In “Blair, the Muslim?” in The Guardian (thanks to LGF), Ajmal Masroor wonders why former British Prime Minister Tony Blair converted to Catholicism when he could have backed a much stronger horse: Islam. In the course of making his case, Masroor sounds all the usual Islamic apologetic notes: the Crusades, Christianity’s alleged incompatibility with science, Christianity’s alleged intolerance, etc. And he throws Blair’s pro-Islam statements back at him:
Tony Blair’s conversion to Catholicism does not come as a surprise to anyone but I would have liked him to turn to Islam instead. Blair has claimed on many occasions that he has read the Quran and has said he found its teachings “progressive”. He is right that the Quran is progressive and as a revealed book of God, it is the latest testament. Why would Blair turn to the older versions of God’s testament when there is the Quran? His conversion sounds rather regressive to me.
In an article published by Foreign Affairs early this year, Blair spoke of the Quran as being inclusive. His new Church has been the most exclusive and in the name of its own version of Christianity has murdered and destroyed the lives and properties of many fellow Christians over the years. In his role as a Middle East envoy he would have won the hearts and minds of the Muslim world if he had come to Islam. He might have found redemption for his crimes against Iraq and its innocent people. His conversion to Catholicism would no doubt remind the Muslim world, especially the Arab world of the history of the Crusades. The blood of millions of people still stain the cobblestones of the Holy Land from the cold-blooded murders committed in the name of Christianity and was blessed by the then Papacy in Rome.
According to Blair, Islam “extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition”. I agree, but why has he embraced Catholicism with its history of hostility towards science and is embedded with superstition? If Jesus (may peace be on him) was to descend today and walk into a church he would not recognise anything that Christians are practising in his name. So why then convert to Catholicism?
Blair was very clear in his words when he said Islam “is practical and far ahead of its time in attitudes toward marriage, women, and governance”. If Islam is a religion that values family and respects women why has he converted to a church that prohibits its priests from getting married, whose holy man are dogged by accusations of homosexuality and paedophilia?
Blair certainly admires Islam. He said “under its guidance, the spread of Islam and its dominance over previously Christian or pagan lands were breathtaking. Over centuries, Islam founded an empire and led the world in discovery, art, and culture.” If I admired a faith so much I would convert to it. So I am baffled to know why he has converted to Catholicism and not embraced Islam.
Islam certainly stands for tolerance and demonstrates this by giving a special status to the Christians and Jews calling them people of the Book – Ahl al-Kitab. Christianity does not do the same. Blair reminded us that “the standard-bearers of tolerance in the early Middle Ages were far more likely to be found in Muslim lands than in Christian ones”. Yes, but why has Mr Blair converted to Catholicism? Surely he stands for tolerance, progress and good governance.
And finally I have one last question for Blair. Did you not say “the faith of Islam is very peaceful and a very beautiful faith”? Why have you not tried Islam? I do not want to dismiss your journey to spirituality, but it is not too late to try Islam – you may like it.
Of course, this magnificent vision of a peaceful and tolerant Islam is completely at odds with the actual historical record of jihad warfare against non-Muslims and the oppression of the dhimmis, but the really noteworthy thing is that this bit of Islamic apologetic propaganda appears in The Guardian.
It’s no surprise, really: after all, The Guardian publishes Ali Eteraz, Karen Armstrong, Ed Husain, Inayat Bunglawala, and others. But do you think that The Guardian would publish a piece touting Christianity and criticizing Islam? Do you think that if I wrote a detailed rebuttal to this piece by Ajmal Masroor, that The Guardian would print it?
I think you know the answer to both of those questions. And so here’s another question: why has The Guardian allowed itself to become a mouthpiece for Islamic proselytizing?