech to Bush, I mean, you can’t make a mistake of who is more “rational”.

  • Atticus

    Shamil, I wasn’t suggesting you were trying to defend them, in fact I totally agree with you. I was just pre-empting some of the muppets who post comments here who would think I was somehow defending them.

    Medieval nihilists? If I heard someone say “nihilists” my first thought would be “nineteenth century Russian terrorists”. Don’t know any medieval examples…

    I understand that George, my comment was not about linking the two terms.

  • George Carty

    For instance compare Bin-laden’s speech to Bush, I mean, you can’t make a mistake of who is more “rational”.

    I don’t think bin Laden is a nihilist. I was talking about al-Zarqawi and other specifically takfiri terrorists.

  • anonymous

    I think this is what Nietzsche meant when he said Christianity was nihilistic because the actions of man are less emphasized in it then lets say Judaism and Islam. Its all about God’s love for man rather than the quest for man to redeem himself.

    Shamil,

    With regards to Nietsche’s view… he was probably too harsh on christianity because of the christians around him.

    Because Jesus (peace be upon him) actually did emphasise the actions of man. Hence, Christianity does have that aspect in its orthodoxy.

    Jesus (alehi salam) came at a time when the Jews were obsessed with rituals and have forgotten their souls, he came to remind them that these things will not save them, if they do not, for instance, love their neighbours as themselves, stop taking usury, stop cheating, stop being subversive of the state they live under, look to their ownselves before stoning the adulterer, and so on.

    But the Jews who ended up accepting him (i.e the Christians) misuderstood this message and swung all the way to the left. They started putting less emphasis on their actions and looking to the love of God. Easy salvation. They did this on purpose, they were very cunning as well.

    True, it is all about God’s love…but man should not pretend that there are things within his ownself which he needs to correct…things which he needs to address …why? BECAUSE HE CAN EXPERIENCE THEM… just as he claims he can experience God’s love. This is what Jesus was trying to tell them he being a (created) “spirit of God” - ruh Allah - taught a message that was intended strictly for their souls yet without abrogating the prescriptions of the Torah, Old Testament. He made this very clear by saying words to the effect “Let no one think that I have come to abolish the law, rather I have come to uphold the law”. “I have been sent to the lost sheep of Israel”.

    There are a few problems with the way Friedrich Nietsche looks at Christianity, or at religion in general. It is a dangerous problem with philosophers (as addressed by Imam Al-Ghazali) has noted.

    Jesus (peace be upon him) was trying to help them establish the balance between rituals and their spirituality… but everyone he spoke to perhaps except for his disciples ended up going to extremes… the Jews rejected him and cling even harder to their rituals whilst those who accepted him left the rituals all together and started a lovey dovey affair amongst themselves.

    And the middleway is what the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) came to reaffirm and finalise.

    However, in this middle way itself, the Prophet Muhammad emphasised that it is all about God’s Love, God’s Mercy. But the realisation of this Love and Mercy comes by following him (sallallahu ‘alehi wasallam), not deviating like the Christians/Jews deviated from Jesus (peace be upon him).

    “Say if you love Allah, follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your sins”.

    the human being does not know how to deal with his own existential experiences.

    How should he deal with his own existence? He doesn’t know. Pathetic man doesn’t know. As you can tell from the stupid comments of those who come here to insult Islam and the Prophet (saw).

    Pathetic man will deal well with his existence when he follows the Sunnah.