The savage murder and mutilation in London by two Muslim men yelling “Allah Akbar” was meant to send a blood-soaked message to England and the world about the treatment of Muslims. The victim was not important to Michael Adebolajo as he paraded before cameras. Yet we owe it to the victim and ourselves not to allow the victim to be an abstraction laying the street. He was a person and his name was Drummer Lee Ridgy, or ‘Riggers” to friends. He was not just a brave soldier but the father of Jack, his two year old son.
Riggers was a member of the proud The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, 2nd Battalion (also known as “Second Fusiliers” or “2 RRF”). He joined the Army in 2006 at the age of 19 and served in Cyprus and later stood guard outside the Royal Palaces. He later served in the prestigious Household Division’s Beating the Retreat – a real honour for a line infantry Corps of Drums. It has been a tradition since it was ordered by James II of England in 1690.
Riggers was deployed in Helmand Province, Afghanistan and later in Germany. He had returned to London, where his posting would allow him to be closer to his son and his beloved Manchester United.
Ironically, while selected at random, Riggers was a true representation of the very best of England’s history and culture. He has left a young boy who will not understand why his father was made such a grotesque symbol by these men in the name of religion. He will eventually learn, I hope, that there was more meaning in his father’s life and his love for his son than the senseless act that took him away from his family.
117 thoughts on “The Victim: Drummer Lee Rigby”
BlueRed, Sir Anthur Randolph Ebb and everyone else interested…this youtube video does a great job enlightening some of the issues discussed.
I am glad you posted that since he admits that there is NO such thing as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion or any other freedoms we hod dear. It must conform to Islamic rules in ALL societies. That is why for example Christian churches are FORBIDDEN in most Muslim countries. They do not allow proselytizing in those countries either. Thus ISLAM is contrary to our values and beliefs in our civilization.
He also FAILS to account for the FACT that Muslims routinely murder women and children and EXULT in such atrocities. To compare drone strikes with suicide bombings is obscene. The Muslim fanatics believe that killing civilians is right. The US tries its best to avoid such things. BIG DIFFERENCE. He fails to say why those suicide bombers are not Islamic to counter the theology of such atrocities. Either they do not know the Koran, or this guy does not. My best guess is that the terrorists know the Koran better than this guy does since they spend more time learning it than he does.
When I see that a cartoonist or a writer can publish without risking their lives if they offend Muslims, THEN, and only then will this crap about Islam being a religion of peace ring true to the rest of us. When I see churches being erected in the home of Islam, THEN I will believe in the tolerance and peace of Islam. Actions speak louder than words. So when the riots over something pubished in another country are surpressed a punished by the Islamic authorities, THEN I will believe in the peaceful intent and content of Islam.
I suggest you listen to what he said about NOT allowing ANY religion to be insulted in Muslim countries. So who decides what is blasphemy and insulting Islam? The religious authorities of course, which means there is NO freedom of speech, religion, or the press except what the religious courts will allow. This reminds me of the Soviet Union which had ALL of those freedoms, but they did not allow hate speech, slander, libel, and if you were too loud, they would send you to the psych ward. In the case of Orly Taizt, I think it might be well justified.
Then he neglects to mention the penalty for aposty in those countries which is DEATH. So please respond to these facts if you still think that Islam as practiced in most Muslim countries is a peaceful, benign religion. In Palestine, we see that the Christians are forced out of their country and now are less than 10% of the population. Hamas does NOT allow other religions to even exist.
I also think you need to read Prof Turley on this subject of freedom of speech and press in those countries. He has been campaigning against the US trying to reach some accomodation for a blasphemy standard with these folks. THAT is WRONG to have ANY blasphemy standard at all and is more than a little unConstitutioinal.
I concede this battle. I even concede the war. Islam is the worst religion ever. It is everything you said it is and more. It is dangerous, it is violent, it evil…etc, etc.. Muslim are seeking to upend every government on the face of the earth. We won’t rest until everyone bows before Allah and is named Mohamad.
You got me.
I don’t call you racist, that is a horrible accusation to lay on someone. We are all ignorant of what we know not. Sometimes we are also misguided, or misinformed, based on where we seek information.
I think it is now a certifiable fact that the US, Britain, and to a lesser extent France, have had a hand in the internal affairs of most countries around the world. Every single situation of upheaval and instability around the world can be traced directly to overt or covert actions by the West, at least for the last 100 years.
