Ali Mohammed al-Nimr 2
Foreign Affairs

Saudi Arabia to crucify Ali Mohammed al-Nimr – because they don't like his uncle

 

Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth (to cause) corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment (Qur’an [sūrat l-māidah] 5:33).

Our good friends and noble partners Saudi Arabia – to whose living kings we bow and for whose dead kings we lower our national flag as a mark of respect – is about to crucify Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, who was arrested as a 17-year-old child in 2012 and has been languishing in a Saudi jail ever since. Apparently, the boy’s uncle, Nimr Baqer al-Nimr, is a reformist Shi’ite cleric who has criticised the government, and the nephew is corrupted by association. And the just punishment, according to the Qur’an, for those who infect others with their corruption “is none but that they be killed or crucified”,  which is a barbarous, not to say extremist punishment, which, as we know, is nothing to do with Islam.

Uncle Nimr was sentenced to crucifixion in 2012 for speaking out against the Saudi royal family. His denunciations amounted to pleas for liberty, democracy, the eradication of corruption and an end to discrimination against minorities. He has never fired a bullet or exhorted his followers to rise up in violent revolution: his only ammunition is words. It is a Shi’a/Sunni-Wahabbi spat, and King Salman, like King Abdullah before him, has a Sunni-Wahhabi-Islamic/ist divine vocation to wage jihad against minority Shi’ite heretics for the greater glory of Allah.

When one is accused of “breaking allegiance to the King” or “disrupting national unity”, counter-allegations of sedition, corruption, terrorism or Zionism swiftly (and conveniently) follow. And one is then (conveniently) found guilty of one or more of these offences, each of which carries the particularly harsh sentence of crucifixion, which, in the Saudi variation, appears to consist of being (mercifully) beheaded, followed by the public draping of one’s corpse over a cross of wood and being left to rot. If you happen to be related to to the seditious terrorist, that’s terribly bad luck.

Ali Mohammed al-Nimr is 20 or 21 years old now. He, too, has been sentenced to be crucified – which, as we know, is nothing to do with Islam – having (conveniently) been found guilty of “breaking allegiance to the King” as a child. He got caught up in all that ‘Arab Spring’ euphoria, and the Saudi authorities discovered (conveniently) lots of weapons at the boy’s house, which no-one appears to know anything about. He has apparently (not to say conveniently) confessed to his crimes, and so retributive crucifixion – which is nothing to do with Islam – must follow.

The human rights organisation Reprieve say there is evidence that Ali al-Nimr was tortured and his confession obtained by coercive means. He has been denied access to lawyers. His family has appealed, but (conveniently) the case was heard in a secret court and (even more conveniently) dismissed. And so the boy must be crucified, which, as we know, is nothing to do with Islam.

Maya Foa, Director of the death penalty team at Reprieve, said: “No one should have to go through the ordeal Ali has suffered – torture, forced ‘confession,’ and an unfair, secret trial process, resulting in a sentence of death by ‘crucifixion’. But worse still, Ali was a vulnerable child when he was arrested and this ordeal began. His execution – based apparently on the authorities’ dislike for his uncle, and his involvement in anti-government protests – would violate international law and the most basic standards of decency. It must be stopped.”

‘Must’ is a curious imperative to use with a friend and ally. But then “basic standards of decency” don’t really go hand-in-hand with crucifixion (which has nothing to do with Islam). Saudi Arabia is as barbarous as the Islamic State: indeed, they deal with their seditious spies and evil Zionists in exactly the same way – they crucify them (which, as we know, is nothing to do with Islam).

Sheikh al-Nimr is accused not only of “breaking allegiance to the King” and “disrupting national unity”, but of “waging war on God”.

Saudi Arabia is accused of violating human rights by torturing and executing juveniles for no crime other than that of being related to democracy activists.

And Her Majesty’s Government is facilitating these violations and executions through a project called ‘Just Solutions International‘, which was established by the former Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling. As the International Business Times notes, it is “one of those euphemisms that almost certainly covers up a plethora of wickedness”:

JSI is the “commercial arm” of the Ministry for Justice, and it “offers tried and tested products and services from one of the largest and most integrated offender management systems in the world.”

One of the “just solutions” upon which they have embarked is to accept money to “conduct a training needs analysis for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia prison service staff.” What does this entail: How to torture a juvenile? How to affix him to the cross? How much will JSI be paid, 30 pieces of silver?

And so we “cosy up to despots” who crush democrats, hang gays, behead women, flog bloggers and crucify teenagers, all for a multi-million pound contract to support the Saudi regime’s prison system.

The Ministry of Justice is now under new command and control. Michael Gove has interrogated his ministry’s commercial arm ‘Just Solutions International’, and seeks to ensure that its expertise is not abused to procure any unjust solutions anywhere in the world. But the £5.9 million contract to provide ‘training’ and ‘advice’ to Saudi Arabia’s prison system will be honoured.

According to BuzzFeed, “Gove wanted to terminate the entire contract but this was blocked by other government departments who feared that it would damage relations with the Saudis”.

Damage relations with the Saudis? We advise this barbarous regime on its system of retributive justice which hangs gay teenagers, beheads women, flogs bloggers and crucifies democracy activists (which has nothing to do with Islam) for fear of damaging UK trade and investments? By what moral conscience or ethical hesitancy do we not then open diplomatic channels and forge trade agreements with the Islamic State?

  • Sirbastion

    If ever IS have control over the black sticky stuff that is the hook in the wests greedy gob there will be trading agreements, written in blood, aplenty.

    • sarky

      What tarmac? Can just see IS doing driveways.

      • Inspector General

        You are sadly gaining a reputation as the site’s arse…

        • sarky

          I’ve a way to go before I reach your lofty heights.

  • Albert

    Wasn’t the Saudi monarchy a Western, namely British invention, that didn’t even exist a century ago?

    • Anton

      Not really; Abdul Aziz ibn Saud forcibly took Riyadh from the al-Rashidi clan in 1902 and gradually grew in the Arabian peninsula from that success. Because the al-Rashidi allied with the Ottomans in World War I we allied with ibn Saud during that conflict. Britain afterwards fulfilled its promise of a free Arab State in the Arabian peninsula, and although we preferred the house of Hussein, the Sharif of Mecca, to ibn Saud’s family, we were not prepared to intervene in an Arab civil war between them; in 1925 ibn Saud took the Hejaz, the region of the Arabian peninsula containing Mecca and Medina. Soon after that he declared the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and ruled it to his death in 1953. It has been ruled by various sons of his (by various wives) ever since. Hussein’s descendants rule Jordan today.

      Our link men with ibn Saud during WW1 were, first, a British army officer called Shakespear, who was killed fighting with ibn Saud’s forces against the al-Rashidi (and of whom ibn Saud thought more highly than TE Lawrence); then the diplomat Harry St John Philby, father of Kim the traitor. Harry Philby preferred ibn Saud to Hussein and had to be rapped over the knuckles for that by London.

      • Ivan M

        Anton, did the well-known indulgence in pederasty, on the part of the boarding school boys such as the senior Philby play a part in his treachery? I understand he became one of the Ummah later.

        Herbert Samuel over in Palestine had a choice to make over who was to represent the Arabs. He was to choose between an elder of the pietist Nusebbiah clan or al-Husseini, Arafat’s uncle and later notorious for persuading Himmler not to allow the Hungarian Jews to leave for Palestine. Well apparently al-Husseni got the job as he plied boys on one of Samuel’s lieutenants. The rest as they say is history.

        • Anton

          Yes; it is ironic that anti-zionists complained that Samuel was unsuitable because he was a Jew.

          At one stage British Intelligence was known as the Homintern in contrast to the Soviet Comintern!

          • Ivan M

            Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first learn to deceive.

      • Ivan M

        The Sherif of Mecca had a claim to that region since it was accepted that he was descended from Mahomet himself, whether he had in fact existed or not. The British then gave him Transjordan as compensation to the exasperation of the Zionists. Thereby earning the enmity of both sides to add to the laurels of perfidious Albion. But it was not long after that the Americans as is their usual game following on British heels, kicked the British out during FDR’s time. And then the British had to see what they could do in Iran etc etc.

        • Anton

          Unlike Palestine, Transjordan was never excluded from the land which Britain, in a letter from Henry McMahon to Sherif Hussein, said it would grant Arab sovereignty after WW1. The ‘revisionist’ movement among the Zionists wanted Transjordan because the reference in the gift to Abraham in Genesis was to land “from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates”. But the reference clearly means SOME of the land between those rivers, not all of it, as later references in the Pentateuch (Numbers 34) make clear.

          In Mesopotamia Britain did not honour its word, but by then it had shed a lot of blood to clear out the Ottomans and decided it wanted a say in oil rights there.

          To what event(s) are you referring re FDR, please?

