Guestbook opened for now. We aren't registering members at the moment. Guests wanting to post brief queries may post in our guestbook. No lengthy debates please. Kindly note: MV is a place for serious learning through mutual consultation where we have zero tolerance for trouble-makers, narcissists and needless disputants. We simply stand for what is compatible with the Noble Quran regardless of titles such as "traditionalism" or "modernism."
Muslim Villa
July 25, 2021, 09:05:04 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home Help Search Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Recompense


+-
Shoutbox
July 20, 2021, 11:41:46 am Ruhi_Rose: Wa'Salam and Eid al Adha mubarak dear Sis 🙂
July 20, 2021, 10:50:47 am Zeynab: As-Salaam Alaikum dear brothers and sisters.  Hajj mubarak and Eid-al-Adha mubarak.
July 15, 2021, 09:46:44 am N. Truth Seeker: What are the months for Hajj, and what does "Ten Nights" in Surah Al-Fajr refer to?  Visit the following link to study this very significant information.
4 months of Hajj, and Surah Al-Fajr.
July 12, 2021, 05:44:36 am Heba E. Husseyn: As we enter the month of Dhul Hijjah 1442, please read what the Great Quran says about Hajj.  Also visit the related links at the end of the same post to learn more.
July 10, 2021, 11:40:41 am Zeynab: They're folks with zero conscience.
July 10, 2021, 11:39:02 am N. Truth Seeker: I see ....  if they had only given a fraction of the money for rebuilding Gaza ..
July 10, 2021, 11:37:24 am Heba E. Husseyn: I think another slimeball is elon musk ..
July 10, 2021, 11:34:58 am N. Truth Seeker: so true sister.  Btw, are bezos and branson the only ones, anyone else as well trying to please their lowly ego?
View Shout History
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Send this topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: Recompense  (Read 811 times)
Zeynab
TEAM MV Founder
Admin
Hero Member
*
Posts: 4845



WWW
Badges: (View All)
« on: October 08, 2006, 04:01:02 am »

His name was Fleming, and he was a poor Scottish farmer. One day, while trying to make a living for his family, he heard a cry for help coming from a nearby bog. He dropped his tools and ran to the bog. There, mired to his waist in dirt, was a terrified boy, screaming and struggling to free himself. Farmer Fleming saved the lad from what  could have been a slow  and terrifying death. The next day, a fancy carriage pulled up to the Scotsman's sparse surroundings. An elegantly dressed nobleman stepped out and introduced himself as the father of the boy Farmer Fleming had saved. "I want to repay you," said the nobleman. "You saved my son's life." "No, I can't accept payment for what I did," the Scottish farmer replied waving off the offer. 
 
At that moment, the farmer's own son came to the door of the family hovel. "Is that your son?" the nobleman asked.  "Yes," the farmer replied proudly.  "I'll make you a deal. Let me provide him with the level of education my own son will enjoy. If the lad is anything like his father, he'll no doubt grow to  be a man we both will be proud of." And that he  did.
 
Farmer Fleming's son attended the very best schools and in time, graduated from St. Mary's Hospital Medical School in London, and went on to become known throughout the world as the noted Sir Alexander Fleming, the discoverer of Penicillin. Years afterward, the same nobleman's son who was saved from the bog was stricken with pneumonia. What saved his life this time? Penicillin. The name of the nobleman? Lord Randolph Churchill. His son's name? Sir Winston Churchill.
 
Someone once said: What goes around comes around.
 
Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Heba E. Husseyn
TEAM MUSLIM VILLA Villa Artisan
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3889



WWW
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #1 on: October 23, 2006, 12:27:31 am »

interesting story. as for the churchills, from what i've read were a very arrogant lot.
Report Spam   Logged

Zeynab
TEAM MV Founder
Admin
Hero Member
*
Posts: 4845



WWW
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2006, 01:21:15 am »

yep .. you read the right stuff, cat  Smiley
Report Spam   Logged

N. Truth Seeker
Quiet guy technology nerd | TEAM MUSLIM VILLA
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2537



WWW
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #3 on: October 28, 2006, 12:58:26 am »

nice story but is it true?
Report Spam   Logged

TransUranicElement
Guest

Badges: (View All)
« Reply #4 on: November 10, 2006, 10:24:12 am »

nice story but is it true?