Are you really aware of the toll taken on Iraq since we invaded it? In lives, limbs, and economically?
Are you aware of the history of Iran and what it went through at the hands of Russia, Britain and US?
Why is Saudi Arabia, loathed by most Muslims around the world, the powerhouse it is today, holding hostage the most prized possessions of Muslims (the Kaaba, the tombs of the Prophet and his companions, the history of Islam which they are currently destroying and replacing by skyscrappers and mc donalds?)
Why was Mubarak in power in Egypt for these many decades, treating his country as his personal fiefdom?
What about Somalia, Yemen, Bahrain, Palestine…?
And we haven’t even hit Africa yet.
So they don;t hate us for our freedoms, they hate that we curtail theirs by mounting coups against their elected leaders and supporting dictators. We support democracy only when it is our form of democracy, with our chosen people, serving our interests, or those of our corporations. Against the British, we were patriots, and against us, everyone else is a terrorist.
The issue with religious books, Red, and by that I mean the Quran, Bible, Thorah…and the American constitution documents, is that they are fundamentally open for (mis)interpretation. One will find in it whatever they are looking for.
In that light, any extremist, of any faith and any locale, will find within his holy book the justification he needs for his evil actions: that is a fact of religion, and that is becoming more and more a fact of secularism too.
I just watched a documentary called My brother the Jihadist, featuring a white Briton who converted to fundamentalist Islam. I am cringing through watching it, knowing that this guy (the Islamist), and his group, in the name of Islam were doing exactly what was needed to make the religion even more hated.
Many Islamic scholars decry the spread of the internet, not because of the spread of knowledge and freedom, but because of the spread of misinformation. Islam was always transferred/ shared through centers of learning, where the tenets were taught, along with the moral duties and responsibilities of the believer, to himself, and to his society. With globalization however, and the movement of people, more and more muslims lack access to those center of learning. Instead they rely on the internet and one charismatic but misguided “scholar” to inform their faith.
That, on its own, would not have been much of a problem were it not for the fact that the West has been conducting policies of occupation and destabilization of Muslim countries for generations. With the Iraq war (which is unjustifiable no matter what people say), the US support of oppressive monarchies like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, and functional dictatorships like Egypt, Yemen, compounded by the unquestioned support of Israeli occupation of Palestine, along with the droning of Muslims all over the globe, Muslims are justified to feel threatened by the West and its allies, and as such, are allowed and dutybound to speak up against it.
If Christians in the US may think that there is a war against Christianity, in this land where Christianity informs everything, are Muslims wrong to believe in a war against Islam in light of how targeted they are?
Muslims are consistently and relentlessly speaking out against Islamic fundamentalism, as we know it to be a danger to not only you non-Muslims, but to us, Muslims. 5 minutes online would reveal troves of fatwas, speeches, essays, articles, debates, books, challenges, videos …all of which are against fundamentalism.
If we call ourselves followers of the Prophet Muhammad, who was know for his gentleness (Allah praises him in the Quran not for his birth, his lineage or his followers, but for his manners and gentleness), and we aspire to be more like him, how can we not be against fundamentalism?There is no interest however, in the media and in the heart of those who hate Islam, to acknowledge that positive information. So, we certainly have the heart to speak out against fundamentalism, and we consistently do.
And once again, there is no need to modernize Islam. Islam is alive and thriving, and adapting to its environments, whether native or foreign. In Senegal, where I am from, where sunni and sufi Islam thrive (Senegal is 92% muslim) our first president, who ruled for 20 years, was a Catholic. The country has never had a religious war. The constitution is secular, yet this is a country known for its saints and its vibrant Islamic practice. Our women are educated, our sisters marry whom they will, some of our ministers and judges are women, women drive and own businesses, and aren’t forced to wear the veil, and rival men in education levels…This is the same Islam, give and take, you’d find in most Muslim countries. What about that Islam do we need to modernize?
Once again we can indulge in the chicken and egg game for as long as we want, it will not solve any problem. Did Islamist fundamentalism come before western imperialism or is it the other way? I say that I.F. is an overreaction to WI. You stop feeding the beast, you starve it. Most I.F. has for major gripe the killing of Muslims by US and Britain. Well. stop killing them and see what they do. The second issue is to get out of Muslim lands, well get out, and see what they do. Otherwise, one cannot keep doing what one does and refuse to others the right to respond to it.
