Char koay teow, Malay style

Once I penned a char koay teow story about my friend Tan Ah Kow who was a real char koay teow hawker - for more, read my KTemoc Kongsamkok post titled The 'rich' char koay teow boy.

But the above is about genuine though haram char koay teow, which uses a "particular type" of lard and also some laap-cheong (sausages), the sort Muslims don't want to even think about, let alone eat.

In this post I want to narrate a char koay teow story but without the haram stuff as I have in mind a Malay-style char koay teow - note it's Malay-style and not Malaysian-style.

The dietary consideration is that it is devoid of the haram ingredients Chinese love, but you my dear readers especially Muslims have to assess and decide whether it's halal even though I suggest it's non-haram, because non-haram doesn't automatically confer a halal label on the food, wakakaka.

The word 'char' in char koay teow is 'stir fry' or 'goreng'. And in a char koay teow scenario the goreng-ing is usually done with chilli paste, pepper and in a wok that's burning hot, known in Canto as 'wok-hei' (breath of the wok) where the product of the goreng-ing will ensure the food being served still retains the heat (or breath) of the super-hot wok for several long minutes after being served.

Believe, in such a hot combination it's not comfy if you happen to to be the koay teow (rice noodles strips or sticks), and you can take it the goreng-er indeed wants the koay teow to feel the heat, wakakaka.

The char koay teow I have in mind is not a genuine dish but a political char koay teow, Malay style, wakakaka, a type which I had already mentioned to in a previous post titled National hero?, where I wrote:

Has Dr M been right to char koay teow on the Altantuyaa case, by calling on Najib NOW to answer allegedly unanswered questions on the murder of the Mongolian model, or ...

... to declare he is willing to meet up with the mum of convicted murderer Sirul, ...

... and the last in my opinion, just plain silly and scraping the bottom of the barrel, ...

... to state the convicted killer (Sirul) did not murder anyone when he was Dr M's bodyguard - an assertion which has been nothing more than just a silly provocation with no connection whatsoever to what Sirul might have done and did subsequently to serving Dr M.

Wakakaka!

Take the current situation where Dr Mahathir is snapping at Najib's heel to make the latter 'come clean' on the Altantuyaa murder, regardless of Najib's involvement, and where Mahfuz Omar of PAS has already arranged for Sirul Azhar Umar's mum to meet up with Dr M, and is now arranging for a phone link-up between Sirul ad Dr M.

What we have starring in this char koay teow tale or comedy of nonsense is:

(a) a (so-called) retired politician presented to us (admittedly not by Dr M himself) as if he is a current Malaysian Criminal Special Investigator (CSI). To be fair to him he has urged police to investigate further,

(b) a convicted killer who is highly valued by some sides of politics and thus shouldn't be executed as per the death sentence the court has handed down to him, apparently because he allegedly has only followed instructions but which even that, for some unexplained reason makes him somehow guiltless of murder. To be fair to Sirul he expresses his disappointment with politicians EXPLOITING his mum for political reasons,

(c) a mum who like my late mum would swear her son is the nicest bloke in town, and that the son if naughty was only following instructions,

(d) a PAS politician who went all the way to Australia with Sirul's mum BUT came back empty handed, but who now switches to his political life line called Dr Mahathir, currently an anti Najib proponent. What next? Call on PAS fave line, that of "divine wrath", perhaps manifested as another flood or another tsunami?

Somewhere, somehow, sometime (in the immediate future), there is high expectation by many Pakatan followers (I'm definitely not one of them, god forbid, excuse the pun, wakakaka) that the above CSI team will reveal the "real" (as in their hopes) murderer of Altantuyaa Shaariibuu, preferably Najib. If not Najib, then another further investigation should be called for.

And their main investigative line is beautifully simple (or rather, simplistic), to harass Najib into self-confession or at least, to make him lose his position as head of UMNO and thus PM of Malaysia.

That, my dear readers, is the real objective, and not justice for Altantuyaa. Surely you were not dreaming?

