Doctor's Free Time: 2007

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Goodbye for now...

The moment has finally arrived, my last day at the GP surgery, my last free afternoon, my last free time to actually type something. After almost 5 months of blogging, I'm signing off with the 70th blog. From tomorrow I'll be starting work at A&E which means crazy shifts and long hours. I already received my rota yesterday and discovered that I've got night shifts starting from Friday - talk about the deep end.

However, this does not mean the end of the blog - it's more like a sabbatical. Working in A&E means my time is very limited. I had hoped that the Guest Bloggers would take over and keep the blog alive and I am still hopeful that may still be the case, however the interest in the blog has seemed to wane since the New Year so my optimism has diminished as well! If you would like to post a blog, please let me know in the comments section.

Looking back, keeping the blog has been a lot of fun. Typing something on a daily basis was quite a challenge and one I feel I met with varying degrees of success. I think the blogs have ranged to very interesting to very boring with the majority stuck in between. The topic range has been quite diverse which was always the aim of the blog - "random thoughts on any given day." Over time I've attempted to change that and focus on a few main topics, relevant to the current climate and people reading the blog.

The peak of this blog was arguably during November/December, when many people were reading and leaving comments. It was also the time when I started publishing the Guest Blogs. Although quite a few people have contributed, the majority have struggled to come up with follow-up blogs, mainly due to sheer laziness - you know who you are! However, I'm extremely grateful that they all made effort in the first place and hopefully they can contribute in the future. See how I am trying to come up with different ways to get people to blog!

11 comments remains the record for any blog and it's funny that the blog was about Bollywood! Forget all the religious, political and current affairs blogs; it was the one about Bollywood which received the most comments! If it wasn't so funny, it would be depressing. I've nagged Frank-ness to post another blog and see the response but so far no luck, maybe she's scared of living up to past success!

My favourite blog was easily the blog about the 12th Imam back in December. I spent almost two weeks researching material for that blog and found out a lot of new information on the subject. My blog only began to scratch the surface on the 12th Imam but I learnt a lot from it, the only disappointing part was that I didn't go on to type more about it and also to discuss the other Imams.

As the current climate seems to deteriorate on a daily basis, Muslims are coming under more and more scrutiny. Every day there seems to be a negative portrayal of some Muslim community/family/person. Although some of it justified such as the on-going trial on the attempted July 21st bombings, other stories, I believe, exist to create more and more tension against Muslims in the UK and the West as a whole. How the situation will continue to develop is in our hands, we need to stand up and be noticed. Only the Muslims can change the perception of themselves, it's no good relying on others and for that, every action is helpful regardless of how big or small.

Lastly before I sign off, I thought I'd summarise my blogs under relevant heading (in chronological order), easy reading if there are any new readers out there or for anyone who just wants to waste some time reading my random thoughts:

RELIGION

CURRENT AFFAIRS AND POLITICS

MEDICAL

MISCELLANEOUS

So there you have, a concise list of nearly all my blogs. You'll have to go hunting in the archives for the ones I've deliberately left out!

Take care all,
As always, thoughts just flow, when do they have to make sense?

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Guest Blogger #6 - Unity between Christians and Muslims

[Foreword by 2yyiam: Following my attempts to talk about the message of Karbala and the events of Ashura, below is a modified transcript of a speech given by Watford Man which discusses the importance of building Christian-Muslim relations especially at a time when there exists such tensions between the two beliefs, although they have a lot in common. It also follows on from a blog I typed in December titled "An Islamic Christian"]

There was a recent episode of 'Dispatches' on Channel 4 which showed undercover reporters attend a variety of Sunni mosques in Birmingham. It stirred up a large amount of controversy because the reporters spoke to various members of the mosque about the relationship of muslims with the West, many muslims were heard to condemn the UK, criticise Christians and sympathised with Osama Bin Laden (although stopping short of agreeing with the terrorist attacks conducted by Al-Qaeda). It painted a very fundamentalist, Wahabist view of Muslims and made no attempt to speak to so-called 'moderate' Muslims or even Shia Muslims. It seemed to purposely attend only the hard-line, fundamentalist mosques, trying to create controversy for the sake of controversy.

Fundamentalist Islam has become a very easy target for the media in the West. Unfortunately extremism does exist in Islam and there are fanatical Muslims only too keen to cause death and destruction by any means necessary. However, this programme brought to light two issues: 1) There never seems to be any attention given to the fundamentalist Christians that exist and 2) The relationship between Muslims and Christians in the West.

For fundamentalist Christians, Islam is enemy no. 1. Perhaps it is because of reports such as a recent survey published in Der Spiegel which states that Islam is the fastest growing religion in Germany and France, because of conversion by white Europeans. Prominent evangelical figures such as Franklin Graham, described Islam as a "very evil and wicked religion," Jerry Falwell calls the Holy Prophet a "terrorist," Pat Robertson calls the Prophet "an absolute wild eyed fanatic, a robber," Jerry Vines labels the Prophet as "a demon-possessed paedophile" and Patrick Sookhdeo calls for the ban of the Quran because it "glorifies terrorism." Where is all the tolerance, respect, understanding and inter-faith dialogue from such people, when they demand the same from Muslims?

The President of Iran, Ahmedinajad is often mocked for his elaborate statements such as when having given a speech to the UN in September 2005, he described afterwards that he felt as if a halo was over his head and "that all of a sudden the atmosphere changed and all the leaders did not blink." But if these statements are considered elaborate then President Bush is equally guilty.

In 2004 when addressing an Amish group in Pennsylvania, Bush claimed that "God speaks through me, without that, I couldn't do my job." And, in 2003 at the Aqaba Summit, Bush stated that "God told me to strike at al-Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [ Hussein], which I did..." In addition, General William G. Boykin (the United States Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence) has stated that "God put Bush in the White House" and "My God is bigger than yours [Allah], I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol." Even our own Prime Minister joins in. On an interview with Parkinson last year, he claimed that "God will be my judge on Iraq."

These are the people with their finger on the nuclear triggers: fundamentalist Christians who believe in an apocalyptic vision of Armageddon and a clash of civilisations between East and West…God help us all!

However, I don't want to go on about these militant Christians, the nasty Christians, those who want conflict between Christianity and Islam. We have a lot in common and we need to remind the Wahabis on our side and the militant evangelicals on the Christian side of this fact, because so many of them are unaware.

We have so many beliefs in common. Both believe in the God of the Old Testament, both the heirs of Abraham, both love Mary both love Jesus, both believe in the Virgin birth, both believe in miracles of Jesus. Infact I would argue that Muslims describe the miracles of Jesus in more detail than the Christians. Whereas the Bible talks about the miracle of turning water into wine (John 2: 6-12), the holy Quran describes Jesus defending his mother's honour by speaking from the cradle (Surah 19, Verses 27-33).

Remember, in this amoral secular Western world, we followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, regardless of when and where they lived, have always had the same moral values. Refraining from murder, theft, adultery and fornication, lying, injustice, and every kind of wrong-doing, as well as behaving in a polite and respectful manner to others, are basic values recognized by all believers. Thus, they respond in a very similar manner to events, even though there are differences in their views and practices – compared to atheists and materialists who respond differently.

Problem is now that Christianity is under siege from “illiberal atheists” and “aggressive secularists” For example, the recent gay adoption row, and it was good to see Catholics standing up for themselves because for too long they have accommodated prevailing secular attitudes in the name of modernization and seen churches empty. Whereas in Islam: “what Muhammad made halal, stays halal…what he made haram, stays haram.” That is not to say that change amongst the Muslims is not required, it is, but Islamic reformation applies, unlike Christian reform, not to theology or beliefs but to the attitudes and mindsets of the believers: who have become too narrow-minded, too intolerant, too judgmental and arrogant, too prone to bloodshed and violence as a means of resolving conflicts.

The Quran talks about the Christians on many occasions, highlighting their importance and value.

"Not all of them are alike; a party of the people of the Scripture stand for the right, they recite the Verses of God during the hours of the night, prostrating themselves in prayer. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin Al-Ma'rûf and forbid Al-Munkar; and they hasten in (all) good works; and they are among the righteous. And whatever good they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for God knows well those who are amongst the righteous, the Muttaqeen.” (Surah 3, Verses 113-115)
“And there are, certainly, among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), those who believe in God and in that which has been revealed to you, and in that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before God. They do not sell the Verses of God for a little price, for them is a reward with their Lord. Surely, God is Swift in account.” (Surah 3, Verse 199)
“Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve” (Surah 2, Verse 62)

Why do the Wahabis on Dispatches think there should be no relations, no dialogue, between us and the Christians? This is NOT Sunnah. In the Quran the Holy Prophet is invited to issue an invitation of compromise and unity between Christian and Muslims: "O people of the Scripture: Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but God, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides God.” (Surah 3, Verse 64)

We should have positive relations with the Christians and show them how beloved Jesus is to us; how important to Islam and the Quran he is. In the Quran he is mentioned 6 times under the title "Messiah." He is introduced as "Allah’s Messenger and [His] Word..." (Surah 4, Verse 171) and "...a sign for all peoples." (Surah 21, Verse 91).