Finally, that link you provided proves what I sensed all along, that whatever you know (or ignore) about Islam, came from such sites. Their arguments against Islam are fundamentalist and ignorant. They rehash the same tropes we’ve been hearing for years, an amalgam of all the lies and falsities used by various groups to portray Muslims as inherently evil and bestial.
I do think that out of fairness to the debating process, you ought to read the book itself and not the cliff notes written by someone who knows neither the author nor the subject.
Once again Po, I find myself in the position of thanking you for your time and insights regarding these issues. I had previously wrote on here that the issues were too numerous and complicated and, if nothing else, the various postings here highlight this! I would like to respond to your last post in segments …… The issue of ambiguity in various holy books, manuscripts ect ….. is really not something that is beyond rectifying. A family member has explained to me that within a UK Infantry Battalion there are three articles referred to for the purpose of discipline, behaviour and direction …. these are namely ‘The Manual of Military Law’, ‘Queens Regulations’ and ‘Battalion Standing Orders’ … On occasions where it is apparent that there is ambiguity on an issue then this is looked at and updated to remove the ambiguity … what does ‘The horse raced past the barn fell’ mean to the reader? …. What does this mean to you Po? ….. Of course all that I’ve written so far is formed by and written by the mind and hand of mankind. The enigma for me is how can the word of God be ambiguous? It is not the case that everything in the universe is open to interpretation so how can it be that the word of God is? There really is something not right about this! Your view on this first point is most welcome Po.
I wish, Red, I could give you a definitive answer regarding the ambiguity issue, but that would make me foolish or wise, the former I hope I am not, the latter, I hope to be.
I do feel that the divine message is pretty clear in its basic essence: care for yours, his, and His. That is what you find in every holy book, distilled.
What is the Thorah but atone for your sins and do right by God and people? What is the bible but love God, people and do right by them? What is Islam but be just towards God and people by giving each his due?
I can assume that were another prophet to be sent to humanity (Muhamad A.S is the last one), he would, just like his predecessors, call for people to act righteously towards God and people.
While the Torah claims to stand alone and rejects the Bible, and the Bible claims to be the final update of the divine message, Islam believes that each new holy book was an update of the previous one, and that the Quran is the final update and prophet Muhamad the final messenger, sent not however to one single group, but to the whole of humanity.
Now if we accept that premise that the Quran is the final message for the rest of humanity (and let’s say the clock of humanity keeps ticking until the year 3654), then it is supposed to regulate the whole of humanity from 1500 years ago when technology was pretty non-existent to when you will be zooming around the earth in your private rocket. Short of the Quran be 200,000 pages long, there is bound to be ambiguity. Who will listen to such message? Wouldn’t it be overcomplicating a message that Islam seeks to simplify and clarify?
The Quran says, “there are some ayats (passages/signs) that are clear, and others that aren’t, use those that are clear and leave alone those that aren’t.” Since the time of the prophet, many of those passages that weren’t clear have now been unveiled, leaving many more to be. Some clarity came through his hadith (the veracity of which cannot be guaranteed), and some came through philosophical and intellectual exploration, discussion, debates between Islamic scholars of the second generation onwards, according to the Quranic edict that says “if you don’t know, ask those who do, the scholars and the inspired”.
An example of the intellectual strength of Islam is seen in the 4 majors sunni schools of jurisprudence, led by top 4 scholars who went through the available text of Quran and hadiths, and framed methods and processes to address most questions dealing with one’s practice of the religion, from birth to death. In some issues, they are unanimous, while on most, they differ. Most Muslims follow either school, and some combine the principles, picking and choosing what they agree with.
An example is the issue of dogs. Most Muslims see dogs as inherently dirty, based on some supposed sayings of the Prophet, some of which even permit the killing of black dogs. While 3 of the 4 schools recommend one washes his hands 7 times after touching a dog, one of the 4, the Maliki school, disagrees with the premise that dogs are inherently dirty and allow one to even perform ablutions from the leftover water from a dog dish.
I am a Maliki, and I own a dog. Reason tells me that God would not create an animal that is inherently dirty where it couldn’t be in contact with human beings, nor would he create an animal that He then recommends to kill. Furthermore, anyone familiar with dogs knows that they, along with horses, are truly man’s best friend. What other animal would lay its life to protect its master? So when I was told that as a Muslim I cannot own a dog, I asked some scholars, followed up with my own reading of the texts and the sources, along with my personal experience with dogs, all along driven by these 2 basic premises: God wants us to be kind to anyone and anything, and the Prophet was kind to everyone and everything, including dogs! At this point, I am comfortable letting my reasoned conclusions rule over tradition, for in the Quran, God is always asking us to ponder, to think, to study the signs and to learn.
