2 readers online now  |  69 million page views

Sharia Vs British Law

Reader comment on item: Counting Islamists
in response to reader comment: Radicalism and God's words

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Oct 21, 2008 at 15:40

It the continuing efforts to make the philosophical works of the Islamic Prophet equal with the inerrant Word of Almighty God in the Holy Bible, calling the works of the Islamic Revolution's terrorist activities radical in the same breath as calling obedience to the Holy Bible radical is an interesting examination into the mindset of those who support the Islamic Revolution in their efforts to overcome the world.

It is easy to see that confusion still exists today as it did when the Islamic Prophet had his words of unbelief in Yeshua HaMashiach written down. Islam, from that time until now, has always contradicted the Holy Bible and fought against the spread of Christianity. That the Islamic Prophet knew of the quandary of the dissipated religious form of Romanized Christianity and Judaism without allegiance to Yeshua HaMashiach is exquisitely evident in the publications of the Quran in its variant forms (defense of the pure Arabic form notwithstanding) that we hear of today.

Apparently, the greater efforts being made to set aside the true Holy Bible for the alternative persuasion of such things found in the Quran are called for by some because, in the final analysis, they cannot prove their contentions of corruption enough in the WORD of Yeshua HaMashiach, that they must quote the Holy Bible in its truth to try and make their point. Were their contentions sufficient for the contradictions, the Holy Bible would have disappeared long ago; but it has not and will not.

Conversely, shari'a law is necessary for the success of Islam, for without it, the utterances of the Islamic Prophet would fade away for the lack of the force necessary to enforce the provisions of the Quran. It is the only human way to make Islam strong. This apparently provided some form of fascination to Irish born playwright George Bernard Shaw, for as observed in the previous post, he found it compelling in complete contrast to his decidedly faux-Christian upbringing. After all, being Irish, it is surmised he nursed some of the famous Irish antipathies to the British crown and what better way to do it than insert a Islamic influenced counter point to the English law that held/holds sway over the island of Eire. Now that would make Mr. Shaw a radical.

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Sharia Vs British Law by M. Tovey

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List
eXTReMe Tracker

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2020 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)