Anyway, where is the evidence of Najib ever knowing Altantuyaa, minus of course the amazing photoshop skills of Tian Chua or the relentless G.A.N insinuations by PKR originally and now PAS, or the SD that RPK lodged but which contents, according to RPK, came from some former staff of Ku Li?

In a Malaysiakini article, it was reported that:

Raja Petra had previously blogged that he was introduced to Lt Kol Azmi Zainal Abidin - who he described as being the "number two in the special branch of the military intelligence" - who was the source of the accusation against Rosmah.

The people Raja Petra said introduced him to Azmi, furthermore, were Nik Azmi Nik Daud and John Pang, both of whom had worked for Umno stalwart Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, and blogger Din Merican who was once close to Anwar.

In the interview with Ashraf, Raja Petra said he does not accept any longer the storyline pushed by the trio.

Was Altantuyaa harassing Najib when she was alive and in KL? If not, why not? Speak up and don't be stupefied into dumbness!

Why hasn't Dr Mahathir raise the Altnatuyaa issue much earlier, in fact from Day 1? Why only now when he is known to be at venomous odds with Najib?

Najib revealed that in his tete-a-tete with Dr Mahathir, one of two things Dr Mahathir wanted him to do was to revive the “crooked bridge” project linking Johor and Singapore, thus confirming our suspicion on why he undermined AAB to such an extent that UMNO suffered collateral damage in 2008, and from which the party never quite recovered.

The 'crooked bridge' was, we suspected, to spite Sing!

In any case, it can be argued that it has been Dr Mahathir who made UMNO lost its 2/3 in 2008, and not AAB. AAB was the hapless victim.

Dr M has recently said that Najib will lose the next election for UMNO but on the logic of this post's discussion we can argue that if UMNO were to lose in GE-14, it would be Dr Mahathir who loses it for his party by continuously undermining Najib and thus indirectly UMNO.

The other probable sin of Najib in Dr M's eyes, as we can speculate, would be Najib's cooperation with the Sing government in the development of KTM land in Singapore. If Dr M was Yama, I speculate he would have consigned Najib to the 18th Hell for eternity for the most blasphemous sin of cooperating with Sing, wakakaka.

looes74 being rebus-ed kau kau in hell

oh, he's the one with the wee-est weenie

wakakaka

Hasn't it been bad enough of Najib for refusing to revive Dr M's 'crooked bridge' but to also now cooperate with Sing on developing a sweet piece of real estate in Sing owned by KTM?

Okay, so has the char koay teow-ing by Dr Mahathir and PAS' Mahfuz Omar been halal? You tell me!

Of course those of us who'd blindly support an attack, no doubt on a political enemy, but without any real evidence, are just as guilty as those people who char koay teow for their own vile political agenda. 

I too want BN-UMNO to lose and despite silly accusations by some of my readers, don't support Najib (which Chinese Malaysian would of a man who wanted to bath his keris with Chinese blood) but how about some intelligent thinking, fairness and self integrity, and non-moronic blind sickening Bush-ism for a change?

Let us have some real evidence, not just prejudiced moronic wishful thinking! Possible? But I won't hold my breath, wakakaka.

Our best PM?

TMI - Ku Li willing to work with Dr Mahathir or anyone for betterment of country

Recently I mentioned that Tengku Razaleigh has been probably the best PM we never had BUT only because he was never the PM, wakakaka.

Once I admired him as a potential PM waiting patiently in the wings and had hope he would fulfill our hopes of having him lead the country politically, but after years of such hopes and ALSO waiting, I gave up on him.

Yes, I tire of his over-caution, not daring to take a step forward when he was needed most (eg. either to challenge for the top UMNO post or to join Pakatan to be the coaliiton's head).

It eventually dawned on me that Ku Li probably wants the PM chair gift wrapped and handed over to him on a silver platter before he dares to voice his wish to be PM.

Ku Li has many admirers. In 2010, Bakri Musa wrote an article titled ‘Salvaging Najib’ which then sounded to me like ‘Savaging Najib’ wakakaka.

Bakri is a very erudite writer who writes from his home in the USA, but alas one who broke the hearts of many Chinese Malaysians including mine.