Unfortunately, Christianity took things too far. They went too far in their adoration of Jesus; they began worshipping him whilst the Jews, on the other hand, went to the other extreme and rejected him. Only Islam maintains the true importance and value of Jesus. The adoration of Jesus by Christians is something the Holy Prophet acknowledged and compared to the adoration of Imam Ali (a.s.). After the Battle of Khaybar, the Holy Prophet said "Ali, if I were not afraid that the Muslims would start to venerate and regard you as the Christians regard Christ, I would have said things about you which would have made the Muslims venerate you and consider the dust of your feet as something worth venerating and idolising; but it will suffice to say that you are from me and I from you; you will inherit me and I will inherit you; you are unto me what Haroun was unto Musa; you will fight my cause and be nearest to me on the Day of Judgment, be nearest to me at the Pond of Kausar; enmity against you is enmity against me; a war against you is a war against me; your friendship is my friendship; to be at peace with you is to be at peace with me; your flesh is my flesh; your blood is my blood; whoever obeys you, obeys me; truth is on your tongue, in your heart in and in your mind. Your faith in Allah is the same as my faith in God. You are the doorway and gateway to me. And Allah tells me to tell you that your friends and allies, your Shias, will be rewarded with Heaven while your enemies will be punished in Hell.”

Christians say that Jesus is Son of God because Bible says so AND because he had no father. A simple reply is "what about Adam?" Why are they not “Adamists” instead of Christians? In the Bible, God supposedly states "the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God" (Luke 3: 38) when describing the lineage of Jesus. What do they think of Prophet David, who, prior to Jesus, the Bible refers to as the only begotten son of God: "I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee” (Psalms 2: 7). Why have they literally interpreted the phrase “son of God?”

The idea of Jesus as the son of God has led to the creation of the Trinity. One God but in 3 parts. Even a 4yr old can tell you that 1+1+1=3, it can never equal 1 and yet that is what Christianity tries to claim. Jesus himself states "...the first of all commandments is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord" (Mark 12: 29). Suzanne Haneef in her famous book "What Everyone Should Know About Islam and Muslims," writes "...but God is not like a pie or an apple which can be divided into three thirds which form one whole; if God is three persons or possesses three parts, He is assuredly not the Single, Unique, Indivisible Being which God is and which Christianity professes to believe.”

Even Athansius, the man who formulated this doctrine of the Holy Trinity in the 4th century (300 years after the birth of Jesus), confessed that the more he wrote on the matter, the less capable he was of clearly expressing his thoughts regarding it. The issue has become more and more confusing for most Christians (including Dissident Voice). One only has to look at the 4 Gospels written by single named, source-less authors and compare them to our books of hadith on the subject of Jesus and God. There is much more to say on the subject but I would like to finish with two final points.

In Islam, we believe that Jesus will return to Earth before the end of time. Sunni's have mentioned it in numerous books but conveniently fail to mention who else will return or the relations between Jesus and that other person. In the second most famous Sunni book, Sahih Muslim, it states "I heard the Messenger of Allah saying: "A group of my Ummah will fight for the truth until near the day of judgment when Jesus, the son of Mary, will descend from Heaven, and the leader of them will ask him to lead the prayer, but Jesus declines, saying: "No, Verily, among you Allah has made leaders for others and He has bestowed his bounty upon them." Another famous Sunni scholar, Ibn Hajar Asgalani states in his book "...the leader of this Ummah is the Mahdi and Jesus, Isa, will come down and pray behind him."

Finally, as it is the month of Muharrum and we are commemorating the events of Karbala, we shouldn't forget that there was also a Christian who laid down his life for Imam Hussain (a.s.). John, the African slave of Abu Zharr who entered the house of the Prophet after his death as the slave of Abbas, brother of Imam Hussain (a.s.). During the battle of Karbala, John stood steadfast beside the Imam. He only spoke when spoken to and when Imam Hussain (a.s.) asked him to remain in the camp and look after the women and children he politely refused, “Maula I have stayed with you in happier times, and enjoyed your welfare and hospitality, and now in your time of need you want me to abandon you. I cannot do that!” This is fidelity, loyalty, servitude. He fought the army of Yazid and when he was struck down he refused to call out to his Imam. However, Imam Hussain (a.s.) managed to get to him and laid his head on his lap where he passed away.

His is the ultimate example for us all: a true Christian, who loved Jesus and followed Jesus but did not worship him. Instead, he saw that the Prophet of Islam and the descendants of the Prophet of Islam – in particular, the martyr Imam Hussain (a.s.) – provide the same, and continuing, rope of salvation as Jesus does. He is a true Christian who sacrificed his life for the true Islam.

Monday, January 29, 2007

Ashura

Tonight will be the eve of Ashura (10th Muharrum). At that time approximately 1400 yrs ago, in the desert of Karbala, Imam Hussain (a.s.) and his companions were engaged in prayers and supplications to God. It was to be their last night on Earth, for all the men of the camp were to be martyred the following day - sacrificed to save Islam.

I can only imagine the strength of character of these people. They all knew their fate. 72 men versus 30,000 armed forces of Yazid, there was no question that death was their destiny. And yet they remained determined and steadfast to see it through. No-one's faith wavered. Imam Hussain (a.s.) offered everyone the opportunity to leave in the darkness of the night and their commitment would not be questioned, they would still be rewarded by God for having gone so far. Yazid's battle was with Imam Hussain (a.s.) alone, no-one else had to suffer, but not one person moved. They all remained loyal to Imam Hussain (a.s.) to the very end.

Would I have such strength of character? I honestly don't know. Would I readily face my death knowing that I would help save Islam? My thoughts are often tempered with the knowledge that I would be sent to paradise, but is that a rather simplistic way to look at it? Did the companions of Imam Hussain (a.s.) remain by his side because they knew of the reward of paradise? From all the narrations I've heard over the years, I've never got the impression that they all remained by the Imam's side simply because they were guaranteed paradise. They remained loyal because of their love of Imam Hussain (a.s.) and their love of Islam and God. It is too simplistic to think of it as the reward of paradise in return for death.

So do I have that strength in character? Inshallah, I'll never have to find out, but then I guess that's the point of Imam Hussain's (a.s.) sacrifice. He didn't go through all that only for more people to suffer similar fates. He did it to save Islam, so that never would there be a similar threat to its authenticity. His was the greatest and necessary sacrifice. His was the earth-shuddering sacrifice that would remain remembered throughout the rest of time to the Day of Judgment. 1400 years on and the message has not been diluted. Our struggle and fight is to preserve Islam's integrity, to engage in correct practices and spread the true religion of Islam.

However, do I have the strength of character to do even that? Are my practices correct? Do I do enough to maintain and spread Islam? I can definitely do more. Every year we are re-energised during Muharrum and Ramadhan, and every year we fade in the aftermath. Tonight and tomorrow will be filled with a lot of emotion and rightly so, without the emotion the message would be lost. But, as I have mentioned before, the emotion is not the be all and end all of the message. The idea should be to mourn the sacrifice of Imam Hussain (a.s.) and his companions during the first 10 days of Muharrum AND more importantly to make sure we carry the message forward in our daily lives afterwards, looking to improve year on year.

This is where we will surely be judged. Inshallah we will never have to prove ourselves on a battlefield, but carrying the message of Imam Hussain (a.s.) forward is extremely important. We all know as individuals what we need to do and it's just a case of making sure we continue to improve each year. We will be judged as individuals but often I find the most success can be found by working as a group, bouncing off each other and helping each other to continue to improve our faith, practices and help spread Islam further. Collectively we can improve, which in turn improves us as individuals.

Ashura saw, unarguably, the greatest sacrifice of mankind. No other story of sacrifice can compare. For someone to watch their sons (including a 6 month old), brothers, nephews, cousins and friends mercilessly killed and then to be killed themselves in the act of prostration does not bear thinking about and cannot equate to anything else. Imam Hussain (a.s.) watched and made the greatest sacrifice. I know I've kept going on about it for 3 blogs now, but that is mainly to re-invigorate myself. By typing this blog I keep the message of Karbala at the forefront and hopefully can continue forwards after Muharrum for a longer period before the inevitable fade out!

Ever since I had the chance to visit Karbala and the tomb of Imam Hussain (a.s.) and his family in 2002, every Muharrum has held even greater significance. Each year when the story is re-told I am able to imagine the actual location of each event and feel the heat of the desert at the time. Our trip struggled in the heat of Karbala even though we had a/c accommodation and travel, how did the Imam survive 1400 years ago, that too without any water for 3 days prior to the battle?

The true test will come after, what will I do from Wednesday? Majlises will continue throughout the months of Muharrum and Safar which will act has reminders but eventually they too will stop and hopefully this year will be better then last year and I can continue to improve myself and give and receive help from others in doing so.

The actual story of the battle of Karbala has been documented on numerous occasions and below are various links which you can read if you're interested in these events to which I have given such importance. I could type about it myself but feel the links below give better justice to the events of Ashura.

Story of Ashura I
Story of Ashura II
Story of Ashura III

Take care all,
Thoughts just flow, when do they have to make sense?

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Message of Karbala

I think you can all tell by now that the volume of blogs have somewhat decreased since the start of the New Year. It's mainly been because the level of interest in the blog has seemed to drop following a peak period in late November and with it my commitment has also waned. So now I'm only typing a couple of times a week with a few guest blogs here and there, although none this week so far.