So, to me, the word of God is not ambiguous. Or if it is, it is so in areas that are really not of major consequence to my practice of the religion. If i need to know how to perform ablutions, name a child, perform a marriage, what I can eat and can’t…the texts are pretty clear, or there is general consensus about it.
If I need to know how to treat others (which is the only real issue defining humanity), I go with the premise of “do no harm”, “give everyone respect and care because everyone is His creation”, and better yet “love everyone for He loves everyone”. Ultimately, how can one claim divine love when he refuses it to humanity.
… with regard to the occupation and destabilisation of Muslim countries … I can obviously understand the meaning of the words but cannot see below the surface of the appearance of this that that is what is actually happening … can you give me an example where a democratic western power (or powers) has occupied and destabilised a Muslim country and which Iraq war are you referring to …. I shall be upfront and tell you I have first hand experience of ‘The First Gulf War’ ….. additionally, I served in Bosnia. I am not ignorant to the hell that is armed conflict and the experiences I have had in these two theatres of conflict alone will stay with me all my life …. I regularly cry when remembering the atrocities I have witnessed against Muslim men, women and children and Croation men women and children but I don’t remember them in those terms but as the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina, perhaps this is little more than another example of my ignorance and racist thinking!
….. sorry Po, I’m lagging behind here ….. may I ask two supplementary questions …… what is the difference between the Qur’an and Haddith? … with your pretty sound philosophical reasoning regarding ‘dogs’ how is this same reasoning applied to ‘pigs’? …..
No worries, Blue
The Quran is the divine message revealed to the prophet Muhammad by angel Gabriel (yes, the same of Christian lore). It was revealed intermittently through a 23 year period, generally in direct response to events taking place or questions being asked. Parts of it feel like a communication between Allah and the prophet, his followers, their Pagans, Christian and Jewish enemies. For example a passage paraphrased says : they say Jesus, son of Mary is God. Tell them that Jesus is as Adam was, born from one word from their Lord, and both are no more than messengers.
The Quran addresses incredible number of issues, some scientific (procreation, and fetus development, clouds and rain formation, mountains…), and has informed scientific knowledge from the advent of Islam. There is a reason why most of the science knowledge we have now can be traced to the earlier work of the Arabs, which was informed by the Quran.
Obviously I am biased, but the Quran is an incredible resource. I, and all Muslims, feel like all the answers are in it, for every lecture reveals something else, some through relentlessly reasoning, and some through inspiration, and the latter usually comes because of the former.
For example, I always refused to believe that God would give permission for one to beat his wife as punishment, especially as when He asks one to forgive an avowed enemy. Additionally, there was not one recorded instance of the Prophet beating anyone, wife or not. yet the Quranic ayat seemed pretty clear about what to do to one’s wife when she refuses to stop misbehaving, at least according to the general consensus of most translators and scholars. Some advocated outright beating, while others symbolic beatings (with a scarf, a toothbrush…)
Well, 2 weeks ago, I decided to look up the Arabic word used, Idriboo, and its many meanings (Arabic is a complex language, almost every word has different meanings based on context, making it very easy, and likely, to be mistranslated and misunderstood.)
I came across a site where a person had done all the work for me, coursing through the Quran for every instance where the word appeared and its meaning there, and coming to the conclusion that in that specific marital case, based on previous divine usage, it could only mean to “report to the authority” (civil court charged with marital affairs, which could assign right and wrongs and decide on and enforce decisions, such as divorce, support…).
So to resume: in my view God who said that men and women are equal; that one should forgive a wrong; one should never hurt others, and that He is just and fair, could not have prescribed beating one’s wife as an option. My research ended up supporting my reasoning.
Another man from a patriarchial society where culture and tradition gives women nor rights whatsoever, would not see anything wrong about beating one’s wife and thus would translate Idriboo as what makes the most sense to him, beating her.
The hadith on the other hands are supposed sayings and actions of the Prophet as supposedly witnessed and related by his companions, his wives and the people of his time. Since he personified the Quran and overall perfection, whatever he did and/or approved of, is accepted by Muslims.