          • Ivan M

            From my dilettantish readings I picked up the thread that the Americans wanted Saudi oil and they had muscle to push the British out. This goes back to the time of the Seven Sisters and before. Basically having lost their Empire they were looking for scraps from the Americans. To be sure many Americans respected the old country, including the Irishmen JFK, RM Nixon, and Raygun Ronnie but many others especially it seems in the armed forces did not. I realise this is not the answer you were expecting.

          • Anton

            Postwar relations between US and UK were certainly based on power. When you said the US “kicked…out” the Brits I now realise you were talking economically rather than militarily; thank you for the clarification.

          • No, it wasn’t a “revisionist” claim; it was a demand for the letter of agreement and international law…which were never abrogated, btw. What is now Jordan was part of the Jewish homeland as designated in the San Remo agreement…the one in which all the borders of the post-Ottoman nation states were drawn. The biblical reference is, of course important, but the claim is based on a still-valid agreement. What this means is that by effectively abandoning its claim to Jordan, Israel has gifted the Arabs with their Muslim Palestine…and needs to more forcefully reject the claim that the “West Bank” is anything but Israel proper.

          • Ivan M

            It was not done with the permission of the natives. If the British had the right to dispose of the fates of Araby and Mesopotamia, they jolly well had the right to tell the Zionists to back off. In any case the British Army from India that defeated the Ottomans had countless steadfast Muslims in its ranks. They threw their lot with the British. The Brits had greater obligations to them than some nuts from Eastern Europe.

            The Jewish claim on the West Bank, which was foreseen long ago by the Arabs, has nothing to with rights except that of force and deception. The Arabs in Palestine were doing quite well without the alledged expertise of the Zionists as numerous reports from that era including the famous 1944 British Report make clear. It clearly spells out the high productivity and enterprise of the Arabs giving lie to the fiction that they were dependant on scraps from the supermen from the shetls

          • The opposition of the Muslim world to Jewish settlement had and has no standing in international law. British violations of San Remo, regarding the Mandate or anywhere else also have no and should have no permanent standing. We can discuss realities on the ground, such as that it may be too late to turf Jordan, or that Israel should permit a limited form of self-government to the Muslims in Judea and Samaria, but until San Remo is abrogated (for all parties in the ME, Norrth Africa and Europe), Israel’s claims stand as valid.

            As always, whenever you speak up for Muslim Palestinians, I will ask the same questiin: Given your otherwise hostile attitude to Muslims, how are Palestinian Muslims different from other Muslims for you to be so concerned about them? And if you are genuinely concerned about them, why only in their interaction with Israel, but not where their suffering in the Arab world is concerned?

          • Ivan M

            I understand your frustration and sometimes rage with respect to the Arabs. The problem though has been compounded by the lies of the Zionists and their fellow travellers. For what it is worth I used to be a 110% supporter of Israel and hence am familiar with the arguments on your side. But having familiarized with the story from the other side, three things stand out.
            1) the Arabs are stupid
            2) the stupidity is a feature that
            . the Israelis count on when conducting their land grabs.
            3) the Israelis were never meant
            . by character or destiny to have anything more than a small piece of land.

            It follows from my way of thinking that their attempts to overcome their limitations by riding on this or that imperialistic tiger , or taking advantage of the current disarray among the Arabs will not end well for them.

            Therefore seeking peace at all times with sincerity is the guarantee of long term survival for them.

          • So, you don’t care about Arabs, consider them stupid and presumably as Muslims, evil, yet you got upset over unspecified “Zionist lies” at some point in your intellectual journey. But your hostility to Zionism …Jewish nationalism… stems from your noble concern over the Jewish nation’s survival?

          • Anton

            I agree that the ‘West Bank’ aka Judea should be under Israeli jurisdiction, for two reasons. First is the promise to Abraham, and the boundaries of the land so defined in Numbers 34. Second, because when Henry McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, wrote to Sherif Hussein of Mecca offering an independent Arab State after World War 1 in return for a general uprising against the Turks, McMahon carefully excluded a portion of land from the promise, including *all* of what became Mandatory Palestine.

            Transjordan satisfies neither biblical nor modern treaty criteria for Jewish jurisdiction, however. Numbers 34:12 is clear about the former (apart perhaps from a small part of land on the east side of the Jordan River near to its source). As for international treaties, the League of Nations on 24th July 1922 passed a resolution to much the same effect as the San Remo declaration (April 1920) among the victorious powers of WW1, granting authority to enact (or continue enacting) the British Mandate for Palestine and Transjordan. Article 25 of the July 1922 resolution stated, however, that the mandatory power – Britain – shall be entitled, subject to ratification by the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold provisions of the mandate in the Transjordan area. This area runs east from the River Jordan and much of it has never been considered as Palestine. Britain invoked Article 25 in the ‘Transjordan memorandum’ passed by the League of Nations on 16th September 1922. So all was done according to treaty (or, if you prefer, “international law”).

          • Notwithstanding the fact that international law is useless without a legitimate and competent body to enforce it, the League of Nations had no lawful authority to allow modification items of the San Remo Confetence. Zwithout abrogating and re-writing the entire set of agreenents.

            Splitting the Mandate and effectively reducing it by about 70% violated Article 5 of the Mandate which required the Mandatory …Britain… to be responsible for seeing that no Mandate territory “shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.” The League in fact violated its own rules, namely Article 20 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, wherein the Members of the League undertook that not enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms of the Mandate.

            San Remo is binding by virtue of its continued application. All later declarations and claims, including those by the UN, would have to formally abrogate the agreement and open it to revisions by all affected states.

          • Anton

            If San Remo is more authoritative than the League (as you argue and I don’t accept) then why were its main tenets submitted to the League for ratification?

            I’m not much of a fan of the notion of “international law” but if we are going to admit such a thing then a resolution of the League of Nations is obviously much closer to it than a unilateral declaration by the five powers represented at San Remo.

          • I’m not a fan of international law either, but as it is being used to clobber Israel with it, or more precisely fictious interpretations of it, it is important to aknowledge and challenge any problematic applications. It is not whether a resolution is “much closer” because it came later or involved more parties, but whether it is technically valid. If Article 5 and 20 were violated, as some argue, decisions based on them become technically invalid.

          • Anton

            San Remo was a unilateral declaration to the world of something that the victorious powers in WW1 were going to do. Whatever be the definition of that weird thing called International Law, I don’t see that such a declaration can conform to it.

            Two years later, at the League of Nations, a resolution fairly similar to the San Remo declaration was voted on and was approved unanimously by all member nations. The League was a place where any member nation can propose any resolution. That surely is a decent approximation to the meaning of “international law”; certainly more close than a unilateral declaration by five nations?

          • Near or far, uni or multilateral, a law or a convention resolution retains legitimacy unless struck down or abrogated. San Remo was not blown away and substituted, but was amended in a way that violated its intent. My point is that if we are going to claim we care about what we call international law, we must abide by its internal logic. If we start altering it arbitrarily or situationally, be it due to numbers or popular will, it becomes mob rule or another pseudo-legal maneuver of the powerful and we should stop pretending we are following laws. This is why Israel should openly and with stated legalistic justifications, not just in practice, reject UN resolutions which are selectively applied against it but not against other, especially bigger nations.

          • Anton

            San Remo was a unilateral declaration by 5 victorious powers. They asked nobody’s permission to make it and they were therefore free to amend it. At the League they presented to 46 other nations something fairly similar but not identical, and all nations present accepted it. That binds their words in a way that a unilateral statement does not.

            Israel can, so far as I am concerned, tell the UN to get stuffed. It is a disgusting organisation full of failed and corrupt politicians from dreadful dictatorships.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “First, the promise to Abraham” “Second, because when Henry McMahon”
            I like how your God is the real estate agents and Englishman’s offer before Israel’s formation means something to you. Let’s not ask the people living on the land. It’s always easy to give something that is not yours.

          • Anton

            The land IS God’s and he gave it to Abraham’s descendants through Abraham’s grandson Israel forever.

          • Jon Sorensen

            You claim that your God promised that land. Land owners deny that and claim that their God gave that to them. Others claim that it’s God’s land and doesn’t belong to anyone. There is no real way to verify any of these claim, so more that 100 wars have been fought over control of that land. You comment pinpoints the dangers of religion and reason for the problem in the Middle East.

          • Anton

            Yes it does! We agree about that, anyway. But don’t forget who had practical ownership of that land when London was a swamp.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Sorry I’m ignorant. I don’t know who had the practical ownership of that land when London was a swamp.

          • Anton

            The Israelites.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Wut? This is an inside joke I assume

          • Anton

            2500 years ago the Jews lived in the land known today as Israel/Palestine.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Sorry my bad. My reading comprehension failed. 2500 years is long time ago. Somebody else lived there 4000 years ago and 1000 years ago. So what? One of my ancestor group lived 3000km away from current location. Does that still belong to me somehow if my God promised it?