Nope, it's not.  If you want to check look at Snopes.
Report Spam   Logged
TransUranicElement
Guest

Badges: (View All)
« Reply #5 on: November 10, 2006, 10:40:57 am »

yep .. you read the right stuff, cat Smiley

Well, not sure I would agree with that.  Winston Churchill sure was an Empire supporter but I think more than anything he was a man shaped by the dominent opinions of the rather tumultous time, if you judge most people by modern standards then they would not be very nice.  To use western examples so as not to be too controversial on an early post Alfred the Great hung people at a moments whim though he had a rep. for tolerance, John Locke invested heavily in the slave trade, Abe Lincoln was hardly a vocal Anti Slavery proponent pre 1861 and so on.

Churchill was involved in things he himself found distasteful prior to coming to power (hence his dislike for Kitchener) and afterwards was expected to lead when the Nation of Britain was not only under threat but was predicted to loose.  He had a Nation depending on him.  It wasn't a great time to say, well actually we have been behaving in a racist and deplorable manner and the whole empire thing is a sick joke.

He supported empire because he genuinely saw the empire as a good thing, spreading education, stability and wealth.  He wasn't the only one.  Ghandi for example agreed in this.

There are a few interesting biographies of him about if you are so inclined BUT even if you didn't like him you must surely admit the alternative was much worse. 



Report Spam   Logged
Zeynab
TEAM MV Founder
Admin
Hero Member
*
Posts: 4845



WWW
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #6 on: November 10, 2006, 11:27:30 pm »

very interesting input ..

I agree that there was a kind of difference between the "standards" of modern times and the those of the yester years.  However, the basic discreet ideology was the same - i.e. those with guns rule the world.


if you judge most people by modern standards then they would not be very nice. To use western examples so as not to be too controversial on an early post Alfred the Great hung people at a moments whim though he had a rep. for tolerance, John Locke invested heavily in the slave trade, Abe Lincoln was hardly a vocal Anti Slavery proponent pre 1861 and so on.

Though I always looked upon Lincoln as somewhat 'decent' in an indecent world .. the other examples you quoted were clearly people much the same as the ones of modern times.  Those very people who today are 'officially' looked upon as advocates of freedom and tolerance unfortunately do not propagate those values outside the boundaries of their own countries.  Probably it's the atmosphere of the rule of law that keeps them on track in their own societies.  When our western 'reformers' of today deal with countries who were once a part of their empire .. or with those who're simply poor and weak, their conduct is no different from ones like Alfred the Great, John Locke and many more.  The only reason why the modern big wigs seem better than their predecessors is on account of the leverage provided by the media.  Let's not forget, there were no mainstream medias in the 18th and 19th centuries, not even uptil the early 20th century to portray one's vices as virtues. Unfortunately this is a magical strategy that turns minds upside down.

Ghandi for example agreed in this.

I bet you wouldn't agree with me here .. but this is one man who gets far more praise than he deserves.  To make a long story short, he was a shrewd politician .. and underneath the facade of his shenanigans lay a lot more than a man symbolic of peace.


even if you didn't like him you must surely admit the alternative was much worse.


so it seemed cause he was more discreet .. for which he had his own reasons.

not to mention .. churchill and ghandi were at loggerheads.  if i recall correctly, wasn't it churchill who gave ghandi the title of a "naked faqeer?" 
Report Spam   Logged

N. Truth Seeker
Quiet guy technology nerd | TEAM MUSLIM VILLA
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2537



WWW
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #7 on: November 10, 2006, 11:31:51 pm »

nice story but is it true?

Nope, it's not. If you want to check look at Snopes.

and what's "snopes" ?   don't know of that ..
Report Spam   Logged

Ruhi_Rose
TEAM MUSLIM VILLA The Avid Reader | Mom of 3 cute rascals
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3494



WWW
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #8 on: November 11, 2006, 12:28:56 am »

churchill was a pedigreed bum
Report Spam   Logged

TransUranicElement
Guest

Badges: (View All)
« Reply #9 on: November 13, 2006, 06:04:09 am »

very interesting input ..

I agree that there was a kind of difference between the "standards" of modern times and the those of the yester years. However, the basic discreet ideology was the same - i.e. those with guns rule the world.



As it once was, so shall it ever be.... Sad


Though I always looked upon Lincoln as somewhat 'decent' in an indecent world .. the other examples you quoted were clearly people much the same as the ones of modern times. Those very people who today are 'officially' looked upon as advocates of freedom and tolerance unfortunately do not propagate those values outside the boundaries of their own countries. Probably it's the atmosphere of the rule of law that keeps them on track in their own societies. When our western 'reformers' of today deal with countries who were once a part of their empire .. or with those who're simply poor and weak, their conduct is no different from ones like Alfred the Great, John Locke and many more. The only reason why the modern big wigs seem better than their predecessors is on account of the leverage provided by the media. Let's not forget, there were no mainstream medias in the 18th and 19th centuries, not even uptil the early 20th century to portray one's vices as virtues. Unfortunately this is a magical strategy that turns minds upside down.