These hadiths are graded from barely acceptable to certifiable based on a system of gradation that looks at the strength of the chain of transmission, the trustworthiness/ morality of the transmittant, and sometimes even at the place of residence of the transmittant (could he have been in a place of access to the prophet or his companions?
There are at least 5 collections of such hadiths, including 2 major ones (Muslim and Bukhari). Many Muslims unfortunately at these collections as face value, even when some of the hadiths contradict the letter or spirit of the Quran or the Prophet.
As a reaction to that, some Muslims, called the Quranists, are rejecting the hadiths outright, and want to go solely on the Quran. This, however also causes problems, as the Quran did not teach us the general rituals of practice, including the prayer, the Prophet did.
Ultimately, religion should be driven by head and heart, reason and care, otherwise it is pointless. God says in the Quran to know Him before you praise Him, for how can praise what you know not? Unfortunately too many of us claim to act on behalf of a God we know not.
BlueRed, perhaps I did not say anything about these issues you bring up because firstly, you did not ask about them, and secondly, there are non-issues in islamic marriages.
In Islam – not fundamentalist Islam, which is not most Islam, not Salafi Islam, not cultural Islam, not patriarchal Islam, and not Wahabi Islam- but in sunni Islam, which is practiced by most Muslims, the marriage contract is between the woman and her beau. The woman has a say about whom to marry, and the man must give her a dowry, unless she passes on it.
I’ll repeat this for Red: marriage in Islam revolves around the woman’s consent, which implies that she is mature enough to make that consent, and also implies that she is not subjected to undue pressure.
Now, the fact that some patriarchal societies, that happen to be Muslim, marry the woman, or the child against her will, and in disregard of her wishes, has nothing to do with Islam. It is common to many tribes, cultures and civilizations from the beginning of time, within and outside of Islam, and is usually found in higher society and monarchies.
No religion covers the whole minutiae of rules and codes regulating human existence, and Islam is no exception. There is no specified minimum age for marriage, but common sense dictates that one shouldn’t marry until puberty or beyond, although in many traditional societies, children are promised in marriage to another family, as a means of strengthening the social bonds, and when they are of age, the marriage is officially celebrated.
In one version of the last recorded speech of the Prophet, he makes the statement that “temporary marriages” were no longer allowed. I am pretty sure that out of 1 million Muslims, perhaps 100 might claim it to be allowed, just like 100 might claim that alcohol is indeed allowed. The fact that those 100 believe it to be so, does in no way make it so.
In the times of slavery, the Quran did allow a man to have sex with his wives AND his female slave, for then, and later on throughout times, as evidenced by our American history, one’s slave is one’s property. Unlike everywhere else however, the master’s son was a free man with all the rights and benefits of society, including inheritance.. furthermore, his mother, the slave girl, was not to be sold to anyone. Although she still belonged to the master, in practicality, she was another wife, just without the title.
Following are a couple of quotes with a link. If that source does not satisfy you, you may still track the original sources, or know that nothing could satisfy you.
Your servants and your slaves are your brothers. Anyone who has slaves should give them from what he eats and wears. He should not charge them with work beyond their capabilities. If you must set them to hard work, in any case I advise you to help them.
Source: Bukhari, Iman, 22; Adab, 44; Muslim, Iman, 38–40; Abu Dawud, Adab, 124
“Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them), (The Noble Quran, 24:33)”
Po, thank you for your very informative and considered reply. My confusion with all of this is, I cannot find any evidence that those Muslims that follow a more fundamentalist path are doing anything that is incompatible with tenets laid down in the Qur’an. If it is the case that these issues are supported within the pages of this Holy Book then it becomes almost impossible to form an argument against them. Even so, I pretty much feel it is everyone’s responsibility to stand up to Islamic fundamentalism. Here is the rub though ….. inspite of, perhaps even because of, a huge wave of anti-Islamic rhetoric …. Islam is the fastest growing religion on our planet!! It seems this is ‘good for business’ so I wonder what stomach there is for addressing the issues of today from an ‘in-house’ perspective. I may suggest, none at all. As I alluded to previously the only real active discourse regarding Islam and its need to modernise is in fact in ‘Muslim’ countries. There seems to be a failure to recognise (here in the UK) that the freedoms we all enjoy (to varying degrees) are not afforded to us by the Church or by Sharia law but by British Law.
“Lawyer Makasembo said Kenya was “not to blame” for the London killing. “It is the British themselves who defended him from our law enforcers … Had he been charged here, the killing of the British soldier would never have occurred,” he said.”
Specifically, you say nothing in your answer about the age at which a female can be entered in to a marriage contract, nothing about at the minimum age a female may be penetrated sexually within a marriage contract, nothing about ‘consent’ within the marriage contract, nothing about ‘temporary marriage contracts’, nothing about ‘slaves and marriage contracts’ …… these are the very issue being discussed in many Islamic countries!
Another comment that won’t post.
Kenya lawyer says London murder suspect freed on British advice
By Joseph Akwiri | Reuters – 19 hrs ago
MOMBASA, Kenya (Reuters) – A Kenyan lawyer who in 2010 represented a man suspected of hacking a British soldier to death in London last week said on Wednesday the suspect was freed from arrest in Kenya three years ago on the recommendation of the British High Commission.
Britain’s authorities face questions about what they knew about the activities of two Britons of Nigerian descent suspected of butchering Lee Rigby, a 25-year-old veteran of the Afghan war, in broad daylight in a London street.
The two men, one of whom, Michael Adebolajo, was arrested in Kenya in 2010 for allegedly trying to join an Islamist militant group, said they killed Rigby in the name of Islam. The killing has provoked an anti-Muslim backlash in multi-racial Britain.
Wycliffe Makasembo, who was the lawyer for Adebolajo at the time of his 2010 arrest in the tourist town of Lamu, said Kenyan anti-terrorism police detained him and six others when they tried to travel north to Somalia in a speedboat.
They were suspected of attempting to go to train with the al Qaeda-linked Islamist militant group al Shabaab in Somalia, and were presented in a court in Mombasa, south of Lamu.
Makasembo told Reuters that Kenyan police at the time sought more information about Adebolajo, a 28-year-old British-born convert from a Christian Nigerian family, from the British High Commission in Nairobi.
He added the British diplomatic mission replied in a letter to the police that “gave a clean bill of health that Michael Adebolajo had no criminal record or any connection with any criminal or terrorist organization in the world”.
“Our own intelligence in Kenya were reluctant to release him, but it is the British High Commission which recommended that the suspect be released,” Makasembo said, adding he had seen the letter at the time of the court appearance.
Adebolajo was deported back to Britain and the other six, all Kenyans, were also released without charge.
Asked about the Kenyan lawyer’s remarks, a spokesman for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London on Wednesday declined to comment on them specifically.
“We can confirm that a British national was arrested in Kenya in 2010 and the FCO provided consular assistance as normal for British nationals,” the spokesman said.
Police shot and wounded Rigby’s assailants at the scene of the crime in London.
KENYA “NOT TO BLAME”
Sources close to the investigation have told Reuters the attackers were known to Britain’s MI5 internal security service. Adebolajo had handed out radical Islamist pamphlets, but neither of the two men was considered a serious threat, sources said.
That has intensified calls for Britain’s spy agencies to explain what they knew about the suspects and whether they could have done more to prevent Rigby’s killing.
Britain’s ITV News channel reported that Adebalajo — who went by the nickname Mujahid, or warrior, after taking up Islam as a teenager — and his family were approached by security services MI5 and MI6 who tried to recruit him as an informant.
It quoted his brother in law, James Thompson, as saying Adebolajo changed dramatically after his detention in Kenya where he said he was tortured and felt abandoned by his government.
Lawyer Makasembo said Kenya was “not to blame” for the London killing. “It is the British themselves who defended him from our law enforcers … Had he been charged here, the killing of the British soldier would never have occurred,” he said.
Are we talking about divorce settlements here? ……….in this thread?
….. it is really is lame to avoid answering a question by asking a question ….. just tell us about marriage ….. about marriage contracts ….. about ‘consent’ ….. stop waiting to see the direction the driver in front of you is taking!
Yeah, are we?
tell us about marriage: I did!
About marriage contracts: what do you wanna know?
Consent: to what, about what?
Red, I would gladly answer your questions to the extent of my abilities if only you’d ask a real question,not a gotcha keyword that is supposed to make go mute and tremble before the realization that you indeed got me.
I suspect you mighta read/ or heard that these areas are problematic in Islam so you want to expose me without knowing enough about them to actually do it.
Red, what are you asking?
“…. and ‘Sling’ your time would be better spent equipping yourself with a little more self-esteem my friend.”
It’s too late.
I’ve been parenthezised.
It’s all downhill from here.
Situation is hopeless.
Comments are closed.