          • Anton

            The difference is that people who self-identify as Jews have an unbroken continuity of culture from then till now. That is not the case for any other people group that has been dispossessed.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “The difference is that people who self-identify as Jews have an unbroken continuity of culture from then till now.”
            This does not give you land right. And Palestinian claim the same and have been there longer. According to your logic we should give that to Palestinians (or maybe Egyptian)

            “That is not the case for any other people group that has been dispossessed”
            This is clearly not true. American Indians and Eskimos.. Ainu, tribes in Russia. And why would this matter? That does not give you extra right after 40 generations

          • Anton

            No people can claim an unbroken continuity of culture for 2500 years as the Jews can. They do not wish to dispossess peaceable Arabs of property but rather to have political self-determination in Palestine/Israel.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Anyone can “claim” and many do. But so what? That does not give land someone else owns.

            “They do not wish to dispossess peaceable Arabs”
            You just don’t have any idea. You have no idea what is happening in West Bank with Muslim owned houses, and this info is easily available and almost every day in news. How do you think Israelis get more land there?

          • Anton

            Don’t tell me I don’t have any idea when you don’t know what I have read.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Well clearly you haven’t informed yourself about the subject if you think that Israelis “do not wish to dispossess peaceable Arabs of property” in West Bank. West Bank is not part of Israel and continuously in news because Israel occupies the land and forcefully remove Arab people from their houses and demolish their houses. Often evictions are in the middle of the night. Just take your rosy colour glasses off and read the news.

          • Anton

            I do but I read both sides. Nothing would suit the Jews more than if the Arabs gave up terrorism; then there would be no more of the reprisals you speak of and the peaceable Arabs could get on with their lives in their homes. As for the West Bank, it was historically called “Judea”; why do you think that might be?

          • Jon Sorensen

            “I do but I read both sides”
            Clearly not if you don’t know what is happening in West Bank

            “Nothing would suit the Jews more than if the Arabs gave up terrorism”
            True and nothing would suit the Palestinian more than Jews stop occupying their territories and stop Gaza blockage, and give back their land.

            “then there would be no more of the reprisals you speak of and the peaceable Arabs could get on with their lives in their homes.”
            You forgot Israel already took their homes from West Bank.

            “As for the West Bank, it was historically called “Judea”; why do you think that might be?”
            Because Israel attacked Canaan (ki-na-ah-na in 14th century BC), killed the people living in it, took the land and renamed it?

          • Anton

            Yes, but they weren’t Arabs.

            Have you considered what saying that you know what I read when you have never even met me looks like?

            And, as I said, don’t confuse political control with land ownership. Arabs are agriculturalists, not hunter-gatherers.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “Yes, but they weren’t Arabs”
            Why does their ethnicity or race matter? Was it ok to kill them because they were not desert people? Are you racist or something? I answered why it was renamed to “Judea” after the bloody conquest. You don’t seem to accept it.

            “you know what I read when you have never even met me”
            I’m saying it because you are unaware of what is happening in West Bank. If you were aware of it you would not say that Israel “do not wish to dispossess peaceable Arabs of property”.

            “don’t confuse political control with land ownership”
            Tell that to the Palestinian whose house got bulldozed. I’m sure you won’t.

          • Anton

            You don’t know whether I am unaware of life in the West Bank. It is wiser to confine yourself to criticising words than thoughts of someone else because you don’t, of course, know what the latter are. Apart from the conquest of Canaan you are simply repeating things which I’ve answered already as readers here can confirm. As to that, it is covered in the Old Testament, but there is also extra-biblical evidence that the Canaanites practised such rituals as child sacrifice in the ancient writings of Philo of Byblos and the ‘Ugaritic’ manuscripts unearthed and studied between the wars.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Ok then, I take my words back and I take your word for it. You are well informed about Israel in West Bank. You knew that:
            “Israeli authorities indicate that over 11,000 demolition orders – affecting an estimated 13,000 Palestinian-owned structures”
            And knowing that you keep telling people that
            “[Israel] do not wish to dispossess peaceable Arabs”
            I guess that is you then.

            “Canaanites practised such rituals as child sacrifice”
            This is just slander. It is like taking the worst sentence from British/Japanese/German/US/French/Russian WWI war propaganda material and keep on repeating to make it true. We don’t Cananite explanation of this, but I guess you don’t care about accused view. Bible Geek podcast had recently analysis of this claim. It was very interesting.

            If even if that would be true what does this have to do with land ownership right of Palestinian farmers? Remember Israelites organised genocides including killing children to get rid of these people.

            Note: Philo of Byblos died 141AD is that 1500 years after the events.

          • Anton

            You chose to engage with me about the conquest of Canaan so how can you now grumble that it is irrelevant?

            Philo explained that he basically edited and translated a much older source.

            Given that you didn’t know about the Anglo-American survey of Jewish and other views about the Middle East after the war I do consider myself better informed than you on the subject. I don’t mind if you disagree.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “You chose to engage with me about the conquest of Canaan so how can you now grumble that it is irrelevant?”
            And I keep on asking why is this relevant, and you keep on running away from the question.

            “Anglo-American survey of Jewish and other views about the Middle East after the war I do consider myself better informed than you on the subject.”
            Of course this is critical when discussing about Israeli authorities 11,000 demolition orders

          • Anton

            Because that was the start of the occupation of the land by the Israelites, in fulfilment of God’s promise to Abraham that the land would be theirs.

            You keep changing the subject! Some of these demolition orders are on animal pens etc, some are of makeshift structures erected very recently, some are of the homes of proven terrorists, not all have been enacted and it is not clear that they are more than a political threat, and not all 11,000 are things that even Zionists would approve of; all governments in all lands are far from perfect. What do you think of Arab leadership in the West Bank and Gaza?

          • Jon Sorensen

            “fulfilment of God’s promise to Abraham”
            Are you sure about his or was that that justification of baby killing of Cananites?

            “Some of these demolition orders are on animal pens etc, some are of makeshift structures erected very recently, some are of the homes of proven terrorists”
            You sound like apologist for home destruction, but you forgot to mention that they practice ritual child sacrifices. That makes listeners to feel better. Well at least you have no compassion for families losing their homes as they are “proven terrorists”, even those babies living there.

            “What do you think of Arab leadership in the West Bank and Gaza?”
            They are terrible leaders.

          • Anton

            I’m sure about it although I recognise that you aren’t.

            Child sacrifice today is called abortion. It goes on in Israel where they have killed as many Jewish infants now as Hitler did. A tragic disgrace.

            Homes of terrorists are not demolished around their ears. It is mainly a disincentive to others to get involved in terrorism. Trying to extract the terrorists generally leads to multiple loss of life in both sides.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “Homes of terrorists are not demolished around their ears.[sic] It is mainly a disincentive to others to get involved in terrorism. Trying to extract the terrorists generally leads to multiple loss of life in both sides.”
            So let me understand. Israel is destroying houses of innocent families on foreign soil to punish fighters who want their freedom to live on a land they own for generations. Which side is the terrorist side again?

            Your reply exemplified Christian Ethos, Ethics, Logic’

            Ethos: We care about innocent people, but only if they are in our in-group
            Ethics: Let’s punish the innocent, so our enemies might suffer
            Logic: Surely members of innocent families who lost everything and were moved to refugee camps will not become terrorists. And surely terrorists will stop now and will not use attacks on innocent members of their group as a further justification of more terrorism. And surely they will not recruit innocent victims.

            I never understood Christians advocating violence against innocent families.

            BTW; how come most of the discussion with Christians end up to abortion and Hitler? It seem to be central point of Christian thinking.

          • Anton

            I don’t agree that it’s foreign soil. I don’t approve of the making-homeless of women and children it but would you tell me what alternative Israel has when the attempt to extract Palestinian Arab terrorists from their homes generally ends up in a gun battle in which multiple people on both sides get killed?

          • Jon Sorensen

            I don’t agree that it’s foreign soil”
            And Sudetenland was not a foreign soil after Germans marched into it. So if that is Israel soil can West Bank Palestinians vote on election like Muslims in Israel? Is it apartheid? I bet you don’t answer that.

            “I don’t approve of the making-homeless of women and children”
            Good

            “but would you tell me what alternative Israel has when the attempt to extract Palestinian Arab terrorists”
            If you claim this is Israel soil then use the same tactics as British counterterrorist use in the UK home soil. Or what Australia does on it’s home soil. Or the US.

            Arab lives matter equally.

            It you don’t approve bulldozing family houses in the UK don’t approve it on Israel home soil.

          • Anton

            I don’t approve it. I’m asking you what alternatives Israel has – a far harder question for you.

            It is not apartheid, because the distinction about who gets to vote and who does not isn’t a racial distinction. The distinction is between who is in the Jewish-run and Arab-run parts of what was Mandatory Palestine. Arabs in the Jewish-run parts qualify to vote and many do. Arabs in the Arab-run parts qualify to vote there, I believe.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “I’m asking you what alternatives Israel has”
            As I already said. Behave like US UK or Australian government.