Following on from Monday's blog, I've been attending lectures (Majlises) every evening since Sunday to commemorate the martyrdom of Imam Hussain (a.s.) leading up to Ashura (10th Muharrum). The message of Karbala seems to get stronger every Muharrum only to be forgotten during the rest of the year. More and more people appear to be attending majalis every year. The message of Karbala has a strong attraction but seems to wither as the months pass after Muharrum.

I often joke with friends and family that we are all '10 day Muslims.' To varying degrees we are. Almost every Shia I know (including myself) gets energised and religious during the first 10 days of Muharrum. Regardless of how religious we are beforehand, Muharrum seems to make us even more religious. Some even manage to stretch it further to include the 40 days of remembrance after the 10th. But afterwards we all seem to go back to our usual activities and nothing ever changes. For some that is not a bad thing, since their usual activities incorporates increasing religious knowledge, but for many that is not the case.

In the past I've spoken about the need to refresh yourself (here and here) and mentioned the importance of Muharrum for that. At the risk of repeating myself, Muharrum plays an extremely important role for us to increase our faith. The story of Imam Hussain's sacrifice has always been an invigorating one, but one from which we need to take the message and act accordingly.

The lectures themselves provide the first opportunity for that, the lecturers (highly learned and respected people) discuss a wide range of topics in Islam. It's almost a unique chance to have an audience attend for 10 consecutive days and to then educate them (us) about Islam. It obviously comes with a lot of responsibility to make sure mistakes aren't made and the information served is of a responsible, valid and useful nature. However, that has not always been the case.

The sacrifice of Imam Hussain (a.s.) and his family and friends has a message for everyone. Everyone has been represented. Baby, young, teen, middle-aged, old, male and female. Everyone has someone they can identify with and learn from. The Holy Prophet introduced Islam, Imam Hussain (a.s.) saved it. The situation at the time had become so dire, that the only solution was for Imam Hussain (a.s.) to sacrifice himself so that the message of Islam could continue. After his battle, no other subsequent Holy Imam engaged in warfare, no other corrupt ruler challenged the authority of the Imam of the time to such a level and the supposed military victory for Yazid was a huge loss, which inevitably lead to his downfall and inshallah destruction at the hands of God.

However, a lot of the time we feel extremely emotional and mournful of Imam's sacrifice, and although there has to be time for that, it is not the be all and end all of his sacrifice. The message of Karbala is not simply to mourn Imam Hussain (a.s.) and then continue with our usual activities. Imam Hussain (a.s.) did not engage in such action because he only wanted to be remembered as a martyr and mourned. Their actions were not an act of desperation or heroic defeat. They served a purpose. They saved Islam so that we could continue increasing our faith and Islamic actions, so that we could spread the correct religion of Islam. Islam is what it is today (not the fundamentalist and terrorist side which constantly gets portrayed) because of Imam Hussain (a.s.). All branches of Islam, Shia and Sunni exist because of Imam Hussain (a.s.).

So, it is simply not enough to remember his sacrifice, mourn and move on. That is not the purpose. We have to take the message of Karbala. For example, one of the biggest messages of Karbala is the importance of prayer (namaaz). One the eve of the battle, the leaders of Yazid's army were anxious to start the battle. Imam requested an extra night to engage in prayer to God. On the dawn of Ashura, Yazid's army launched an aerial arrow attack on the camp of Imam Hussain (a.s.) whilst many members were engaged in Fajr (morning) prayers. During the prayers the Imam was protected by his companions who took arrows to their chests whilst standing over the Imam. When something is thrown at you, your first instinct is to get out of the way. To actually stand in the way of a lethal arrow seeing it arrive towards you, just shows the level of dedication to the Imam his companions had.

Much fighting ensued after Fajr prayers and many family and friends of the Imam were killed. The time had come for Imam Hussain (a.s.) to head for the battlefield. After much fighting, the Imam managed to move away from the battlefield. It was time for Zuhr prayers and so the Imam stopped to perform his prayers. Only then did the general of Yazid's army summon up the courage to attack Imam Hussain (a.s.). Whilst the Imam was in the act of sajdah (prostration), the general mounted his back and killed the Imam - the greatest act of the devil.

With that the battle of Karbala was over. Yazid won the battle, but the women of Imam Hussain's (a.s.) camp, lead by his sister Bibi Zaynab, ensured that the war was not over and victory would be theirs. And so it proved. Today we remember the greatest sacrifice. What happened to Yazid and his puppets has become irrelevant. The Imam realised at the time that it was going to take a huge event to wake up the so-called Muslims of the time and beyond and to save Islam. The huge event became his and his companions’ martyrdom.

There are many more messages from Karbala and I've used today's blog as a sort of introduction for that. Today's message was the importance of namaaz. Imam Hussain (a.s.) was killed in the act of sajdah. He stopped fighting to perform his prayers. That says it all. Even when his life was facing its greatest danger he still stopped to remember God. Hopefully throughout this month of Muharrum I can type some more about the various messages of Karbala, but I also know of people much more learned then myself who can contribute as well and will be asking them to do so!

Take care all,
Thoughts just flow, when do they have to make sense?

Monday, January 22, 2007

Islamic New Year

It seems I was seriously mistaken, an astonishing 82% of people called/texted in to vote Jade Goody out of the Celebrity Big Brother house. My view of the Big Brother audience was wrong to say the least. I'm pleasantly surprised. Goody's career looks to be over, in a great sense of irony; the programme that made her has also destroyed her (hopefully). Watford Man, being a media boff (!), came up with a great idea for her to restore her career - after CBB has finished, Goody should make a documentary about a trip to India and have Shilpa Shetty as her tour guide around Mumbai - millions would watch and she could create some genuine credibility.

Finally a win to savour for Liverpool on Saturday as they completely destroyed Chelsea. I watched the match in High-Definition for the first time - an amazing viewing experience. Coupled with Arsenal's comeback against Man Utd and maybe, just maybe we can start dreaming of a belated title challenge. Meanwhile, enjoy the goals from the Chelsea game below.

Sunday saw the start of the first month of the Islamic calendar, Muharrum. The reason why majority of muslims and especially all Shias do not celebrate an Islamic New Year, is because of a significant event which occurred in the first 10 days of the month almost 1300 years ago - the martyrdom of Imam Hussain (a.s.) and his family and friends and the hands of the evil tyrant ruler Yazid.

Only a few years after the Holy Prophet's demise, Islamic rule had fallen into the corrupt hands of Muawiyah who handed over the reigns to his even more corrupt son, Yazid. Driven by power, he demanded the acceptance of Imam Hussain (a.s.), grandson of the Holy Prophet, which would legitimise his leadership. When this was declined despite the threat of death, Yazid engaged his armed forces in a horrific massacre of the Imam and his companions in Karbala (Iraq) in the 7th century. Although the event lead to the death of the family and friends of Imam Hussain (a.s.), it ended up saving Islam from the grip of destruction.

Shia's across the globe gather at mosques and Islamic centers every day for the first 10 days to remember his great sacrifice which saved Islam. Every year the numbers in attendance seems to increase and the message of Imam Hussain's (a.s.) sacrifice continues to spread. It never ceases to amaze me the power of the story of Karbala. It has to go down as the greatest sacrifice for mankind. Imam Hussain (a.s.) watched his family members including his brother, nephews and sons (including his 6 month-old son, Ali Asghar) ruthlessly murdered by the army of Yazid. I can't even begin to imagine the level of resolve and belief in Islam it would take in order to endure such horrific events, but Imam Hussain (a.s.) had it in abundance.

Islam is often criticised for its apparent oppression of women. Women don't have equal rights, have to wear hijab, have to stay at home etc. All incorrect, but nevertheless a widespread view. The message of Karbala and Imam Hussain's (a.s.) sacrifice would've been lost had it not been for the women of his camp. After the terrible events on the 10th day of Muharrum - Ashura, the women of the camp of Imam Hussain (a.s.) were rounded up and marched to Damascus, Syria and duly imprisoned. After their eventual release, the sister of Imam Hussain (a.s.), Bibi Zaynab, spread the message of Karbala and made sure it would not be forgotten. Through the centuries the message has continued to spread and hence Shia's across the globe commemorate the martyrdom at every Muharrum.

With each passing year the message of Karbala seems to get more and more poignant. With Muslims being oppressed across the globe either by their rulers or by foreign nations, now, more than ever, the sacrifice of Imam Hussain (a.s.) seems relevant. Remembering the ultimate sacrifice can only strengthen our resolve especially those Muslims living in Iraq and Palestine. For us, living in the comfort of the Western world, it provides an opportunity to look at ourselves and continue our drive to increase our faith inshallah.

Over the next few days, I hope to type some more about the sacrifice of Imam Hussain and his companions. I've had a long-term ambition of producing a sort of docu-drama on the story of Karbala and this year it seems I've been beaten to it with the imminent release of Karbala - When Skies Wept Blood, I'll leave you with the trailer below and hopefully will have the time this week to type more on the issue or perhaps any of the readers might want to contribute? Who knows, not many people seem to be reading the blog anymore!

Take care all,
Thoughts just flow, when do they have to make sense?

Friday, January 19, 2007

Random chatter

It's been awhile since my last random blog about anything and everything. Haven't mentioned the football for quite some time mainly because of the recent humiliation suffered by Liverpool at the hands of Arsenal - (twice). However this weekend sees a big opportunity for Liverpool to restore some pride when they play Chelsea. They have the chance to actually beat them for the first time since Benitez took over in the Premiership and with it, go only 5 points behind them in the league. With the recent announcement that the Champions and Runners-up stand to receive £50million, coming second is a realistic target for Liverpool - my support is on the up.

Watched the first 4 episodes of the new season of 24 and needless to say the quality of the show continues to astound. Obviously some of the logic goes out of the window and what people manage to achieve in each hour is quite astonishing. It seems that there is no such thing as traffic in Los Angeles, given that it takes a prisoner 9minutes to escape, get changed and arrive at the other end of LA to meet with his terrorist buddies. Yet again the baddies are Arab Muslims, perhaps they've settled on a method of having bad Muslims in every alternate season. What the terrorists manage to achieve though, is highly impressive - not wishing to give anything away you'll have to see it for yourself - and it starts on Sky One/HD this Sunday.

The racism row on Celebrity Big Brother shows no sign of calming down. Yesterday the housemates discussed the issue of racism with Shetty initially claiming she was a victim of racism but later retracting that statement and Goody trying to claim that she's not a racist. With both Shetty and Goody up for eviction this evening, people are calling it a vote for or against racism, high stakes indeed. I don't think it's quite as drastic as that but although there has been a lot of apparent sympathy for Shetty, I still think the majority will vote to save Goody because they are a lot like her. I will be extremely surprised if Shetty stays in the house. I still can't believe that I'm actually typing about Big Brother, a show I've refused to watch for the past 6 years. What has the world come to?

Being a Friday, means I normally discuss medical matters, even though I haven't done so for quite some time. It was quite revealing to hear the Health Secretary, Patricia Hewitt's thoughts this morning on the way to work. Apparently she made a mistake when negotiating the GP contract in 2004. She would've introduced a salary cap if she knew how much GPs would earn with the contract.

How dumb can you get? She's basically saying she didn't realise that GPs would do as well as they have. By making the contract more target-based, she's now surprised that GPs have actually met those targets and gone beyond. So she's not happy that the quality of care that GPs have provided has improved. I am the first to admit that GPs no longer have to work as hard as they did with the removal of out-of-hours care on weekends and nights, but why complain when she negotiated the contract in the first place. What did she expect? That GPs wouldn't want to meet targets to earn more money?

What this all means I don't know. It will be difficult to re-negotiate the contract to make GPs earn less, I don't think she can ask GPs to take a pay-cut. However, what she can and probably will do is increase the targets that need to be met for the same amount of pay and also increase the hours GPs work with a return of weekend and night cover. Ironic really, since the main reason I wanted to become a GP was the quality of life, the lack of weekend and night time work. I await the developments with much pessimism. Hopefully the existing GPs will put up a good defense as they should, my trainer for one has claimed he will retire if he has to do weekend work again.

I watched the Trial of Tony Blair last night on Channel 4. What an excellent docu-drama. The actor playing Blair (I forget his name) was absolutely superb, at times he really looked like Blair himself. I hope beyond hope that one day Blair is held to account for his actions. Every single death of British troops and Iraqi civilians is his responsibility and I hope he has as much difficulty sleeping at night as what was portrayed in the drama last night. Yes Saddam Hussein was an evil bastard, but there weren't suicide bombs going off almost every day. Having visited Iraq in 2002, I never got the impression that people were fearing for their lives the moment they stepped outside as I imagine the situation is now.

Muharrum starts this weekend, an especially important time for all Shias across the globe. No matter how religious we are, during Muharrum every Shia unites to mourn the martyrdom of our 3rd Holy Imam, Imam Hussain (a.s.) and his family. I hope to type a blog on the subject next week.

Take care all,
Thoughts just flow, when do they have to make sense?

Thursday, January 18, 2007

World's gone crazy!

Me thinks the world has gone crazy. I haven't posted anything this week because I didn't have much to type about, but the events over the past few days have changed all that. Yes, the world was already pretty crazy, but the past few days have only confirmed that further. And it's all been about a Bollywood actress. Already many people have commented in newspapers and blogs, so I thought that today I’d add in my opinion, for what it’s worth.

A quick reminder for those who've had their head in the sand for the past few days. Celebrity Big Brother saw the arrival of Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty and over the past 3 days the show has come in for heavy criticism because some of the housemates have been taunting and bullying Shetty in a perceived racist tone. As a result, it has lead to widespread discussion in the UK and India. The issue has been covered by both broadsheet and tabloid newspapers, Shetty is making headline news on every news channel and programme and even the Prime Minister and Chancellor have commented on the situation. All in all, a vast amount of coverage and attention for Shetty.

First of all, I must deal with a few myths that have been doing the rounds during the furore. Shilpa Shetty is not an A-list star. Having made over 50 films, only 2 or 3 have been successful. She has never won an award for her acting, neither, do I think, has she been ever nominated for one. India has 5 or 6 big award shows each year and she has never won. In a land of over a billion people, where Bollywood is like a religion, of course she will have many fans, but A-list she is definitely not! If she was, then surely she wouldn't have time to take out 3 months to appear on the show. A-list stars are just as huge in India as they are in Hollywood, can you imagine Angelina Jolie appearing on Big Brother? Thought not.

Pictures have also been reeled in from India showing the public burning effigies of the producers of the programme. This is not hard to arrange in India! All it needs is a few rupees and the presence of cameras to get people to do pretty much anything. I'm sure the media probably paid a few people to stand in front of the camera and burn a few dolls.

The Indian media have also got involved, the same media that barely batted an eyelid when she first arrived on the show. She got next to no coverage then, the focus was on India's own version of the show: Celebrity Big Boss, with stars of various TV dramas locked in the house. Only when the alleged racism started did they begin to show any interest. Now, even the Indian Government has got involved, calling for action to be taken and diplomats are even saying that the row is damaging Britain's reputation.

How pissed off must Gordon Brown be feeling right now? Visiting India for the first time, he finds himself dragged into the controversy and having to issue statements about Britain not standing for racism. In the UK, even Tony Blair has made a comment abhorring any racism that takes place in this country. This morning, 5Live reported that 21 MPs had signed a petition to have the show cancelled and taken off air.

As for the main protagonists, they remain blissfully unaware of what has been going on outside the Big Brother house. Shetty last night, for the first time, claimed that she has become a victim of racism in the house and things could really take off from here. Already, Ofcom has received well over 20,000 complaints about the alleged racism towards Shetty.

However, all things considered it has actually been extremely successful for Shilpa Shetty, she's received more coverage and attention then she could've dreamed of. Having received over £350,000 just to appear on the show, the money she'll make once she comes out will be huge. Bookies are already making her odds-on favourite to win the show. She is now more recognised in the UK then any other Indian celebrity, more recognised then Amitabh Bachchan and Shah Rukh Khan! For Bollywood fans like myself, that is difficult to comprehend.

To an extent, Shetty knows what she is doing. She is a professional actress, successful or not, she knows how to act and is performing brilliantly, milking the attention and sympathy. Her fellow housemates don't know how to handle her and have revealed their true colours. I was hoping to get through this blog without even mentioning Jade Goody who having appeared on Big Brother 3 has become a so-called celebrity, what an absolute disgrace! Someone who thought that East Anglia was abroad is now considered a celebrity. The past few days have showed what she really is - a working class, council home raised, trashy, unintelligent piece of crap! I'm sorry for the anger, but she really is revolting.

What the past few days have shown is that the other contestants feel threatened by Shetty and are responding in the only way the know how, lowering themselves to cheap comments and insults that they would engage in everyday life, but now their comments are broadcast to the entire nation. They represent a large proportion of the working-class in this country, which in turn forms a large part of the population of the UK, and it's sad to see their true opinions are what they are. I'm not sure I would label it entirely as racism, but perhaps anti-cultural or anti-ethnic. Politicians are trying to advertise the fact that the UK is a tolerant country when infact it's not.

It will be no surprise if Shetty wins the show and receives more attention and wealth as a result. She has raised her profile infinitely and if that was her main aim then she has succeeded beyond any realistic expectation. If you break it down, it's all because 3 girls couldn't help themselves and revealed their true feelings about her which can be reasonably extrapolated to the entire country. But all in all, well done to Shilpa Shetty, perhaps Celebrity Big Brother has turned out to be her best performance - award-winning maybe?

Take care all,
Thoughts just flow, when do they have to make sense?

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Guest Blogger #4 - Getting away with murder

The police force is by far the most unaccountable – and out of control - public body in Britain today. While other institutions have been shaken up by successive governments over recent decades, the police have been left virtually untouched. This has culminated in the approach of Tony Blair – the most pro-police prime minister since the war – summed up by these words in a speech on criminal justice a few years ago: “We asked the police what powers they wanted and we gave them to them”.

Indeed it is an irony that this police-worshipping administration is now threatened by a “cash for peerages” scandal pursued with surprising rigour by Inspector John Yates of the Met, who in turn has become the most recent victim of Labour smear tactics.

But at a time when the police appear superficially to be on a collision course with our rulers it is more important than ever to look more closely at the relationship between police and government, and police and people.

Since the Macpherson Report into the death of Stephen Lawrence labeled the police “institutionally racist”, conventional wisdom has ridiculed the phrase, claiming it was an example of “political correctness gone mad”. This is deeply depressing – and misleading.

For the fact is that the vast majority of people stopped by the police are still from ethnic minorities, and Muslims particularly are being targeted since September 11, 2001. Since then, the number of Muslims stopped is reported to have risen by 300%. Home Office figures for England and Wales show that in 2002/2003 nearly 3,000 Asians were stopped and searched. The total number of stop and searches under new and unprecedentedly overbearing “terror laws” more than doubled in 2002/2003 from 8,550 to 21,577.

Almost unbelievably, a Home Office Minister, Hazel Blears, has not only admitted this but sought to justify it explicitly, saying that the “new” threat means that “some of our counter-terrorism powers will be disproportionately experienced by the Muslim community." Just to be clear, she was saying that was a good thing, not a bad one.

Meanwhile the number of people who have died in police custody – many from ethnic minorities - has risen to over a thousand in the last 40 years. How many police officers have been held to account in court for this? 100? A mere 50? Nope: none. Zero. Not one.

And, of course, this is the same police force who followed innocent Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes from his flat in south London to the tube at Stockwell, chased him down the escalators and shot him up to eight times in the head at point blank range. Has the unnamed officer in this case been held to account? No. What has happened since? He has shot dead another man.

For me, the Stockwell shooting was a formative experience. I could tell when it happened that it stank, and that it would come to help prove a point I have always made about police unaccountability. For if the police was subjected to the proper checks and balances that other institutions are, it would surely have not got away with such a case of chronic incompetence bordering on wild vigilante animalism.

A dose of accountability down the years would surely have meant a gang of supposedly anti-terrorism specialists – one of whom was idly urinating in the street as de Menezes emerged from his flat – would have followed a random dark-skinned man onto a bus and onto the Underground and hounded him to his death. At the time, we were told he was running. This has been proved to be untrue. We were told he was wearing a big “bulky” coat. Untrue. We were told he jumped the tube barriers. Untrue. All of this has been disproved, despite the relevant section of CCTV having been mysteriously wiped from the records. I happened to be in Jerusalem at the time, where even the Israelis were dismayed by the shooting. There, they say they prefer to “get their buddies rather than their bodies”, and have their doubts about the shoot-to-kill policy.

And of course it was the red herring of “shoot to kill” that both Blairs – Met chief Sir Iain and his namesake and ally the Prime Minister - waded in on, defending the need to have strong tactics in the wake of the “new” threat. Indeed whenever police and intelligence failures are exposed, the latter Blair never fails to defend them. Let’s not forget the Forest Gate raid - in which a Muslim was shot amid more murky half-truths, reported breathlessly by Rupert Murdoch’s Times as Britain being under chemical attack – after which Blair declared that he supported the forces “110 per cent”. And of course there’s the intelligence used in the run up to Iraq, about which we don’t need a further lesson. Save to note, though, that the then chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, John Scarlett, who signed off on every single one of Alastair Campbell’s “drafting suggestions”, has just been rewarded for his services. Arise, Sir John. I should declare a personal interest in police accountability, which may partly explain why I am on the look out for incidents like Stockwell, one that I could tell perhaps before some of my friends were riddled with smoke and mirrors from the moment Sky News flashed up a breaking news strap-line saying: “SUICIDE BOMBER SHOT ON TUBE”.

In the 1960s my father attended a march against the Vietnam War outside the American Embassy in Grosvesnor Square, London (along with Christopher Hitchens and Tariq Ali among others). Now, passionate though my father was about Vietnam, he would be reluctant to hurt a wasp, so when I tell you that he was arrested for allegedly assaulting a police officer, I’d ask you to take it from me that this wouldn’t have happened. In fact, I am told, he was himself hit over the head by the police, to the point where his head was bleeding. Apparently at the time protestors were routinely arrested for assaulting officers who had, in fact, assaulted them: it was a little trick of the trade to pull in a few of the unwashed lefties.

The arrest was one thing, but it is what happened next that says it all for me: my grandparents hired a good lawyer, and the case went to court. He was convicted. He was given a criminal record that hung over him in the years to come, preventing him from traveling to America for work. It still hangs over him to a lesser extent.

This is just one of a million stories of police unaccountability: infinitely less serious of course than the deaths in custody that go unexplained every year; and the savage killing of an innocent man in Stockwell. But, nonetheless, part of the same problem.

When is a government going to turn the spotlight of accountability on the police, and stop groveling to, and further empowering, what is – in parts – a band of racist thugs?

Don’t hold your breath.

Dissident Voice

Especially published for 'Doctor's Free Time'

Friday, January 12, 2007

It's Bauer time II

Before I discuss today's 24 Top 5, I just wanted to briefly talk about two recent newstories. Yesterday came the unsurprising announcement that, yet again, President Bush decided to ignore all advice offered to him and deploy a further 20,000 troops to Iraq. He has sentenced yet more Americans to their death. For the meantime, the UK has not decided to follow suit and deploy further UK troops, but the situation just appears to be getting worse and worse with no end in sight.

The other piece of news was the transfer of David Beckham from Real Madrid to LA Galaxy, where he has signed a contract worth £128m over 5 yrs, that's £492,000 per week! What an astonishing amount of money to play football in a country which isn't even serious about it. The funny thing is, he probably wasn't even after that much, but why refuse when such an offer is made? All the media will now focus their attentions to what he gets up to in the US and when he inevitably makes a movie of some sort.

Back to today's blog and another top 5 for all the 24 fans out there - the top 5 'Jack Bauer moments.' These are scenes that only Jack could do, certain actions or scenarios which require drastic action which only Jack seems to be capable of, regardless of the consequences. It's what makes Jack Bauer so unique and Kiefer Sutherland was fully deserving of his recent Emmy Award for Best Actor in a TV Drama.

Jack Bauer moment no. 5 - Prison Break (season 3)
To avert the spread of a lethal virus across LA, the President is ordered to release Ramon Salazar, a major Mexican drug dealer and terrorist. Obviously the President cannot comply as he does not negotiate with terrorists, Jack decides to take charge and help the prisoner escape from prison. In doing so, he releases all the in-mates from their cells and creates a horrific lockdown situation. He, Ramon and the prison guards are captured and Jack has to watch as the prisoners kill the prison guards and he even survives a game of Russian roulette.

The tense series of events in the prison, probably inspired the later introductions of another rather enjoyable TV show; Prison Break, also on FOX, which has followed the formula of 24 to reasonable success.

Jack Bauer moment no. 4 - Go in Commando (Arnie) style (season 4)
Jack has finally managed to locate the whereabouts of his girlfriend and her father, the Secretary of Defense, held hostage by terrorists. However, the President has decided to launch a missile attack on the location in order to sacrifice the hostages and prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their mission to embarrass the US government. The CTU Director warns Jack that he has 5mins to leave the area before it is attacked.

Does that stop Jack? Does it hell. In true Arnie style he enters the building and saves the hostages single-handedly and manages to alert CTU and prevent the missile attack on the location. And there's no need to worry about the terrorists, he kills them as well. All within the first 15 minutes of the episode. Marvelous.

Jack Bauer moment no. 3 - Electrocuting his girlfriend’s husband (season 4)
Having just recently saved his girlfriend and father from imminent death at the hands of Arab terrorists, Jack's upset by the arrival of her worried husband (Paul Raines) who she had planned to divorce but now seems to be showing signs of affection for. CTU then discover a rather vague and weak link between Paul and the terrorists and Jack then takes things into his own hands.

Rushing to the hotel that Paul is staying at, having already sent his girlfriend (Audrey) to delay him, he barges in demanding information. Paul comes across all innocent but that's no reason to stop Jack. He ties him to a chair and pours a bucket of water on him. Audrey insists on staying hoping to prevent Jack from doing anything too damaging, Jack simply ignores her and proceeds to electrocute him, with the wires of a lamp, for information. Good way to keep hold of your girlfriend - torture her husband right in front of her eyes. Incidentally the information he obtains remains vague and something that surely could have been achieved without such drastic measure, but hey, this is the world of 24, nothing is too drastic.

Jack Bauer moment no. 2 - Shooting people in the leg (season 4 & 5)
This was actually used as an interrogation tactic twice by Jack. The first was at the beginning of season 4. Jack was visiting CTU in his new role as advisor to Secretary of Defense to discuss the funding of a new contract, and at the same time a terrorist was being brought in for questioning. As CTU obtained information that a serious attack was going to occur and the stalling terrorist new of the location, Jack barges into the room, locks it from the inside and yells at the terrorist in true Jack-style. With no success, there seems to be only one option left for Jack - he shoots him in the leg, much to the shock of the on-looking CTU staff. It works; Jack gets the information, but the attack is not foiled.

A similar scenario occurs in season 5, this time Jack is at the house of an ex-CTU agent, one who was in fact his mentor in his early days at CTU. He's refusing to give Jack the information he needs, so yet again Jack sees only one option, he shoots his wife in the leg! It doesn't work, the agent refuses to budge, obviously being his mentor means he would be better than Jack and he doesn't crack and even more obvious is the fact that their marriage will need some serious counselling! This technique has provided Jack with a 50% success rate so far, who knows whether it will come in handy again at some stage.