For such an intelligent and supposedly 'globally exposed' person he had been shamefully biased in his dislike of Chinese, and unforgivably careless and ignorant in attributing their worst points (yes, some Chinese have awful characteristics, habits and mannerisms) incorrectly and ignorantly to Confucian ethics and their ethnic culture and characteristics, showing his abysmal knowledge of Confucian philosophy, ethics, teachings and practices.

Be that as it had been, I see the good points in him as a writer and thus appreciated and still do many of his articles, except when he made those ignorantly indiscriminate accusations against Chinese, not unlike the Chinese saying of sweeping every Chinaman down with his long bamboo pole.

As to be expected for the Malay-centric intellectual, Bakri's articles in the main focused on Malays and Malay issues, and most certainly we can learn from them.

From my regular reading of his articles, I gather the impression (and I believe I’m reasonably quite correct on this) that his political-leadership idols have been Tun Razak, Tun Dr Ismail, Tun Ghazalie Shafie and Tengku Razaleigh (Ku Li), the Malay political giants, sadly with only Ku Li left.

At one time (long ago) I noted that he included Tun Dr Mahathir but subsequently he consigned the doctor to the group that he (Bakri) possibly might have been embarrassed of, wakakaka.

To cut to the chase, in 2010 he drew the top UMNO team of Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Razak as a model for Najib to emulate, a partnership of the charismatic but intellectual lightweight Tunku and his deputy, the intellectual giant and visionary Razak.

To Bakri, Najib is like Tunku, not an intellectual giant but easy-going and perhaps even hedonistic to an extent, who needs an intellectual deputy in the mode of his late dad, Tun Razak, as a partner to shore up the substance of UMNO top partnership.

I’m not too sure about Tun Razak being an intellectual - Dr Ismail, Ghazali Shafie, Dr Mahathir, Musa Hitam certainly, but Razak ...? No, I respectfully disagree.

But Tun Razak had street-wise cunning, certainly ruthlessness, and leadership qualities but then we are talking about a period when the body politics for the Malays were fairly simple and uncomplicated.

Immediately after Independence there weren't many highly educated Malays as there are today, with only some UMNO leaders and public servants the few exceptions. Also, money-politics then weren't as vigorous, vicious and vile as it is today.

Then there were of course the well educated young Turks like Dr Mahathir, Ku Li, Musa Hitam and civil servant Ghazali Shafie etc but they were precisely what they were, young Turks and not yet in the top leadership. Tun Razak’s strength was in recruiting them for grooming as future UMNO leaders.

Some ministers in Tunku’s cabinet had very basic educational qualifications but surprisingly they were in the main quite good leaders (being old-fashion street smart with a feel for the rakyat), in contrast to today’s UMNO so-called leaders where many are PhD holders but utterly f*-up politicians whose only hold on power, popularity and claimed persona have been based on pathetic pariah provocative Perkasa-ish polemics and policies.

Naturally in the intellectual department, Bakri deemed Najib’s top team partner, Muhyiddin, not up to scratch and should be dumped or sidelined into a cushy job with a golden handshake. And if you recall, very recently Dr M had refused to endorse Muhyiddin as a possible replacement for Najib, wakakaka.

Bakri had then toyed with the idea of a younger chap as a new partner for Najib, like Khairy Jamaluddin (which choice initially surprised me) but then only briefly before he dismissed the young buck for the excessive baggage acquired during his father-in-law's time.

Hmmm, I wonder whether that was the religious curse of sins of the father-in-law? Wakakaka.

This of course led Bakri to what he really wanted to propose (in 2010) in the first place, namely his idol Ku Li as Najib’s new DPM. This was hardly surprising as Bakri had previously proposed Ku Li to be AAB’s DPM.

Then I had mucho doubts that Najib would have wanted Ku Li for a variety of reasons, chief among which would be Ku Li as a ‘clear & present danger’ to him, becoming an inevitable challenger for his position as PM.

Besides, Ku Li was hardly likely to tolerate having young chico Najib as a boss, who was probably in diapers when he (Ku Li) was already in the UMNO top leadership.