            Google: “West Bank sceptical over Israeli elections”
            “The nearest ballot box will be open right next door, in the Jewish settlement of Beit El. But here in Ramallah, Palestinians – who cannot vote in the polls – do not think a new Israeli government will change much in their lives.”

            Do you want to rephrase your answer about apartheid?

          • Anton

            Those governments don’t face an internal terrorist threat.

            I regard my previous answer as sufficient.

            Do you live in Ramallah?

          • Jon Sorensen

            “Those governments don’t face an internal terrorist threat.”
            Yes Australia does. You could read the news of course.

            “Do you live in Ramallah?”
            My neighbour human lives there.

          • Anton

            You wrote “Here in Ramallah.” Please do not mislead.

            Is the Australian terror threat from the same belief system as the terror threat in Israel?

          • Jon Sorensen

            “You wrote “Here in Ramallah.” Please do not mislead.”
            Oh. I quoted the article and put “” around it. Sorry I was not clear.
            http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2015/03/west-bank-sceptical-israeli-elections-150315055752174.html

            “Is the Australian terror threat from the same belief system as the terror threat in Israel?”
            Yes it is, and similar methods would probably work.

          • Jon Sorensen

            … addendum

            According to land owners their God gave it to them. Don’t you see how bad the God proxy war is? Religious logic in action.

            “Some of these demolition orders are on animal pens etc, some are of makeshift structures erected very recently,”
            So in your moral system is ok to destroy someone elses property. I would not want to live near you as I might not belong to your religious in-group.

            “some are of the homes of proven terrorists”
            So how about we punish the terrorist not the innocent wife, kids and grandma. I thought Bible advocated that we should only be punished for our own action. I would not want to live near you as my son might commit some crime and you would come after my wife and daughter. Would I even be allowed to protect my property if your in-group comes to destroy my family house?

            “not all have been enacted and it is not clear that they are more than a political threat”
            Well if only half are been enacted on, it must be ok then. Would you also support the destruction of family houses of conflicted killers in the UK? Or is it just Arabs you want to be targeted?

            Such is Christian love…

          • Anton

            You are conflating the political and the individual. Christians are to show love to all persons whom they encounter. however there is also the question of what policy nations – our own, or Israel, or the Arab peoples, or any other – should adopt towards each other and to violent minorities. That is pursued at the level of laws and penalties. You might as well argue that I should not have shot at SS men in combat during World War 2 because it wasn’t showing them love.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “You are conflating the political and the individual”
            Yes I am. Because the teenage Arab boy whose home just go bulldozed and is now living in refugee camp hating Israel [and West] and all it stands for. He doesn’t care if it is “political” or “individual”, and guess where he will end up with his hate? We need to stop this circle of violence.

            The SS men were soldiers in the war. They were not like the 4-kid families running a bakery in West Bank trying to get their kids to stay at School.

            You need to develop a consistent approach. Not the schizophrenic one where you “show love to all persons whom they encounter” and advocate violence against people far away in the name of “question of what policy”. Treat them if they were your neighbour, with the same love and respect. Don’t discriminate because their friends, ancestors, beliefs or ideas. These teenage Arabs are the key to the long term solution in the Middle East. Treat them as your brothers.

          • Anton

            I don’t *need* to do anything you *want* me to! Conflating the individual and the political is a cheap trick and you are still at it. The SS men had children too.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “I don’t *need* to do anything you *want* me to!”
            I was just trying to point out the inconsistency in your approach.

            “Conflating the individual and the political is a cheap trick and you are still at it”
            What does this matter to these Arab teenagers?

            “The SS men had children too”
            Yes. And you were not talking about bulldozing their family homes while a soldier is away.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “The difference is that people who self-identify as Jews have an unbroken continuity of culture from then till now. That is not the case for any other people group that has been dispossessed”
            This has nothing to do with land right of some Palestinian farmer.

            In Australia indigenous people have an unbroken continuity of culture far longer than Jew, and they were dispossessed shorter time. Why would Jewish claim get stronger over time not weaker?

          • Anton

            The Aborigines of Australia never viewed themselves as a single race until very recently indeed.

            Don’t confuse the issue of political control over land with the issue of who has the right to inhabit specific plots of it.

          • Jon Sorensen

            So why would Jewish claim get stronger over time not weaker?

            So what has Jews’ unbroken continuity of culture have anything to do with land right of some Palestinian farmer?

          • Anton

            Put your two questions together! Unbroken continuity means that the Jewish desire to return to THEIR land has never faded. It became stronger because of persecution. The Jews do not aim to dispossess peaceable Arabs of specific plots of land that those Arabs can prove is theirs; rather, they seek political control.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “Unbroken continuity means that the Jewish desire to return to THEIR land has never faded.”
            So what? How does this give them ownership of anything?

            “It became stronger because of persecution.”
            No. You just made this up. There is no such law or principle.

            “The Jews do not aim to dispossess peaceable Arabs of specific plots of land that those Arabs can prove is theirs;”
            No true. Just Google “13,000 Palestinian buildings to be demolished in West Bank – UN report”
            “Official data released by the Israeli authorities indicate that over 11,000 demolition orders – affecting an estimated 13,000 Palestinian-owned structures, including homes – are currently ‘outstanding’ in Area C of the West Bank,””

            Note1: West Bank is not part of Israel.
            Note2: Anton is not up to speed on this issue

          • Anton

            You say I made it up that persecution strengthened the desire of the Jews to return to their ancient land? How then do you explain that the 1946 Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry (which aimed to coordinate UK and US policy on the Middle East and published its findings) found an overwhelmingly strong wish of European Jews who had survived the Holocaust to have the freedom to migrate there?

            And you say that *I* am not up to speed on this issue!

            “West Bank is not part of Israel.”

            Please explain how you reach that conclusion.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “overwhelmingly strong wish of European Jews who had survived the Holocaust to have the freedom to migrate there”
            I agree there is overwhelmingly strong wish. So why has this anything to do with land right of some Palestinian farmer

            “Please explain how you reach that conclusion [that West Bank is not part of Israel]”
            I checked the map of Israel. And oh.. It’s not part of Israel. I also noticed that Egypt is not part of Israel.

          • Anton

            I’ve answered your first question elsewhere on this thread. As for the map… depends who makes the map – those produced in Tel Aviv and in Ramallah tell different stories. Why do you accept the one you do?

          • Jon Sorensen

            “Why do you accept the one you do?”
            A map produced by organisation with less military power is probably more reliable.

            As a general rule disputed territories captured my military power are excluded from neutral point of view maps.

            I guess you are ok for Russia capturing part of Ukraine as Russians now produce maps that include parts of Ukraine. oh.. my

          • Anton

            Guess what you like.

      • Albert

        No. I think you are missing the stuff leading up to the 1930.

        • Anton

          I stand by those facts but if you think I am missing something then please say what; I am glad to learn more about this subject.

          • Albert

            This is what I read:

            A History of Saudi Arabia by Madawi al-Rasheed

            It was pretty clear that everything turned on the policy of the British Government.

          • Anton

            Yes – Britain honoured its commitment to let the Arabian peninsula be run by its Arab inhabitants post-WW1. Please be clear what you think is important that I have not said.

          • Albert

            Yes, but which Arab inhabitants? If you don’t mind, I’m not going to arguing this one. It was quite complicated, and I don’t want to go back to the book. But reading the whole sweep of the history of the origins of the modern Saudi state, it is clear that the British influence was decisive.

          • Anton

            I’m not arguing! I’m seeking information because I don’t yet know what you mean.

          • Albert

            Sorry, I didn’t mean that you were arguing! I just meant I am not going to defend this one. It’s not a position I can defend without going back into the book, and I don’t really want to do that now. But my recollection was that British influence permeated it all.

        • Merchantman

          The point being, If we let the Arabs run the Arabian peninsular, surely we should be free to close down their UK mosques and run our own country the way we see fit? They being rational beings would surley understand this.

          • Albert

            If that’s meant to be a summary of my position, then it’s wrong. What I am saying is that the Saudi Royal House is only 5 minutes old and rests on foreign power (as well as British foundation, US support). It’s hard to see how it can claim such a mythical status (unless one takes into the herculean fecundity of the first king!).

        • dannybhoy

          Albert,
          what we need to focus on is that Islam now is the same Islam that swept all before it, and very nearly by force of arms, took Europe.
          What has changed since those times to make the West believe Islam is no longer a cruel and repressive religion?
          The mediaeval Church was challenged in its authority and forced to adapt. As a result progress was made in the sciences and the arts and life has improved immensely for the many. Islam has yet to be seriously challenged by Muslims thinking outside of the box.

          • Albert

            What has changed is that the West has become unimaginably powerful, while the Islamic world has struggled. In many ways, it is the rage that stems from this permanent sense of inferiority that drives people to Islamism.