Jack Bauer moment no 1 - "I need a hacksaw" (season 2)
By far, the most outrageous Jack moment has to be at the beginning of season 2. Having reluctantly agreed to help CTU foil a nuclear attack on LA, Jack needs to obtain information from a FBI prisoner who will provide him with the location of the man behind the attacks. Instead Jack shoots him in the chest and proceeds to cut his head off, much to the shock and horror of the CTU Director, George Mason: "the problem with you George, you want results but aren't prepared to get your hands dirty." Not if it involves cutting off someone's head, we all think! Regardless, the tactic works and Jack is able to locate his man!

These are my top 5 Jacck Bauer moments so far. All extremely entertaining and unique to the man who is Jack Bauer. Hopefully the 24 fans out there will have there own Jack Bauer moments and again, I ask you to discuss some in the comments section.

Take care all,
Thoughts just flow, when do they have to make sense?

Thursday, January 11, 2007

It's Bauer time

What a lot of attention the last two blogs have received. Apparently a debate about Christianity isn’t interesting enough for some people. The hit counter has gone up quite a bit, which hopefully indicates people have read the discussion, but no-ones been moved to comment or add their own thoughts. Hopefully that will change in the next few days.

Meanwhile, it’s definitely time for something more light-hearted. I feel the blogs over the past few days have been extremely informative, but more serious and thought-provoking and some light-hearted stuff is now required!

You may have noticed on the right-hand side of this blog, links to the TV show, 24. There’s a simple reason for this, it is by far the best programme on TV at present. Next week sees the start of season 6 in the US, and due to the beauty of torrents, it can downloaded here and watched straight after airing in the US. The antics of Jack Bauer, superbly played by Kiefer Sutherland, are gripping, exciting but most of all, extremely entertaining.

In anticipation of the new season, I wanted to talk about 24. However writers more talented than me including Stephen King have been doing the same thing. So instead, I’d like to do something a bit different. Another blogger is currently doing a Best of 24, and without wishing to steal his thunder, I thought I’d do something similar. Today I’m going to discuss my top 5 ‘absurd moments’ on 24 – situations which have defied all reasonable logic and expectations but still remained gripping and exciting. Tomorrow will be about the top 5 ‘Jack Bauer moments,’ looking at classic scenes that only Jack could do. Hopefully those of you who are 24 fans will contribute their own suggestions for their favourite absurd moments…

Absurd moment no. 5 – Taking on military commandos in a gun store (season 4)
Having unsuccessfully prevented the detonation of an EMP bomb (?), Jack finds himself literally in the dark as all electrical equipment has been shutdown, and about to be taken out by a group of commandos. Conveniently he comes across a fully equipped gun store run by two Arab brothers. At the time, 24 was coming in for some heavy criticism for its portrayal of muslims, almost every baddie seemed to be a Arab and this was a weak attempt to redress the balance.

After insisting that the brothers leave, they instead chose to stay and help Jack take on the commandos. Unsurprisingly Jack prevails, but surprisingly the Arab brothers survive as well. Usually Jack’s success comes at a cost of someone else’s life and this time it wasn’t the Arabs, but the husband of his current girlfriend – Bollywood or what?

Jack often finds himself in situations when he is seemingly overwhelmed. But so far, each time he comes through. What a legend! A similar event happened at the beginning of season 4 which saw the return of Tony Almeida. Jack found himself surrounded and out of bullets. Having called “the only man I can trust” only 7 minutes previously, it was quite fortuitous that he should show up at the correct location, take down the henchmen and save Jack. But who cares, it was the return of Tony, a great moment for 24 fans.

Absurd moment no. 4 – The ever so elusive tape (season 5)
The plot of season 5 was about the President being the big baddie. All attempts to take him down rested on the tape recorded by the First Lady’s aide earlier that morning. The tape recorded a conversation between the President and an ex-CTU agent, discussing the killing of former President David Palmer.

The aide then somehow managed to get the tape locked in a security box in a bank in Los Angeles, whilst no-one was looking, even though she was seen to be at the First Lady’s side all day. Having managed to get hold of the tape, Jack then gets captured and re-captured and the tape ends up on a plane on its way to Mexico.

Jack then manages to get on the plane, and in true ‘show & tell’ style, manages to make the plane twist and turn in mid-air – any terrorists watching should take note. Eventually having managed to get the tape back, he then returns to CTU. Instead of insisting that a copy of the tape be made, he hands it over to Chloe for analysis, only for someone to come and delete the recording with a handy laser gadget. All that effort gone to waste.

Absurd moment no. 3 – Nina Myers is the mole (season 1)
At the end of season one, the big twist is the revelation that Nina Myers is the mole at CTU, an apparent masterstroke. Throughout the day she had been supplying information to the Drazens and helped Victor Drazen escape from a high security prison. She had also assisted in the assassination attempt on Senator Palmer, all while working in the confines of a government office, CTU.

However, with further scrutiny, it didn’t actually make sense. If she was the mole, why was she helping Jack and his family escape the clutches of the Drazens’ evil henchmen? Why did she inform Teri, Jack’s wife when she had been inadvertently captured and why did she assist in the capture of Victor’s son when he was attempting to kill the Senator? For entertainment and shock-value it was TV gold, but a bit nonsensical.

The writers attempted something similar in season 5, when the big twist was that the big baddie was the President. Played expertly by Gregory Itzin, he had helped kill a former President (who had previously helped him avert nuclear disaster in season 4) and allowed the Russians to get hold of nerve gas. Where the logic fell down was the fact that earlier he had asked Jack to help him find the Russians and stop the spread of nerve gas. Surely he knew what Jack was capable of and inevitably it was Jack who instigated his downfall by the end of the day.

Absurd moment no. 2 – Sentox nerve gas released in CTU (season 5)
This was a tough call, but eventually I settled for the nerve gas scenario as absurd moment no. 2. CTU had been infiltrated and sentox nerve gas was released throughout the air vents of the building. The main characters manage to stay alive in 3 rooms which are sealed from the outside and the nerve gas can’t get in. Poor Edgar doesn't make it time and is killed.

Time is now limited as the rooms will soon run out of oxygen. Jack devises a plan to go underneath the building into a storage room where the gas can’t enter. Then he’ll hold his breath, walk to a nearby computer, thus breaking the seal of the storage room, and attempt to turn on the air conditioning to expel the gas from the building.

Unfortunately it’s the wrong computer, so Jack returns to the storage room. Now, ignoring the fact that apparently the nerve gas can’t effect the eyes or the nose, Jack manages to get back to the unsealed storage room whilst holding his breath, then Chloe manages to expel the gas from the room and a neat graphic appears on the screen telling her when the room is clear allowing Jack to breath again, how this is possible is unexplained.

Then to add to the absurdity, the computer which can turn on the a/c is located near another agent’s location, played by Samwise Gamgee (Sean Astin) and unfortunately (or rather conveniently) he will need to turn on the a/c and sacrifice himself because the room he’s in cannot be re-sealed once the gas enters. Therefore, a tiny irrelevant storage room can be re-sealed, but not any other room. It all makes for great drama and a sense of poetic justice (as it was his fault in the first place) but logic goes out the window.

Absurd moment no. 1 – Jack has a heart attack and still saves the day (season 2)
For me, the most absurd moment on 24 was during season 2. Jack has been captured and is being tortured for information. The baddies get a bit carried away and accidentally cause Jack to have a heart attack and he requires CPR to be revived. Being a doctor and having seen people being revived by CPR after a heart attack, it’s impossible to explain what happens next.

Somehow, whilst they give him a moment to recover, Jack gets hold of a lethal injection and injects one of the bad guys and manages to escape. With 12hrs or so remaining of the day, and with terrorists to foil, Jack carries on with his heroic activities as if nothing had ever happened. It’s impossible to for anyone to recover that instantly, let alone be running around and firing guns within hours. Following a heart attack, patients need long rehab and are often limited in their activities for life. Being a doctor means I’m biased, but for me this was easily the most absurd moment on 24.

Absurd though all these scenarios are, they haven’t diluted the enjoyment of 24. To truly enjoy it, logic has to go out of the window. It remains the best show on television and I can’t wait till season 6 starts next week. In true TV style, tune in tomorrow for the top 5 Jack Bauer moments.

Take care all,
Thoughts just flow, when do they have to make sense?

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

WM vs. DV: Christianity and Jesus - Part 2

Continuing from yesterday, below is the next part in the debate between Watford Man (WM) and Dissident Voice (DV)...

DV: You still do not explain why the Koran is likely to be a more reliable source than the Holy Bible or the Gospels. Meanwhile, you are obsessed with Paul, but Paul came before the Gospels at a time of only an oral tradition – the Gospels were written when a written tradition of recording events emerged.

Talking of the Gospels, I would point out, on your claim that Paul was the founder of Christianity, that many eminent theologians point to a Centurion as the first “Christian”. For although his disciples and many others recognized Him for what he really was, as he walked the Earth, this was a man saw the truth at the last minute:

"And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom, and the earth shook; and the rocks were split. Now the centurion, and those who were with him keeping guard over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things that were happening, became very frightened and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!” (Matthew 27:51, 54)

"This was after The Thief On The Cross, who was forgiven after repenting at the 11th hour, with Jesus telling the thief: ‘Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43).

But the examples I have given you so far are very limited. I would also appreciate it if you read – and absorbed – these plentiful Biblical quotations showing how Jesus Himself saw Himself:

"The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple." (John 8:57, 59)
"I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." (John 10:30-33)
"And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me does not believe in Me, but in Him who sent Me. And he who beholds Me beholds the One who sent Me. I have come as light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness." (John 12:44-46;)
"And so when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments, and reclined at the table again, He said to them, "Do you know what I have done to you? You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for I am. If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet." (John 13:12-14;)
"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father'?" (John 14:6-9;)
"Jesus therefore said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world." They said therefore to Him, "Lord, evermore give us this bread." Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." (John 6:32-35;)

WM: I never said the Quran “a more reliable source” than the Bible/Gospels (although of course I believe it IS!) – my point is that it is more consistent and logical to believe in a Son of God if that Son of God left behind his own literature, penned by himself. Instead, you take as your Scripture, and as the basis for your beliefs, a narrow set of “Gospels” which you yourself accept were written by men (MEN! Ordinary fallible men – who we know very little about, whose sources we know even LESS about!). This, for me, doesn’t make sense and I don’t understand how you can have such faith-by-indirect-proxy.

As for “theologians” pointing to a “Centurion” as the “first Christian” – again, you miss the point and simultaneously make my point for me. Did Jesus say to the centurion from the Cross: “You are my Christian?” No. Did Jesus say to his followers – “Here, I leave you the Gospels as my teachings and Christianity as your religion?” No. Did Jesus institute and propagate, or elaborate and explain the controversial doctrines of original sin and resurrection and the Trinity which divides Christians from Muslims and even Christians from Christians till this very day? No.

Your “plentiful” quotes from the Bible pose a problem for you, not me. The fact is that there are quotes from the Gospels in which Jesus implies (never says in black and white terms, incidentally, only implies) that he is God and/or the Son of God BUT there are also quotes (which I have sent) in which Jesus seems to say (to the naked impartial eye) only what all his predecessor prophets said: that God is the Lord, Father, Master, greater than him, a third-person entity that he himself as a man looks up to and worships, etc.

So, what do you do?

You can accept the latter AND accept the former which is illogical
Or you can accept the latter and ignore the former (the former being either deliberate changes added later to the flawed human Gospels OR misinterpretations of Jesus’s words, e.g. the fact that he came before Abraham does not make him God – we believe Muhammad was created before Abraham but he isn’t God either!) as I do.
Or, worst of all for you, you have to accept that the New Testament is contradicting itself in various and numerous places and abandon the whole thing – as many former-Christians-now-agnostics-or-atheists have done (e.g. the writer and scholar Karen Armstrong).

DV: What is your motive?. I will do no such thing as to "abandon the whole thing", whether someone called Karen Armstrong has done or not. I prefer to be inspired by lifelong Christians down the centuries who didn't "abandon the whole thing", like Francis of Assisi, or Aquinus, or even your friend Paul, and present day types like Rowan Williams. You present a deal or no-deal scenario about the "former" and "latter" quotes, claiming I ignored your latter ones - but I didn't. The difference is that I do not accept that they contradict the numerous quotes I have provided portraying Jesus - in the words of He Himself who you say you revere - as the Son of man and the Son of God.

WM: My motive? My motive is to demonstrate to you that the Gospels contain inconsistencies, inaccuracies and contradictions and do not remain true to Jesus’s own words let alone the predecessor books of the Old Testament. My motive is to demonstrate to you that the Islamic view of Jesus – which, prior to your increasingly rabid emails in this exchange – draws on much of what Jesus himself said in your own human-authored Gospels. My motive is to engage with you on your own religious beliefs which, occasionally, in the past, you have seemed to have some rational and understandable doubts about but now, with your back against the (intellectual) wall you have come out fighting for (and seemingly blindly for).

I accept your quote from Jesus about his death and resurrection – do you accept my quote about him coming only for the House of Israel? Do you accept my quote that “My Father is greater than I?” Quotes which, basically, undermine the entire Christian enterprise.

DV: I am glad you have accepted my quote from Mark (though it's odd given your disdain for the Gospels). But I do not accept the claim that "My Father is greater than I" contradicts a) the fact that his Father is the One God to whom he refers - as do you, or b) the fact that this somehow means He is not the Son of God (it seems to rather explicitly state it here as in so many other places.

The point you don't seem to get - which has nothing to do with the Trinity, is that Jesus refers to his Father as God, but He himself is regarded as Godly and very close to God by followers and believers - because He is God's Son.[

[Moving on], I also wanted to mention the Nicene Creed, a centuries-old statement of belief, that I sing on Sundays. It talks of Jesus as "being of one substance with the Father". The point is that Jesus is Lord with the Father, of the Father, and this does not undermine the concept of One God - it is not like lots of Greek gods doing different curses and having two heads and so on.

“I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.”

WM: I’m glad you’ve finally brought up the Nicene creed as I was hoping to discuss it. By bringing up the creed you ONCE AGAIN make my argument for me and reinforce my original and over-arching point: i.e. many of the fundamental and controversial bedrock doctrines of Christianity have little to do with Jesus himself or his conventional monotheistic/prophetic teachings and, instead, a great deal to do with those innovators who came later (Paul, Constantine, various popes, etc).

The Nicene Creed are not the words of Jesus. Nor are they some infallible, undisputed words of the earliest Christian scholars – they were the result of a meeting of church leaders in 325AD in an attempt to unify the split church and were decided upon by the Roman Emperor Constantine (a late and convenient convert to Christianity). They were the result of a discussion between ordinary, flawed, fallible, self-interested, politicized human beings – in essence, no different to, say, a bunch of Iraqis coming together now to decide the constitution for that country. There were others at that meeting who disagreed with the creed but their views – for example, the Arians who (like the Muslims) refused to accept the Trinity and did not accept the divinity of Jesus – were rejected AFTER the creed was politically agreed upon (just as how, incidentally, there were other Gospels which were conveniently abandoned when they didn’t fit the new post-Jesus, post-Nicene “orthodoxy”). And now you sing this creed in church and pretend that it is the Word of God?

This is the problem with Christianity – it isn’t based on Christ himself. I cannot fathom how lovers of Jesus have segmented themselves into various churches which have, over the centuries, quietly openly adapted their beliefs/theology/creeds on the basis of what political rulers (be it Constantine, be it Henry VIII, etc) think or believe (!!) And I find it amusing that there is even such a thing called “the Church of England” – as if nationality has anything to do with God’s faith, and as if we are supposed to pretend not to know that the CofE was created, basically, to allow Henry VIII to divorce his wife and marry a woman he lusted after, Ann Boleyn.

DV: You keep saying things aren't the Word of God, when I have never claimed they are. The Creed is a declaration - a statement - about God, not by Him. And whilst I do have doubts about the concept of Church of England, I do not accept that Anglicanism is all down to a divorce, indeed I was chastised in detail by fellow worshippers the other week for saying something similar.

WM: You neatly avoid the points I am making: statements about God are irrelevant when are we are talking about faith. We all – don’t we? – depend upon revelation for our faith. Your faith, however, takes right-turns and left-turns wherever someone (an anonymous Gospel author? Paul? Constantine? Athanasius? King Henry?) in Christian history says something or declares something. Why on earth do you take the politically-motivated, politically-sanctioned declaration of theology from a riven and divided bunch of scholars who lived three whole centuries AFTER Christ as the basis for your faith and as the basis for something to sing while worshipping God in church?? Answer this question please.

Also, you have yet to answer my fundamental “Sonship” question: if, as you and your brethren claim, Jesus was the son of God because he had no father and because the Bible refers to him as the “son of God”, then why do you not hold the same belief vis a vis Adam, who some might argue holds a stronger claim to the title of “Son of God”? Or David, who the Psalms say, was actually “begotten” by God??

... and that's where the discussion ends at present, with many questions left to ponder! Please feel free to leave some comments on the discussion and hopefully the debate can continue.

Take care all,
Thoughts just flow, when do they have to make sense?

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

WM vs. DV: Christianity and Jesus - Part 1

I thought I'd try something different today. Below is an email exchange between Watford Man (WM) and Dissident Voice (DV) that took place last week. It's a debate about Christianity and Jesus and with their permission I've edited the exchange and have published it for you to read and hopefully ponder and comment on in due course. It's a fairly lengthy exchange which is why I've decided to split it into two parts, which not only makes it easier to digest, but serves me well as I'm busy today and tomorrow to type a blog of my own! Anyway, hope you enjoy...

WM: Muslims revere Jesus more than you. For us, his greatest miracle is, as a baby, defending his virgin mother’s honour while declaring the existence, and one-ness, of God. [Check out this link for more information.]

DV: I don't get why it (the above article) calls Him the Messiah. (And), unlike a series of Gospels, this seems to be some narrative with quotes that do not feature in the Bible. And the ending is unconvincing to me. But interesting that he is so revered.

WM: It is based on the Quran (the Word of God, [by the way], not the word of man, like the Gospels). And why is he called the messiah? Because he was for the Jews and because he will return before the Final Day. Finally, once again we revere Jesus more because we DON’T believe he was humiliatingly executed – contrary to God’s wishes in your own Bible (Old Testament).

DV: Do you mean he was the Messiah for the Jews despite their rejection of him? And I'm afraid if you take away the cross and the execution you take away much of the whole point of Christianity, as you know.