Okay, I exaggerate a bit on the 'diapers' bit but the contrast in their respective seniority and experience was far too embarrassing (and even humiliating) for Ku Li to serve as deputy to a budak kecil like Najib for too long. Remember that top leaders have monstrously humongous egos.

Interestingly, I wonder what with Tun Razak’s coup d’etat against Tunku soon after May 13, when he betrayed and humiliated Tunku (there were other humiliations of Tunku subsequently), showing the vaunted loyalty of Malays in general and UMNO in particular were left by the wayside, whether the sins of the father have finally visited the son?

Today Tun Razak’s son faces imminent threats from every which direction - Mahathir, Muhyiddin, and of course now the man himself, Ku Li.

So I ask again: Have the sins of the father (Razak) been visited upon his son Najib? Well, they say history repeats itself!

And what has TMI informed us today? That Umno veteran Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah today said he is willing to work with former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad or anyone else to champion any cause.

Forget about his 'anyone else', but what "champion[ing of] any cause" together with Dr M does Ku Li has in mind?

OK, so he has played coy to the reporters, stating "Working with Tun Mahathir or even anyone else is not a problem. But to question the prime minister, that is a different matter, it cannot be mixed."

Does he expect us to believe after a 19-year silence about working with Dr M (since Semangat 46 tutup kedai in 1996) he suddenly, that is today, has an inexplicable burning desire to work together with an already retired Dr M, and which has nothing to do with replacing Najib?

Yesirree, as we can see, Ku Li hasn't changed at all, still cautiously playing his cards so closed to himself that he himself might not be able to read them, wakakaka.

Quite frankly I don't think I want such a person to be PM. Let us keep him as a myth, that he is the best PM we never had, wakakaka.

The man Dr Mahathir feared

After reading RPK's series of The UMNO, PKR, PAS Internal Strife, I decided to add on something to what he had said in its PART 5, which tells us about Dr M then as a young UMNO Turk, Tunku then as PM and his deputy Razak (Ah Jib Gor's daddy) and May 13, as follows (extracts only):

Dr Mahathir also accused the Tunku of giving in to the Chinese and that, said Dr Mahathir, was why the Chinese no longer fear the Alliance Party, as the result of the May 1969 general election had proven.

In other words, the Chinese should be kept in fear of the government so that they will continue to vote for the ruling party.

Dr Mahathir has more or less said the same thing about current Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak — in that Najib panders too much to the Chinese and neglects the Malays, who are the backbone of Umno’s support. And that is why Barisan Nasional did badly in the May 2013 general election. [...]

Note: On Dr M's nonsensical accusation of Najib's allegedly poor performance in the 2013 general elections, read my post Apa lagi UMNO mahu? wakakaka, which was also published by Malaysiakini.

Continuing with RPK's post - The ‘Chinese-lover’ criticism against the Tunku moved the Malays, coupled with the disastrous May 1969 election result. It was now only a matter of time before the Tunku would have to go and someone more nationalistic take over. And this man, of course, would have to be the Tunku’s number two, Tun Razak Hussein.

In fact, Tun Razak and the Tunku were already having a strained relationship and the Tunku suspected that Tun Razak and the ‘Young Turks’ in Umno were undermining him.[...]

The Tunku felt that Dr Mahathir played a key role in his downfall, although it was Tun Razak who took over, and the Tunku never forgave Dr Mahathir till the day he died.

During the Tunku’s 80th birthday party, where Dr Mahathir who was by then the Prime Minister was invited as the guest-of-honour, the Tunku refused to look at Dr Mahathir the entire time. [...]

There are many different versions of history, no doubt, as is always the case. But according to the Tunku, the day that Dr Mahathir takes over as Prime Minister, if it ever does happen, will be the beginning of the end for Malaysia. And this statement by the Tunku has been used by those opposed to Dr Mahathir ever since.

Tunku and P Ramlee (1967) - 2 great Malaysians

Little did the Tunku realise that what he said would actually come true — in that Dr Mahathir would take over as Prime Minister. But those of us who lived through the 1960s and witnessed the turmoil of the 1960s celebrated the day Dr Mahathir took over and hailed him as the best thing that could ever happen to Malaysia.

I was told this story on how Razak humiliated Tunku in 1973. By then Tunku was already deposed as PM a la 'et tu, Brute?' by Razak.

When Tun Dr Ismail who was acting PM, died of a heart attack in 1973, Razak who was away in Canada attending the Commonwealth Summit, rushed back to manage the ensuing chaos (eg. appointment of a new DPM, etc), among which was the burial arrangements for the late Dr Ismail.

Just a side-note - subsequently Razak in an unguarded moment apparently remarked to his RMAF pilot during a flight, words to the effect, "What am I going to do now with Tun Ismail gone?" indicating his frightening loss as he had relied so much on the late Tun Ismail.

And it has to be said that Tun Ismail probably died much earlier than he should have because he was recalled from retirement to serve as Razak's deputy (he suffered from a bad heart and was advised by his doctor to retire).

Prior to his departure from Ottawa, Razak had rang home with instructions for Tun Dr Ismail to be buried INSIDE the Makam Pahlawan (Heroes Mausoleum). The Makam has two burial sectors, one inside the building for top VVIPs and the rest outside in the open for the lesser VVIPs.

According to Wikipedia, the blame was put on Sardon Jubir for having a burial plot prepared for Tun Dr Ismail OUTSIDE the Makam against the explicit instructions of Razak, BUT I was reliably informed that Razak blamed Tunku for that.

Razak was heard by many who were there during the change of site for the burial plot to have snapped fiercely at the older man (Tunku), hurtful words to the effect: "Don't worry about being deprived of a place inside the Makam, I'll reserve a place here for you."

Tunku who was said to be the brains behind the construction of Makam Pahlawan was so shocked and hurt that he left instructions not to be buried in the Makam. In 1990 Tunku was buried in the Kedah Royal Mausoleum in Alor Setar.

It was said that Tunku who was fond of stuff American, had the original aim of making the Makam Pahlawan as the Malaysian equivalent of Arlington National Cemetery, ...

Makam Pahlawan, Malaysia

Arlington Cemetery, USA

... meaning the Makam was meant only for military and police service personnel who died in heroic circumstances (Malaysia was then in the throes of the Emergency) and not civilians, ...

... just as he had the National Monument modelled after the US Marine Corp Memorial ...

National Monument, Malaysia 

US Marine Corp Memorial

... and the Jemilang Jalur after the Stars and Stripes, ...

... even remarking during the early halcyon days of Malaysia that KL was Washington DC whilst Singapore was New York.

Singapore

New York

One important tidbit about the late Tun Dr Ismail that's relevant to RPK's mention of Dr Mahathir in his PART 5 post - prior to Tun Dr Ismail's death he voiced his real concerns to some friends about Razak's intention to rehabilitate Dr Mahathir, wakakaka. Obviously Tun Ismail didn't like or trust Dr Mahathir and was said to prefer Musa Hitam.

Robert Kuok, who was a personal friend of Tun Dr Ismail, said: “In my opinion, he was probably the most non-racial, non-racist Malay I have met in my life. And I have met a very wide range of Malays from all parts of Malaysia. Doc was a stickler for total fair play, for correctness; total anathema to him to be anything else. Every Malay colleague feared him because of this, including Mahathir."

Hello there? Mahathir afraid of someone? wakakaka but still it's nice to know that - doesn't it make Dr M more human, wakakaka again.

National hero?

Has Dr M been right to char koay teow on the Altantuyaa case, by calling on Najib NOW to answer allegedly unanswered questions on the murder of the Mongolian model, or ...

... to declare he is willing to meet up with the mum of convicted murderer Sirul, ...

... and the last in my opinion, just plain silly and scraping the bottom of the barrel, ...

... to state the convicted killer (Sirul) did not murder anyone when he was Dr M's bodyguard - an assertion which has been nothing more than just a silly provocation with no connection whatsoever to what Sirul might have done and did subsequently to serving Dr M.

Look, as an example of the above last statement, Sirul's mum would have been able to tell everyone Sirul did not kill anyone when he was growing up under her care nor when he was in school, etc, and that in fact he was still a virgin, so on so forth.