          • dannybhoy

            Drives some Muslim people to extremism. And Western power is very much on the decline now as Western thinkers and leaders have lost faith in the values which shaped our civilisation, and so the foundations crumble away..
            It is part of the cycle of supremacy and eventual dissolution.

          • Albert

            Certainly, Western power is in decline because it has lost faith in the faith on which the West is built: Christianity. The rise of Islam is a consequence of the rise of secularism (which is necessarily the same as the decline of secularism).

          • Inspector General

            Bullshit, that man. The average muslim cannot see beyond his imam…

          • Albert

            He doesn’t need to. He knows he is poor and that his prospects are poor. He has a mythical sense that the West has done it to him. He knows the West is corrupt and yet more powerful. He knows the Mujahideen overthrew the Soviet Union. He doesn’t even need to see as far as his Imam.

          • Inspector General

            Those ignorant sand dwellers take their orders from the mosque, and without question. To wit, it is swallowed whole. Don’t you forget that.

  • steroflex

    Until very recently I had close family living in Saudi. A lot of their blow-hard talk is just hot air. I could give examples.
    Remember Hobbes. The life of man in his natural state is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Governments are set up to bring peace and safety. President Obama has treated the Middle East as if it were Wyoming.
    Mrs Merkel would like you to discuss the results. Some at least of her refugees come from Syria.
    King Abdul Aziz, by the way, who set up the Saudi monarchy, was one of the most progressive monarchs – or rulers – of the twentieth century. I include Adolf Hitler and Joe Stalin in this. Without mass extermination he unified his country, introduced road transport, saw the potential of oil wealth, and set up a stable monarchy which is still going (propped up by USA) today.

  • David

    Such a loving faith, and so reasonable as well.
    Yet our “elites”, including Welby it appears, wants to import more of them.
    Nowadays to deploy any logic, reason or thinking based on the evidence and ones carefully, studiously acquired understanding of the faiths involved, their theologies and their histories, is to risk making oneself truly confused, by the actions of ones “betters”.
    Sometimes I half envy the ignorant, the misinformed and those who strive not to gain wisdom by looking around oneself, back into history and then, tentatively, by extrapolation, forward into time ever so slightly. Given the trajectory of western society, so obviously downwards culturally, has knowledge become a burden ?

  • Royinsouthwest

    David Cameron would far rather criticise Polish politicians for not supporting “gay rights” than say a word about the Saudi barbarians. When Cameron is feeling brave he might even criticise Putin for the lack of human rights in Russia.

    How on earth can the British prime minister expect anybody anywhere to take him seriously on the subject of human rights when he ignores the crimes of such vile regimes as that in Saudi Arabia?

    • john in cheshire

      Our governments have a history of kissing saudi ass: the death of a Princess is still in my memory. Our government hardly said anything about that murder and they’ll no doubt hardly say anything about this one.

      • Dreadnaught

        And Corbyn as the alternative? Gimme Lord Snooty anytime.

  • Shadrach Fire

    The Heir to the throne married a british aristocratic young lady last year.
    Our PM David Cameron has I am sure met with the Saudi Royal family.
    He also pronounced that Islam is a religion of peace.
    Need one say more? We are captives of commerce. Where is integrity?

    • No, we’re not captives of commerce but greed and moral consequentialism. Our market economies need oil or our standard of living will suffer; we ask what’s least evil, a few deaths or an economic crisis, rather that breaking relations with evil altogether. The West is complicit in these murders.

  • chiefofsinners

    I ‘m trying to put this article together with yesterday’s in my mind. Logically, I think they lead to this:
    If an Englishman crucified a Saudi citizen he would be given a lenient sentence by an English judge, because crucifixion is common in Saudi culture, and is a punishment for minor crimes like political dissent. But if an Englishman crucified another Englishman, that would be heinous and deserve at least 5 years, with 50% remission for good behaviour.

    • David

      Justice like culture is now relativist, that’s the message.
      On Farm UK some animals are now more equal than others.
      Bottom of the heap are white men.
      So by meting out unequal punishments, for similar crimes, our “justice” system simply doesn’t read as a provider of justice any more – all part of the Blair legacy.
      Lucky boy ! You have much to be grateful for.

      • grutchyngfysch

        Yes, white men are pretty much low down the taxonomy of nutty liberalism (even, and dare I say especially, if they belong to that group themselves). But it’s hardly fair to say that reflects the reality or the aggregate of white men’s experiences in the UK. Fact is, I have witnessed more outright racism walking with one black-skinned friend through a city centre than I have personally experienced prejudice against me for my race or gender in my life. Unless you routinely experience people shouting “Whitey” at you while you walk down the street, or loudly complain about the “beery smell” when they walk past you, or find that if you submit the same CV but change your name to Shaka you get more replies than the zero you get when you use “David”. In which case, apologies.

        A sense of proportion is the surest weapon to levy against nutty liberals. I get the resentment, but keep your head.

        • David

          I am well aware that racism is alive and well amongst all races and countries. In French speaking Africa they shout “Le Blanc” at any white man from across the street, and it’s not a friendly greeting either. It is the same in most of Asia too. The most virulently racist are Arabs, who of course ran the slave trade centuries before and after us.
          But the liberal-left perpetuate the lie that racism is just something white people do against other races, and then try to make us feel guilty about it.

          • grutchyngfysch

            Wouldn’t dispute any of that – I’ve long been a critic of, for instance, the way in which China promotes ethnocentric policies which advance and give preference to Han Chinese people. I just think we can keep a sense of proportion: you and I, living in the West, are far less likely to experience genuinely detrimental racism than people of other races.

          • Anton

            “I’ve long been a critic of, for instance, the way in which China promotes ethnocentric policies which advance and give preference to Han Chinese people.”

            But isn’t that what China is for? And aren’t we in a multicultural mess because our politicians have lost sight of such basics?

          • grutchyngfysch

            Broadly speaking, it would be a bit like the EU giving preference to the French in everything.

          • Anton

            Plus ca change?

            Does China actually have racist government policies or is it just street racism? I do know that the 1-child/family regulation was specific to the Han. The Muslim Uighurs and other minorities were let off.

          • grutchyngfysch

            Depends on how you define racist government policies – since I’ve seen terms like that bandied around in all manner of circumstances. There is certainly substantial preferment for people of Han ethnicity in party life – although officially China opposes ethnocentrism.

  • Inspector General

    Just tell the Saudis that if they crucify the lad, we won’t buy their oil. Oh yes, a UN embargo on their other exports and imports…

    • And, for good measure, sequestrate their assets and the assets of any Saudi citizen in Britain.

      • Inspector General

        Summons of the Saudi ambassador to Whitehall is also a requisite…

      • Pubcrawler

        And close every Saudi-funded mosque.

        (Actually, just do that anyway.)

        • Ivan M

          This would do more to prevent radicalization than a thousand drone killings. In the 80s while I was in India, I noticed a phenomenon among the Muslims who worked as migrant labour in the Gulf. One could always tell if a returnee was from Saudi Arabia. He would be the guy who put his wife in the purdah and become ever so precious about halal food and the blasted associated rituals.

    • sarky

      I’ve always thought that the ‘climate change’ scares were a way of weaning the public off a reliance on oil. Interesting that this government has taken a step back on this aswell.

  • IanCad

    I wouldn’t have heard of this barbarism but by this blog.
    Thank you YG.
    So few comments. Sport rules all.

  • len

    Islam offers no redemption, no re birth, no salvation , no grace , no love , no saviour only barbaric cruelty and the false hope of entering paradise through committing murder in the name of the Islamic god.
    One must be born into Islam (surely no one would enter such a hate filled religion voluntarily?) and there is no way out without the threat of death constantly hanging around ones neck.

    Islam is a political system which controls through fear and manipulation and the West`s politically Correct agenda actually aids the spread of Islam and denigrates Christianity which is the foundation of morality and Law and order. True Christianity preaches the love of Christ and redemption through acceptance of Christ`s atonement at Calvary which is the true Gospel and the only hope this World has.

    • Anton

      Islam is gaining converts from the spiritual vacuum of secular humanism. Which is worse??

      • Jon Sorensen

        Secular humanism is worse. It scares Christians more.

        • Anton

          Real Christians, like real Muslims, don’t mind dying for their faith – only we do it with love, not hate. Secular humanists don’t believe in any life after death.

          • IanCad

            We’re meant to do it with love. However, fidelity to our beliefs does not guarantee that thoughts of rage and revenge will not be present in those who do pay the supreme price.

    • Jon Sorensen

      Religion is not about what it offers. It is about the truth. “We all are born with a natural belief in Allah” according to the Prophet (PBUH).

      • dannybhoy

        Religion is not about what it offers. It is about the truth.”

        The truth according to….?
        We Christians believe our faith is true, but it must be apprehended by humility and faith. Our God does not force us to believe, He respects the gift of free will He endowed us with. God is love, God is holy, God forgives the repentant and offers us eternal life through the sacrifice of His Son the Lord Jesus Christ, and the enabling of the Holy Spirit. Three in One and One in Three.