The Mainstream media equivalent pre modern times was of course the Church.  Not only because they were organised and powerful but because they had a lot of people who listened to their preaching at a time when literacy was minimal.  People once talked of the Church and Kings as we do of the media and politicians.


I bet you wouldn't agree with me here .. but this is one man who gets far more praise than he deserves. To make a long story short, he was a shrewd politician .. and underneath the facade of his shenanigans lay a lot more than a man symbolic of peace.



I know of the viewpoint.  I don't doubt his human failings, we all have them,  but I always try to  think the best of people regardless of religious or political differenecs.  It makes me feel happier about the world. And I am fairly sure there have been far worse people.


so it seemed cause he was more discreet .. for which he had his own reasons.

not to mention .. churchill and ghandi were at loggerheads. if i recall correctly, wasn't it churchill who gave ghandi the title of a "naked faqeer?"

Sure did, they had different motivations.  It's probably worth remembering how close the UK came to losing the second world war though.  And if that had happened there would be a lot less Muslims in the UK, Europe and probably the world.

Every nation has its heros, all of them were no doubt deeply flawed.  Any analysis should consider pros and cons as well as context otherwise comment ceases to be critical and instead becomes ..... simpsons
Report Spam   Logged
TransUranicElement
Guest

Badges: (View All)
« Reply #10 on: November 13, 2006, 06:05:48 am »

nice story but is it true?

Nope, it's not. If you want to check look at Snopes.

and what's "snopes" ? don't know of that ..

Sorry,  here is a link.

http://www.snopes.com/glurge/fleming.htm
Report Spam   Logged
N. Truth Seeker
Quiet guy technology nerd | TEAM MUSLIM VILLA
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2537



WWW
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #11 on: November 13, 2006, 08:11:57 pm »

thanks trans ..  good info
Report Spam   Logged

Zeynab
TEAM MV Founder
Admin
Hero Member
*
Posts: 4845



WWW
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #12 on: November 14, 2006, 03:06:36 am »

The Mainstream media equivalent pre modern times was of course the Church. Not only because they were organised and powerful but because they had a lot of people who listened to their preaching at a time when literacy was minimal. People once talked of the Church and Kings as we do of the media and politicians.

Perhaps yes .. but most importantly the Church was highly intolerant of those outside the Christian faith, and also of slightly liberal Christians whom they labelled as "heretics." Thus they unleashed quite a reign of terror that went on and on for more than 700 years in Europe (or the Inquisition, as history calls it). It was the prime cause that eventually led to the separation of the church and state in the West.


I know of the viewpoint. I don't doubt his human failings, we all have them, but I always try to think the best of people regardless of religious or political differenecs. It makes me feel happier about the world. And I am fairly sure there have been far worse people.

It's difficult if not impossible to determine who's the best or the worst. As human beings none of us have that kind of judgemental powers. And yes .. no one is perfect, neither did I hint on that. Generally, according to principles, I too try to bring out the best of people. However, when one turns into a public figure, it becomes a quite a different story. The world cannot and should not conceal the negative side of such personalities to preserve their 'role model' status. That would be improper and unfair. The 'quit India' movement that began in the south asian sub-continent against the British rule was largely orchestrated by Mr. ghandi and his cronies. In today's terms it was a purely a terrorist movement which resulted in the deaths of scores of british officers (who were seen as occupiers) and also many locals. So, according to the ethics of modern day politics, how was this any different from the insurgency that's presently going on in Iraq and Afghanistan which is conveniently referred to as "terrorism?" To make a long story short, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Hence, it's best not to make any sweeping generalizations about anyone, neither demonising them nor glorifying them .. because as you very correctly mentioned we all have our failings. Be it a celebrity, a public personality or just a commoner .. everyone has a negative and a postive to them and both these sides must be put on the table while evaluating their services to humanity.


It's probably worth remembering how close the UK came to losing the second world war though. And if that had happened there would be a lot less Muslims in the UK, Europe and probably the world.

I wouldn't speculate on that .. and neither is it important now. Surely we've got a lot more vital issues to be focused on ..


Every nation has its heros, all of them were no doubt deeply flawed. Any analysis should consider pros and cons as well as context otherwise comment ceases to be critical and instead becomes ..... simpsons

oh yes, absolutely.
Report Spam   Logged


Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Send this topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Scammers & spammers will be reported | If you borrow MV contents you must mention our link with hypertext | MV Team is not responsible for comments by members or guests.
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy