Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald is amazed at the amazement of the Bishop of Rochester, the Right Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali:
“The Bishop of Rochester, the Right Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, who leads the Church of England’s dialogue with Islam, told The Times: “I’m amazed that the constitution that has been agreed in post-Taleban Afghanistan under the very eyes of the international community should allow this kind of thing to take place — for a person to be arrested for having been converted 14 years ago and to be threatened with execution simply for his beliefs." -- from this article
This statement was not made by Karen Hughes or Karen Armstrong, that is, not by someone completely ignorant of Islam, in the former case innocently (but dangerously), and in the latter case un-innocently and dangerously.
No. This statement was made by the Bishop of Rochester, in charge of the Church of England's "dialogue with Islam." One would have every right to assume that someone who is deeply conversant with Islam, someone who has made a point of studying every detail relevant to his "dialogue" with his Muslim "brothers," would therefore understand its clear teachings on the correct punishment for apostasy.
There are three reasons or justifications for one Muslim killing another (please, don't ask me to list here all the reasons for a Muslim to kill an Infidel -- there isn't space, there isn't time):
1. Adultery (usually, For Women Only)
2. Murder (only of a Muslim, of course)
Let's take #3, shall we? Let's approach the Bishop of Rochester, who is in charge of the Church of England's "dialogue" of the deaf and dumb, and ask him what he thinks has traditionally been the punishment for apostasy -- that is, attempting to leave Islam once you are in it, whether you were born into it or recruited into the Army of Islam by those smiling recruiters who do not tell you everything beforehand.
What would be his answer? What, in all his years of dialoguing, has he been dialoguing about? What do they do, these people, at these god-damn dialogues? The Christian (or Jewish) sides smile and listen as they are told by the Muslim side what a wonderful religion Islam is, how peaceful and tolerant, and how it is incumbent on the others not to believe their lying eyes, but to listen to what true Muslims say, and listen carefully, buster, because the peace and tranquility of your own societies can be upset at a moment's notice if you don't listen up.
He is amazed. The Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali is amazed. And we -- what should we be? We who read of his amazement?
We too should be amazed. We should be amazed because it should be amazing that someone in his position should be amazed at this. He should have a keen understanding of Islam, and should know what the word "Shari'a" means, and should know that if a country has a constitution that says all laws are subject to and cannot contradict the Shari'a, that such a statement has a clear meaning. That meaning may not always and everywhere be enforced -- probably, in this case, given that the Afghanis need the Americans very badly (for all those toys and good things to eat that are being brought from the other side of the Hindu Kush by those Infidels on their choo-choo trains and choo-choo planes), it has not been enforced much lately at all.
But here is the awful thing. Awful, and telling. You, and I, and everyone at this website -- we are not amazed, are we? Ask yourself if you are "amazed" at the "amazement" of the Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali, when he heard that someone who had converted from Islam to Christianity 14 years ago and spent that time helping people, was now to be charged with apostasy and face a possible punishment of death?
No, you were not amazed. Not now. So apparently you know far more about Islam than does the Bishop of Rochester, the man "in charge" of the Church of England's "dialogue" with Islam.
Now, does that "amaze" you?
No. It doesn't.
What amazes you, and what amazes me, and what amazes everyone who has learned something about Islam and has kept his wits about him, is that we find ourselves not amazed at all at the "amazement" of the Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali.
Yes, we are amazed that we are no longer amazed at his amazement.
We are amazed.
But we do watch our language, and therefore must be Victorians. Which is no doubt why we can fittingly add:
We are amazed. But we are not amused.