But mind you, had Dr M raised these questions and matters much earlier when the issue was still burning hot or during the court cases associated with the murder, I would have saluted him.

Bringing up the Altantuyaa's case very very very late in its contemporariness, indeed "coincidentally" at a time when he is locked in acrimonious political, policy and personal dispute with Najib, only dilutes his credibility to speak on the matter, perhaps indicating he is not unlike "someone", wakakaka, exploiting a scandalous murder for political gains.

As Dr M had brought down AAB, it's possible he may bring down Najib, though the jury is still out on this. If Dr M succeeds in his latest role, he will surely enjoy the distinction of being the UMNO man who single-handedly destroys UMNO.

And why would an UMNO man destroy UMNO? The answer is plain to see but I dare say many in Pakatan couldn't care less, because they are right now wanking themselves off furiously, wakakaka.

Remember when Dr Mahathir was thumping a poor besieged PM AAB, PAS was praising the Grand Ole Man sky-high?

PAS used to call Dr Mahathir the 'devil' but during his tiff with AAB, he (the 'devil', wakakaka) was elevated back to 'heaven', perhaps by a PAS advanced 'ticket to heaven' to become an archangel, and was even hailed as a national hero and probably a national treasure as well, wakakaka.

Currently, there are talks, suggestions, wishful hopes, that the "national hero" teams up with Pakatan, or that Pakatan coopts him into a partnership to bring down Najib.

People have said that politics make strange bedfellows, as well as politics is the art of the impossible, but I wonder what place in politics would silly qualities like scruples, principles and consistency of integrity still have? How I wish Bhai is still around!

The religion of Saul of Tarsus

I read with much interest RPK's Islam is politics over at his blog Malaysia-Today.

I hope my reading of what he's telling us is correct, that both Christianity (as different from Judaism) and Islam started as political movements, to change the then respective existing religio-socio-political systems.

Mind you, even the concept of a Christianity, a religion as we know of it today, and its denomination or name (Christianity) did not exist then; it was at that time essentially an attempted overhaul of a hierarchical religio-socio-political system of Judaism, one mandated and thus controlled by the antiquated Judaic authorities of that time.

Both the respective leading proponents of the religio-socio-political overhaul at their respective time in history, Yehoshua ben Yosef and Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim (Muhammad), were obviously not popular with the respective ruling authorities for their political movements, to say the least.

The former was deemed a rebel and executed by crucifixion whilst the latter went on to become the last prophet of god and its latest version of the Abrahamic religion, one we know today as Islam.

I personally see the Judaism of that time as somewhat akin to a quasi Hindu caste system of Sanhendrin (Brahmins), the royalty like Herod and their generals (Kshatriya) and the Judean hoi polloi (Vaishyas and Shudras), though the Judean class stratification wasn't as oppressive as the Hindu varna system.

Why is the Hindu varna system considered oppressive? Read my post Cast not thy untouchable shadow on doctors - and some Hindus dare to claim that the varna is just a grouping of complementary occupations in Hindu societies? My bloody balls!

Rig Veda III.34.9 - He gained possession of the Sun and Horses, Indra obtained the Cow who feedeth many. Treasure of gold he won; he smote the Dasyus [dark skinned people], and gave protection to the Aryan color;

Rig Veda IX.73.5 - Blowing away with supernatural might from earth and from the heavens the swarthy skin which Indra hates.

Anyway, in Yehoshua ben Yosef's political movement (as RPK termed it), the Judean rabbi must have wanted to change the stagnancy, corruption and class-consciousness of the Judaic religion, but as we all know, he failed. It was his disciple Paul who succeeded, but in a new form of religion called Christianity, though Paul himself did NOT call it Christianity.

The believers in the preaching of Yehoshua ben Yosef was of him as the god-promised messiah that Judeans had been waiting for a thousand years. They called themselves 'assembly' (Greek word ecclesia) and were all Jews.