WM: Christianity forgot Jesus and his teachings and instead launched a new religion based on Paul’s teachings about original sin, the crucifixion, the resurrection – none of which Jesus talked about, even in your own man-made gospels.

DV: I think you'll find Jesus talked quite a bit about the crucifixion and the resurrection, directly and indirectly. Here is one of many examples of how that is incorrect:
“And they were on the way, going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus was going before them: and they were amazed; and they that followed were afraid. And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them the things that were to happen unto him, saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles: and they shall mock him, and shall spit upon him, and shall scourge him, and shall kill him; and after three days he shall rise again.” (Mark 10:32-34)

WM: I understand your desire to focus on the crucifixion-then-resurrection myth and your obsession with it - without the crucifixion the resurrection becomes irrelevant, and without the resurrection Christianity itself is rendered meaningless, e.g. "and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain." (Corinthians 15:14)

The problem you have is that your sources are all over the place: the Gospels – as you know from your history (as well as, hilariously, from the Da Vinci Code!) – are only four out of the many Gospels that were written but later abandoned, under state or sectarian pressure. Their authors were not all Apostles nor do we know much about their sources. As for the later books of the New Testament, they are largely based on the writings and teachings of Paul, the real founder of Christianity. All of the dodgy doctrines of Christianity – the divinity and sonship of Jesus, the crucifixion and resurrection, original sin, etc – derive from Paul and not from Jesus (it is no wonder that Jesus never mentioned the name “Christian” or “Christianity” in his own lifetime). As Paul, a former enemy of the fledgling Christian population, himself notes: "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:11-12)

He basically elevates himself to prophet-like levels, i.e. receiving revelation, and goes out of his way to deny that his teachings are based on things he might have learned or adopted from Peter et al.

As for Jesus, even in the distortions of the four surviving Gospels, we find the chinks of light which support the Muslim position – that God is One, that God does not beget “sons”, that Jesus was a prophet of God and not God incarnate:

"Why callest thou me good? There is none good but One, that is God." (Mark 10:18)
"...whosoever receives me, receives not me, but Him who sent me." (Mark 9:37) "And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou has sent." (John 17:3)
"Now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard from God." (John 8:40)
"I ascend unto my Father and your Father, my God and your God." (John 20:17)

DV: You claim: "All of the dodgy doctrines of Christianity – the divinity and sonship of Jesus, the crucifixion and resurrection, original sin, etc – derive from Paul and not from Jesus".
This is similar to your statement that: "Christianity forgot Jesus and his teachings and instead launched a new religion based on Paul’s teachings about original sin, the crucifixion, the resurrection – none of which Jesus talked about, even in your own man-made gospels."
Again I refer you to this passage from Mark 10:32-34 (see above).

So, not only did Jesus - repeatedly - describe premonitions of his own betrayal (at the Last Supper, when he declares that one of the disciples will betray him), death and resurrection, but also the whole story of Jesus in the Gospels (pieces of evidence to me, plotlines of the Da Vinci Code to you maybe), is of a pre-destined and looming fate for, yes, the son of man/God. On that latter point, you claim that even the "divinity and sonship" of Jesus is some invention of Paul, yet throughout the New Testament and Gospels there are reference to the Son of God and the Son of Man, especially from Jesus' own lips.

And I do not understand why the Quran, allegedly dictated by God, sounds to you like a firmer basis of belief and "evidence" that written testimonials by witnesses (even if a select few) – unless of course you accept that religion involves some mystique, and we can’t understand everything, nor will, or should, we on this earth.

It would be interesting to know when the Islamic narrative veers off away from that of the New Testament. We know it takes a sharp turn at the end, claiming that Jesus was not in fact crucified but went off somewhere else. So we know you would reject one of many examples of direct prayer to His Father: His questioning, on the cross, of why he appeared to have been “forsaken” by Him: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? - that is to say, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46) For me this is interesting because it shows Jesus as part-human, partly unable to come to terms with or comprehend what is happening.

I know you do not accept this side of the Prophet, and it is cleanly dealt with by the fact that you reject that last – crucial - episode of his life, and see it as fictional fantasy. But where do you draw the line? What about the night before, when Jesus is praying in the Garden of Gethsemanie, again showing his human side, sweating blood out of fear of the fate he knew awaited him? When he prayed to his Father: "My Father, if it is possible, do not let this happen. However, I want to do the things that you desire. I choose not to do the things that I desire” (Matthew 26:39)

As to your - to me offensive - claim that there are in the Gospels "chinks of light which support the Muslim position", including: “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but One, that is God” (Mark 10: 18, see above) you seem to conveniently forget that Christianity, Islam and Judaism ALL believe in One God - that is why they are called monotheistic religions.

But perhaps the most absurd - and for me blasphemous - of your claims is that "the real" founder of Christianity is Paul. In line with this, you say: "it is no wonder that Jesus never mentioned the name “Christian” or “Christianity” in his own lifetime". This is as hilarious as it is wrong. I am assuming you have worked out that "Christianity", relates to the name of the Prophet and Messiah and King and Prince of Peace himself, Jesus Christ. So it is natural that a gradually growing following (after he was near-universally rejected in his day in Jerusalem) should be, named AFTER him. It is after all only vain, earthy politicians who name their following while still in harness, like Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair. The founder of Christianity was Jesus himself. Paul was a later convert. So, to conclude, on the question of your Corinthians quote - "and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" - we are in agreement, precisely because we disagree on everything else.”

WM: The problem with the Bible’s authenticity is that you do not even pretend to base it on the words of Jesus, only on those of four single-named (No surnames? No father’s names? No biog’s for them in the book label or jacket?) men who may or may not have met Jesus and/or his Apostles and who were not the only four to collect together his life’s words and works in books called “Gospels”. Where are the footnotes, where are the names of their sources, where is this eyewitness testimony you refer to? The Gospels are the equivalent of our Muslim collections of “hadith”, the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. As is the entire Bible, in fact. If submitted as a piece of historical scholarship in a university examination, it would fail.

I do not forget that all three Abrahamic faiths are monotheistic but I do question modern Christianity’s adherence to that monotheism: the Trinity is a shot across the bow of God’s oneness. You know it, I know it, every Christian scholar knows it. And there is no proper or clear basis for the Trinity in your own limited four Gospels from the mouth of Jesus – you yourself quote him referring to another entity as “God”. Or was he talking to himself? Sorry to be flippant but the Trinity does lend itself to such bizarre and perhaps circular conclusions (and puns). We DO need to discuss it – in fact, prior to any discussion of any theoretical crucifixion-then-resurrection.

It is not “blasphemous” to claim that Paul created and founded Christianity – it is both historical fact (there were no “Christians” during Jesus’s lifetime, only Jews) and theological fact (Paul is the originator of the doctrines that underpin modern Christianity, like original sin and resurrection and says so himself on more than one occasion in the New Testament). Your reference to Thatcher is irrelevant – we are not talking politics here. We are talking religion, faith, God. For example, we Muslims take pride in the fact that the God in the Quran refers deliberately and purposefully to “Islam” and “Muslims” and the “Quran”. It stops later generations from changing things. Unfortunately, Jesus makes no reference to “Christianity”, “Christians” or the “Bible” in any of the Gospels – and never claims to have come to start a new religion. In fact, and this is one of my favourite killer quotes from the New Testament, he says quite clearly and unarguably in Matthew 15:24: “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel ”, i.e. he is a Jewish prophet (as we Muslims believe he was and he indeed saw himself). The idea that anyone who claims to follow Christ is a Christian and that Christ somehow bestows that title upon them is nonsense and does not follow at all.

As for your reference to the “sonship” of Jesus and the “reference to the Son of God and the Son of Man, especially from Jesus’ own lips”, you have walked into the trap that I have been setting for Christians since I first began debating them.
(a) Jesus may refer to himself as the “Son of God” but he also refers to himself clearly as the emissary, the prophet, the teacher from God, and, crucially, lesser than God: “The Father [God] is greater than I" (John 14:28), and
(b) if your argument is that Jesus called himself “Son of God” so he is therefore, literally, rather than metaphorically, “the Son of God”, how then do you view Adam? In the Gospels it says: “…the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God" (Luke 3:38). How then do you view David, who, prior to Jesus, the Bible refers to as the only begotten son of God: "I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee” (Psalms 2:7).

...And so ends Part 1, please return tomorrow for the next installment in this fascinating discussion.

Doctor's Free Time

Pageviews past week

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Goodbye for now...

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Guest Blogger #6 - Unity between Christians and Muslims

Monday, January 29, 2007

Ashura

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Message of Karbala

Monday, January 22, 2007

Islamic New Year

Friday, January 19, 2007

Random chatter

Thursday, January 18, 2007

World's gone crazy!

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Guest Blogger #4 - Getting away with murder

Friday, January 12, 2007

It's Bauer time II

Thursday, January 11, 2007

It's Bauer time

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

WM vs. DV: Christianity and Jesus - Part 2

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

WM vs. DV: Christianity and Jesus - Part 1

Previous Blogs

Links

About Me

Hit count

Pageviews past week

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Monday, January 29, 2007

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Monday, January 22, 2007

Friday, January 19, 2007

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Friday, January 12, 2007

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Previous Blogs

Links

About Me

Hit count

Subscribe To