        • Jon Sorensen

          “The truth according to….?”
          Exactly! You offer one of the many modern versions of your faith. The one where faith is the evidence.

          • dannybhoy

            Run by that past me again…..

          • Merchantman

            Mo had no witness that what he allegedly heard was the Truth. Jesus said he was the Truth. The evidence shows me islam is a corruption of the True Word, the Word being Jesus Christ. The Gospels contain all you need to apprehend the Truth and eternal life.

          • Jon Sorensen

            That is your Christian “truth”.

            Why is Paul’s witness any better than Mo’s. Just because someone allegedly claims truth does it make so, as we have seen so many religious heros claiming it.

          • Merchantman

            Jesus is alive today as witnessed by the Holy Spirit the spirit of truth. If you read The Words of John’s Gospel you will see Jesus foretold his own death and the coming of the Holy Spirit being poured out in response to peoples longing to experience the possibility of drawing to and absolute closeness with God. Before Jesus there was a separation between Men and God which could not be satisfactorily bridged . Jesus led a blameless and perfect life and was worthy, to bind up the broken hearted, heal the sick, raise the dead and forgive men their sins and finally himself to be crucified and be raised from the dead on the third day. We read he had been foretold in the earlier writings in the Bible.
            The choice for us is written very plainly in Luke’s gospel when there were the two thieves crucified next to Jesus at Calvary. The first thief mocked Jesus, saying ‘if you be Christ save yourself and us.’ The other answered the first saying ‘Don’t you fear God seeing you are about to face the same fate? For us its justice, for we are getting our just sentence, whereas this man has done nothing wrong. And he calling Jesus, Lord, asked Jesus to remember him in his kingdom (of heaven). Whereupon Jesus said to him, “Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise”.
            I hope you will be able to read the New Testament including the letters to the early church and see for yourself what was written and how it is the spirit of Truth that bears witness to Jesus.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “If you read The Words of John’s Gospel you will see Jesus foretold his own death and the coming of the Holy Spirit being”
            It would be more impressive if John had not written that 100 years after the events. It so easy to make up sayings and prophesies after the event. You should read the book of Mormon, it has really impressive prophecies.

            “[Jesus was] raised from the dead on the third day”
            hmmm… I’m my Bible it says that he died on Friday afternoon and was resurrected early Sunday morning. That is not three days (like Johan?). How is it in your Bible?

            “Jesus said to him, “Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise”
            So Jesus died Friday evening. He was still alive after that around (6PM modern time) on Friday in paradise. Then was he dead again and raised from the dead on Sunday morning? How was he dead and alive in paradise at the same time?

            “I hope you will be able to read the New Testament including the letters to the early church and see for yourself”
            I have read the Bible and early letters including Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr.. even Didache and non-Canonical Gospels. What strikes me is how different modern Christianity is from the early Christianity. Your beliefs are so different.

          • Pubcrawler

            “That is not three days”

            Yes, it is. The ancients counted inclusively and reckoned days from sunset to sunset.

            Day 1 = Friday (death c. 3.00 p.m.) until sunset.

            Day 2 = Sabbath (from sunset Friday to sunset).

            Day 3 = Sunday (from sunset Saturday)

          • Jon Sorensen

            No. 3 hours is not a day. And no from “from sunset Saturday; Resurrection sometime before dawn” is not a day.

            Remember
            “Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so
            the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the
            earth.”
            Jesus was not dead for three night.

            And how was he alive in paradise while he was dead?

          • Pubcrawler

            “3 hours is not a day”

            It is in the Jewish reckoning: “a part of a day is as the whole”. In the cultural context in which the accounts were written, there is nothing problematic here.

            “how was he alive in paradise while he was dead?”

            Sorry, I don’t mean to be rude, but that is such a dumb question it doesn’t really merit reply. But I’ll indulge you: the body dies, the spirit post mortem resides in paradise.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “a part of a day is as the whole”.
            No. You just made it up.

            Remember:
            “Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so
            the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the
            earth.” That was the prophecy of Son of Man.

            Jesus was not three nights in the heart of the earth.

            “the body dies, the spirit post mortem resides in paradise.”

            So Jesus spiritually resurrected immediately on Friday and bodily resurrected on Sunday morning. So Jesus had two resurrections? Where does Bible say this?

          • dannybhoy
          • Jon Sorensen

            This is the best response I’ve seen for a long time. I’ll save it!

            So there were two Sabbaths/Saturdays between Friday Jesus died and Sunday morning. That belief is so great!

            And what about Jesus being in Paradise while being dead? What is your view?

          • dannybhoy

            This is what I was taught as a young Christian and still accept..
            1 Peter 3>
            18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us[e] to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited[f] in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.”
            Here’s a link that explains it further..
            http://www.gotquestions.org/where-was-Jesus.html

            But to be frank it doesn’t bother me and never has. There are a number of things in the Bible that don’t bother me, I just accept them.
            That’s because for me I believe in the nature of God as revealed in the Scriptures. He is holy, just and compassionate, forgiving those who repent and giving them a new life and purpose in this world and eternal life in His presence in the next.
            But even then I don’t really worry about life after death, because for me following the Lord Jesus, serving the Lord Jesus, prayer and answers to prayer, and above all the wonder that He died for me on the Cross is enough.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “This is what I was taught as a young Christian and still accept..”
            This is the magic of religion. It cement our cognitive bias and resists critical thinking to accept ideas repeatedly drummed in our heads.

            “But to be frank it doesn’t bother me and never has. There are a number of things in the Bible that don’t bother me, I just accept them.”
            This is the magic of faith. My Muslim friends are not bothered about the beginning of Surah 9. They just accept it. Anything can be overwritten by faith as faith is the evidence. It is not evidence based. Critical thinking is only used to justify our own bias.

            This is so cool. So while Jesus was dead he was alive and went to Paradise on Friday and to Hades; a temporary place where they await the resurrection. Then he returned to earth on Sunday morning to become alive again in a body that go through walls I assume. And this you believe because is written down in a 2000 year old book.

          • dannybhoy

            Do I sense mockery in your comment?
            I never said our Lord went to Paradise! I gave you what I accept as being reasonable and true.
            The thing is this, in the light of the New Testament teachings as recounted from Jesus and from the Apostles, what kind of people are we encouraged to be?
            I’m not talking about what the Church has done in the past. Those folk will be answerable to Him who looks at the heart’s motives. I’m talking about those people who can read the Scriptures for themselves in an up to date translation, and those people who have accepted God’s gift of salvation, and committed themselves to Him.
            What kind of people are they called to be?
            I’m assuming you have read the New Testament, so give it your best shot. Preferably without all the snide and mocking asides, because frankly, it’s becoming a bore.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “I never said our Lord went to Paradise!”
            I know. The Bible said it. Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise”

            But we can do a lot better than New Testament teachings and ethics. And we have done in many fields. People are more equal, more rights, healthier, better able to look after poor and minorities.

          • dannybhoy

            You didn’t answer my question about what kind of people we Christians are called to be. Read for example 1st Corinthians chapters 12 and 13..

            And anyway re the thief, perhaps he did indeed go with Christ to Paradise and then 1st Peter 3:19 occurred? Who knows??
            It just isn’t important Jon.
            As St Paul says..
            “Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “You didn’t answer my question about what kind of people we Christians are called to be.”
            I’m not sure. Christians give me so many answers including “Christ like” who set the things to the most people will be tortured forever I’ve been told. I think we can do better than that.

            “It just isn’t important Jon.”
            To me it is. Truth is important. If something is inconsistent probably it is not true.

          • dannybhoy

            “I’m not sure. ”
            That’s a cop out! You know what a Christian should be like because the Scriptures describe Christian character.
            Never mind what Christians say.. read the manual!
            That’s what I base my Christian life on, the source book.

            And yes of course truth is important, but there are some things we cannot know this side of eternity. A Christian examines the evidence according to his or her intellectual ability and education, and if they are satisfied there are enough grounds to believe they then make that step of faith and live by faith.

          • Jon Sorensen

            I’ve read the manual – the ESV version. I also read the Book of Mormon and parts of Quran. They also give different answers to this question.
            The problem is that the answer was not in ESV. I can’t find Christians to agree on any moral or practical question; abortion, war, military service, helping refugees, food selection, capital punishment, legal system, government… The Bible is very unclear how Christians should be like.

          • dannybhoy

            “The Bible is very unclear how Christians should be like.”

            I can’t accept that for one minute. The New Testament is quite clear how we are to be.

            Perhaps what you are mixing up is the ideal of Christianity and the practice thereof. As regards differences on moral social issues, where the Bible is clear there can be no confusion. Eg 1st Corinthians 6>>

            “9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[b] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practise homosexuality,[c] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
            What’s difficult to understand about that?

          • Jon Sorensen

            “I can’t accept that for one minute [that the The Bible is very unclear]”
            So how do you explain that Bible studied Christians can to agree on *any* major moral issue like I listed above.

            “Perhaps what you are mixing up is the ideal of Christianity and the practice thereof.”
            Christians do not even agree what is “the ideal of Christianity” or character of Jesus. How do you explain that?

            “Do not be deceived” but God himself asked to deceive on some cases. Don’t steal, but can you to save someone life? 1st Corinthians 6 and the rest of the Bible is incoherent. And the way you avoid my question shows that there is no clear answers.

          • dannybhoy

            ” I can’t find Christians
            to agree on any moral or practical question; abortion, war, military
            service, helping refugees, food selection, capital punishment, legal system, government… The Bible is very unclear how Christians should be like.”
            There are no perfect people Jon. But every major religion with a holy book or scriptures will describe what is required of its adherents. In the case of Islam it will be the seven pillars, for Jews it will include circumcision, the dietary laws, the high holidays, studying Torah and so on.
            Don’t know about Sikhism or Hinduism’s core beliefs.

            For Christians the emphasis is more on the moral virtues rather than the symbolism. The inner man or woman rather than the outward conformity to religious symbolism.
            Christian character is about loving God and loving your neighbour as yourself particularly but not exclusively, other Christians. The New Testament is choc a bloc with passages relating to Christian conduct.

            Now as regards your disagreements on
            “abortion, war, military
            service, helping refugees, food selection, capital punishment, legal
            system, government..”
            I accept your point, but if we are to live in a free society then we have to accept that people will have their own opinions as to the big issues of society.
            I don’t know about you Jon, but I would hate to live in a society where conformity of thought and action in some way verifies the authenticity of a faith.
            Where people are unable to express themselves differently in case they are labelled heretics or blasphemers.
            So whilst Christians may have different views on those things you mention, they will probably seek to justify their views from the Christian scriptures; knowing too that one day they will give an account of what they did in this life to God.
            So two Christians may argue over government policies, but they will be able to explain from the Bible what their opinion is based on.
            Even more importantly they will not seek to physically harm each other or stop speaking to each other because they disagree.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “I accept your point”
            They you must understand that Bible is not clear if Christian Scholar can’t agree on any of the big questions.

            “loving your neighbour as yourself particularly but not exclusively, other Christians.”
            You are re-interpreting the original content.

            “I would hate to live in a society where conformity of thought and action in some way verifies the authenticity of a faith.”
            Isn’t that what Christian heaven is?

            “So two Christians may argue over government policies, but they will be able to explain from the Bible what their opinion is based on.”
            Exactly! The Bible is not clear on issues.

            “Even more importantly they will not seek to physically harm each other or stop speaking to each other because they disagree.”
            This is simply not true if just look at the newspapers and the history.

          • dannybhoy

            Oh yes, re the resurrection, I have often wondered about hat kind of body Jesus had afterwards. Obviously the atoms must have been rearranged somehow. Interesting to speculate that when He appeared to Mary John 20:17 and told her not to touch Him because He had not yet ascended to His Father…
            Perhaps it had something to do with the transformation of His body…?
            Pure speculation on my part of course, but very interesting.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Many people transform when big things happen in their lives. I know people who left Christianity to become a better person, improved their attitudes and habits, and got the deep peace and joy that came after getting rid of the fear of hell. Some I’ve helped a little bit to recover from religion and to start a new life after being shunned by their family and ex-friends. I know couple people who are afraid to come out as non-Christian and that experience is also changing them a lot.

      • Right-o. Which according to your prophet (and ISIS) means that every non-Muslim becomes a heretic ripe for forced conversion or slavery.

        • Jon Sorensen

          ISIS acts pretty much like biblical hero Moses to get their promised land. Bible clearly outlines the slavery laws for Jews and non-Jews and records how God commanded genocides of people and animals of neighbouring tribes while keeping virgins a bounty.

          ISIS Muslims take their holy book seriously as a unchanging word of God. I don’t see the big difference between Quran and the Bible…

          • Right-o. And Hitler brought environmental legislation and gun control, therefore there is no difference between Nazi Germany and Canada.

          • Jon Sorensen

            You talked about “Heretic”, “forced conversion” and “slavery”. I don’t know why you bring environmental legislation and gun control red herring. As if that has anything to with the top. Worst reply so far.

          • Don’t worry about it. My apologies for over-stimulating your systems and frying your wires.

          • Jon Sorensen

            No problem. It’s no effort to spot bad logic and I’m used Christians insults when they run out of argument

          • dannybhoy

            As opposed to your continuous insults towards Christians??

          • Jon Sorensen

            Sorry if critique is seen as insults. If I ever committed ad hominen I apologise. And please call it out if I ever fall in that fallacy.

          • Hi Jon

            Of course you are not unable to see the difference between ISIS and Judaism , but make out that’s the case because you see all religion as wicked /evil/man made and therefore not worth bothering with.

            To me the same side of the coin when religious believers equate all atheism or atheists with Stalinist Russia/pol pot etc . Clearly the mainstream secular/ humanist / liberals/ atheists get upset with the comparison and so should religious believers when you make comparisons like the one above.

            Why not at least use the brain cells to accept not all religion or religious believers are in a par with the nutters, the murderers, the crazies and the madmen?

            I can accept that of atheists/secularists/humanists/liberal atheists (not that I’d be deliberately lumping all these groups into a homogenous blob, like you’re doing with religion ).

          • Jon Sorensen

            Hi Hannah, thanks for your reply

            You said: “Of course you are not unable to see the difference between ISIS and Judaism”
            You clearly did not read what I wrote. I did not mention Judaism (modern or the one of Moses). I pointed out that “ISIS acts pretty much like biblical hero Moses to get their promised land”.
            I would appreciate if you comment that; what are the similarities and what are the differences if any.

            “so should religious believers when you make comparisons like the one above”
            It’s not about liking or not liking. It’s about the truth. Can you please answer:
            Does both Quran and Bible set rules for slavery; who and how you can acquire?
            Does both Quran and Bible set rules for heretics/non-believer; how they should be punished?
            If you can’t even answer those to yourself you are not see and understanding the issue.

            Note that I’m not talking about the followers of these religions but the religion and the holy books.

            I do accept that not all religion or religious believers are in a par with the nutters, the murderers, the crazies and the madmen. Most of them are wonderful people and pillars of our communities.

          • Hi Jon

            Are you the same Jon from the other blog?

            The point perhaps isn’t about truth , but the authority of that truth?

            As for your questions, I can only give you my understanding based on my faith-

            A). Slavery .As far Judaism is concerned , the word for Slave in Hebrew is eved, which means servant, not slave or can be taken either or , but it’s from the verb la’avöd (“to work”). The Hebrew Bible and Talmud does regulate this “slavery” heavily and places restrictions on it : one could volunteer to be a slave to pay off a debt, after 7 years you were automatically free or could buy yourself out of slavery or marry yourself out of slavery… you could own and inherit money /property in your own right as a slave. You could even choose to continue to be a slave if you wanted to.God was angry when the Jewish people didn’t abide by these rules and tried to fiddle the system by releasing and then enslaving again, Jeremiah 34:8–17.
            .
            Maimonides, the Rambam , said :” the ways of ethics and prudence are that the master should be just and merciful, not make the yoke too heavy on his slave, and not press him too hard; and that he should give him of all food and drink. And thus the early sages used to do – they gave their slaves of everything they ate and drank themselves, and had food served to their slaves even before partaking of it themselves… Slaves may not be maltreated or offended – the law destined them for service, not for humiliation”.

            I cannot see ,however,a surge among Jews in Israel to bring back this form of slavery. I’ve not met a Christian who argues they want slavery back. ISIS do , though.

            B) The non believer : most Jews will tell you that the righteous of all nations will have a share in the world to come , without conversion to Judaism. There are 7 laws for non Jews to follow, but are interpreted with leniency (such as the one about idolatry , in which Jews accept Christianity and in Sephardic circles even Hinduism as being non idolatrous for their followers).

            C) Heretics, apostates etc.

            Lots of literature on this, but I would suggest the only punishment is social stigma and not really being able to be a part of the community anymore, e.g. messianic Judaism being a,form if Christianity , is heresy to Jews, but they tend to join messianic congregations rather than go to Jewish ones, so cut themselves off and or bore people with Christianity over Shabbat meals, like an overzealous second hand car salesman .

            I think the last bet din who tried someone for heresy (under pressure one might add from Calvinists) was Baruch Spinoza in 1600 something or other. People from reform Judaism have said worse than that him in the past 100 years !

            But then that’s the thing. Judaism is a decentralised faith, albeit the practise is often agreed upon , the reasons and even application are not*, so one tends to find if a particular movement becomes divided it will spilt on these ideological fault lines and that’s about it. Hence reform, orthodox, liberal , reconstruction, conservative, Hasidic, rational , charedi, modern orthodox, open orthodox, and then there’s the differences of Ashkenazi and Sephardic customs, traditions , worldview and outlook.

            The times I’ve been called a religious fanatic, talisman user, mystical idiot, a wicked apostate, a wicked apostate, heretic and a fool, a non true Torah Jew,a heretical, liberal homosexual Jew or a arch ultra orthodox and extreme right wing Zionist bigot :LOL ,it’s all part of polemical Jewish stuff.

            *e.g Torah says Jews should put a mezuzah on our homes . But Sephardi and Ashkenazi have different ways of placing this , e.g. horizontal , vertical or slanting , then some say we do this to protect the house (physically, spiritually or both), others say we should do because that’s what we’re told, others will say it’s a custom like Christmas trees are to Christians.

          • Sarah’s thinking

            Hi Channa

            Also Jews were slaves in Egypt and we recall this suffering and those who suffer today in our Passover Seder, with bitter herbs and spices.

            Note that the bedrock thing with Jewish orthodoxy is to believe that at one point in history heaven and earth intersected and the whole Torah,both her oral and written parts, was given by G-d ( Barukh ata Adonai Eloheinu, melekh ha’olam) to all of the Jewish people at har Sinai , via Moses our teacher : the witnesses being not just one prophet or followers , but a nation & that as the Rambam said ” the holy Torah of Moses will neither be abrogated nor superseded, neither supplemented nor abridged” : our sages of blessed memory tell us that in interpreting the Holy Torah different views can be equally correct :”this and these are the words of the living G-d”.

            A midrash says ” Nature was silent and at rest when the Torah was proclaimed on har Sinai. No animal made a sound, no bird flew, the very angels in heaven kept silent and desisted from praises before Almighty G- d. The billows of the sea became calm and at rest, and no creature uttered a sound whilst the words were uttered by the living G-d proclaiming , ‘I am the L-rd thy G-d.’ ” (Exodus Rabba 29).

            I think Jon needs a drink to understand how Jews grasp the divine revelation on one sense, but engage in fierce polemics on the other to appreciate truth.

          • Jon Sorensen

            [removed]

          • Jon Sorensen

            “Are you the same Jon from the other blog?” – not sure which blog you refer to

            Thanks for admitting the slavery rules are in the Bible. Christians and Jews just don’t follow it at the moment.

            You said “after 7 years you were automatically free”
            This applies on to Hebrew males. You paint way too rose picture here.
            “If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years… When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. (Exodus 21 see also Leviticus 25)”

            I think Bible is very clear in Deuteronomy 13:6-10 about stoning to death heretics and non-believers. Christians and Jews just don’t follow it at the moment as you pointed out.

            The point I was making is both Books endorse slavery and punish heretics/non-believer. Most Muslims and Christians don’t follow this at the moment but pretty much all Christians want to keep these really bad laws in their holy book. ISIS would not look much different if they would follow the Bible equally literately as they follow Quran, because the bad laws are in both. Would you agree Moses was a similar warlord as Mohammed?

          • Hi

            Oh Jon was like an agreeable & genial gay atheist , when this site was on blogger whom I was quite fond of in an intellectual sense.

          • Jon Sorensen

            It must have been someone else. Nobody has ever accused me of being agreeable, genial or anything to do with “intellectual”.

          • Oh I’m sure you’ll get a first time on that score. I’d enjoy further discussions , but I’ve been preparing for Yom Kippur.

      • Pubcrawler

        He was a great big fibber.

        • Jon Sorensen

          This is your Christians truth. I’m happy hear your argument why he was “a great big fibber” while other religious leaders were not.

    • dannybhoy

      It is to our shame that this country has allowed the building of mosques and the founding of madrassas funded by Saudi Arabia.
      http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9230671/who-runs-our-mosques/
      Logically, how can a secular state that believes in freedom and democracy have anything to do with accommodating or facilitating the promotion of such a bloodthirsty, repressive and backwards looking regime?

      • Anna

        Muslims try to set up mosques all over the world, mostly funded by gulf money – this is understood to be a key strategy in spreading their faith. The plan is to have minarets rise from prominent positions in every town and village, and the Muslim prayer call heard by the infidels. Attached to the mosque, education and community centres are likely to spring up and the Muslim presence is more firmly established. Muslim women around the globe (as far the Caribbean) who have never been to an Arab country have taken to wearing the Muslim dress and hijab, while men dress up like Osama bin Laden on Fridays. The visible spread of Islam in the last decade has been alarming.

        Their strong commercial presence in Western Europe means that they will never be questioned or judged, either by the media or the political class or practically anyone with influence, who are all beholden to the gulf rulers. Your Duchess of Cornwall, for example, loves wearing jewellery presented by gulf royals – a servile, demeaning act in Arab eyes. London is, of course, the eighth emirate according to its mayor.

        Democracy and human rights are forced upon poorer Muslim countries through war. Western soldiers give their lives in the
        so-called ‘war on terror’, while funds flow to madrassas around the world from the gulf nations to recruit young jihadis. Gulf nations could have funded the expansion of modern scientific education around the Muslim world, as they do in their own lands, but they have chosen to spread a ‘different’ type of education elsewhere.

        If western invasion were justifiable (and I am ambivalent about such interference), certainly the wrong countries were picked. Many wars could have been avoided if the funding was stopped. Now countries like Saudi Arabia are now unlikely to care what the world thinks of them – they have acquired the weapons and will probably not hesitate to use them, if thwarted.

        • dannybhoy

          Islam does not spread across the world through joy, love, compassion or progress. It spreads through fear, violence and intimidation. If it can’t do that it uses money, mosques, “educational foundations,” subterfuge and lies.
          We know that there are Muslims turning to Christ in increasing numbers and they deserve our acceptance and support. But are there new churches springing up in Muslim nations? Are Christians allowed to worship freely and openly?
          Look at what the devout and purists are doing to our fellow Christians, other minority faiths and even their own. Let’s not kid ourselves that Islam is anywhere near being a religion of peace.

          • Anna

            Converts from Islam are unlikely to proclaim their new allegiance, unless they wish to become martyrs as well. As I understand (from a Christian worker who had spent decades in Afghanistan), it is better to disciple them on a one to one basis and let them keep their faith a secret.

          • Merchantman

            In some countries the brave come into Christian churches often in disguise if male and covered if female. Their life is hard and they are usually betrayed by their families.

          • dannybhoy

            Agreed.

        • Ivan M

          Take out foreign funded mosques aa we have now in India, Indonesia and Singapore and you will find that three-quarters or more of the problems are solved. The ruling elites in these countries are not easily impressed by Gulf money unlike say the London bankers. Much of the lifestyles of the mendaciously stupid mullahs and ulemas would be similarly crimped.

    • Kamran Maharramov

      “Islam offers no redemption, no re birth, no salvation , no grace , no love , no saviour only barbaric cruelty and the false hope of entering paradise through committing murder in the name of the Islamic god.One must be born into Islam (surely no one would enter such a hate filled religion voluntarily?) and there is no way out without the threat of death constantly hanging around ones neck.”

      That sounds kind of cool actually. I don’t want redemption and all that gay shit. I want the power to annihilate the universe and become god. Today the white demons have that power. But I will obtain it from them. It is time to update the jihad for the 21st century.

      • Merchantman

        May God have mercy on you.

      • Hahahahaha!

      • Pubcrawler

        Puberty’s such a difficult time, don’t you find?

  • T_Ford

    Muslims are Satan’s slaves and servants.

  • IanCad

    Thanks for making this horror display full-size YG.
    This young, living soul, must be saved from the savages who rule Arabia.
    Why are we so mealy-mouthed? Of course! Cameron and Hammond are working behind the scenes; Don’t you know?

    • IanCad

      Now it’s displaying normally. Much less compelling.

  • len

    To rule by intimidation and fear needs an endless cycle of killing and Islam is certainly doing that.It matters not what crime the victim is accused of it is death and only death that glorifies the Islamic god.
    Jesus Christ came that we might have Life and Life to the full and Jesus went to the Cross that through His death we might gain His Life.
    Allah offers only death uncertainty and confusion , Jesus Christ offers Life His Eternal Life .
    Allah makes slaves, slaves to fear and intimidation.

    Jesus Christ sets people free He said;
    The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me,
    because the Lord has anointed me
    to bring good news to the poor;
    he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
    to proclaim liberty to the captives,
    and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
    to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor,
    (Isaiah 61)

  • How awful & ghastly. And uncannily he reminds me looks wise of my bro Sam.

  • Pubcrawler

    Saudi Arabia now chairing UN Human Rights Council Panel. What a topsy-turvy world we live in…

    • Anna

      Money talks!

  • hdb

    I thought beheading was the normal form of capital punishment in Saudi Arabia. I have never heard of a crucifixion before.

  • James M

    The Nazis were less barbaric than the worshippers of Baphomet are. The only good Islam is a dead Islam.

  • dannybhoy
  • Anna