That's right, their belief in Yehoshua ben Yosef was of him as the promised messiah from the tribe of Judah rather than the son of god, though as we now realize, everything that the Israelite-Judean god promised, prophesied or proclaimed (eg. the Israelites were the Chosen People) was written by ... hello there, wakakaka ... the tribe of Judah, so what do you expect, more so after having listened to UMNO-PERKASA-ISMA versions of their ketuanan Chosen-ness for decades, wakakaka!

Mind, some people especially the American Christian Right and I suspect also the Malaysian Christian Right (Chinese and Indians) still believe in every word of the bible.

Okay, the paragraphs RPK has written which caught my attention were:

Both Muhammad and Jesus propagated war, war against the system. In fact, the Jews had been at war with the Romans for quite some time. But Jesus was not only at war with the Romans. He was at war with those who collaborated with the Romans as well, the lackey of the Romans in the Jewish hierarchy.

Paul, of course, disagreed with this. He was a Roman citizen so he felt that the church must work with the Romans. Others such as Peter, Paul [hello, was there another Paul? maybe just a typo!], etc., disagreed. So there was a falling out between Paul and those from the original Jesus movement. Paul then moved to Rome to continue his compromising brand of Christianity, in opposition to Peter, who was also in Rome, who preached his more firebrand form of Christianity.

My take, wakakaka - ironically or as poetic justice would have it, Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin, a tribe massacred/eliminated to near-genocidal levels by King David and his tribe of Judah. The sorry saga of fratricidal near-genocide occurred after David, the treacherous son-in-law of King Saul, murdered his father-in-law, his male lover Ishbosheth (Jonathan, son of Saul) and the entire Saulide family, whence he then maliciously turned on the tribe of Benjamin.

David was certainly even more treacherous than his eponymous ancestor, Israel a.k.a Jacob, who avariciously cheated both his father Isaac and twin elder brother Esau.

Yes as mentioned, David was responsible for the murder of his patron and father-in-law King Saul who loved and doted on him, and even went to the extent of f**king Saul's son Ishbosheth (Jonathan) just to get to the throne. David and Ishbosheth were lovers, although David also married Michal, Saul's daughter and Ishbosheth's sister.

Samuel 18:1-4 (KJV) tells us: And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. ... Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

David and Jonathan

Though both his lover Ishbosheth and his wife Michal helped the treacherous bloke all the time, he nonetheless had both of them murdered eventually as he did to their father King Saul and their entire family.

The evil that David did to the Saulide Dynasty was so horrendous that up to today, many biblical scholars, both Jews and Christians, are still writing about his heinous Machiavellian malevolent murderous treachery. His undeserved biblical status was what one author termed as an 'invented hero'.

For more on the evil of David, read:

(i) Gary Greenberg's The sins of King David which informs us: David arranged the murder of Saul, the popular first king of Israel; had Saul's seven sons hanged; did not slay Goliath; and had an affair with Bathsheba, impregnated her, and arranged the murder of her husband. Finally, David allied himself with the Philistines, the enemies of Israel. In sum, he was deceitful, corrupt, a tyrant and a murderer.

(ii) Cephas T. A. Tushima's The Fate of Saul's Progeny in the Reign of David which informs us that: Contrary to the traditionally readers' views of Saul as evil and David as heroic, David was unjust and calculating in his dealings with the Saulides and, like other Near Eastern usurpers, perpetrated heinous injustices against the vanquished house of Saul.

(iii) Joel Baden's The Historical David: The Real Life of an Invented Hero which informs us: The Historical David exposes an ambitious, ruthless, flesh-and-blood man who achieved power by any means necessary, including murder, theft, bribery, sex, deceit, and treason. As Baden makes clear, the historical David stands in opposition not only to the virtuous and heroic legends, but to our very own self-definition as David’s national and religious descendants.

... and many more books on the bible's 'invented' hero.

Though, based on secular logic and justice, I'm not one to believe in the biblical nonsense about the sins of the father being visited upon the children, the Judeans believed in that as per:

Exodus 34:7 (KJV) - Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

and

Deuteronomy 5:9 (KJV) - Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.

... thus it's only fitting (poetic justice) that a Benjaminite, whose tribe suffered horrendous injustice from David and his tribe of Judah, started the religion of Christianity whose followers would come to punish and persecute the Judeans (almost all from David's tribe of Judah) for nearly two thousand years.

And make a guess what was Paul's original name and who he was named after?

Yes, while Paulus (Paul) was his Latin name as he was a citizen of Rome, Saul was his Hebraic name as per the first king of the Israelites, King Saul, the man murdered by his protege and son-in-law David.

The bible informs us that prior to his 'road to Damascus', Saul of Tarsus (Paul) was giving hell to those Judean followers of Yehoshua. I wonder whether he was then harbouring a 1000-year old Benjaminite grudge against the tribe of Judah, wakakaka.

But unlike Peter, the so-called 1st Apostle who by his behaviour and attitude would be considered a Judean racist, or the other 11 apostles, Paul was what we would called a far-thinking inclusive humanist-socialist who was above petty provincial parochial mentality, and who wanted to spread the teachings of Yehoshua ben Yosef beyond the bounds of ethnic Judeans and that strip of land called Judea, and to allow gentiles (non-Jews) to join the 'assembly' (ecclesia).

And the gentiles would NOT be required to follow the rites, rituals and laws of the Judean religion. In allowing gentiles into the religion, Paul pissed off many Jews who became extremely hostile to his inclusive non-racial approach and teachings. Hello there, suddenly I'm thinking of Dato' Onn Ja'afar!

Thus it can be said that if there is one man who did more for Christianity than any other man, it was the Apostle Paul, who incidentally was NOT a member of the original 12 apostles.

Paul's influence and efforts were so great that he was referred to by Christian theologians as the joint founder of Christianity. The term 'joint founder' was a respectful concession to you-know-who, wakakaka. In reality Paul was THE founder of Christianity because Yehoshua ben Yosef did NOT claim to have found a new religion different from Judaism.

As mentioned, Paul contributed to the popularity of Christianity by being inclusive and available to gentiles (like looes74, wakakaka) on an equal basis.

At one stage Paul rebuked the apostle Peter for not ‘breaking bread’ together with the new (gentile) converts, who were then considered by the original disciples of Jesus as ‘unclean’ and more or less ‘second class’ adherents - oh my god (excuse the pun), shades (excuse my 2nd pun) of caste-conscious 'untouchables'?

Galatians 2:11-14 informs us:

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Thus, even in those days, despite being whacked kau kau by the Babylonians, Assyrians, etc and then freed by the Persians and subsequently whacked again by the Macedonians and Romans, the Judeans were unrepentantly racists as some of today's Israelis are.

Secondly, Paul turned the indignity and shame of the crucifixion of Christ into a saga of incredible sacrifice by the 'Son of God' so that the ‘people could be saved’.

In essence, by promoting the concept of Jesus' earthly 'sacrifice' to save the believers, he salvaged the day for the church, for otherwise it would have been ridiculous for the so-called Son of God to die ignominiously like a common criminal, totally ignored by his Heavenly Father.

Yehoshua ben Yosef was ignored, wasn't he? One would have expected thunder, lightning, fire and brimstone raining from heaven at that moment when he was at Golgotha.

if Lot and his family (except for his wife) could be saved,
why not Yehoshua ben Yosef?

But Paul, not unlike the post-WWII British who turned the rout and resounding defeat of British troops at Dunkirk into a magnificent 'victory', turned the shameful crucifixion of Yehoshua ben Yosef into the central pillar of Christianity, that of a divine saviour sacrificing himself for the salvation of mankind.

Now, it has been acclaimed that the most significant factor Paul instituted that led to the spread of Christianity was the abandonment of the requirement for circumcision.

Recall what I have written earlier, that Paul decided that the gentiles (non-Jews) who joined the religion would not be required to follow the rites, rituals and laws of the Judean religion.

For Judeans who kept faith with God, circumcision was mandatory, as the act was a symbol of their covenant with God as per Genesis 17:9-11.

9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Indeed the (OT) biblical instructions have specific details as to who must be circumcised.

Because of this, those originally converted to the teachings of Yehoshua ben Yosef had to be circumcised because the religion, despite being 'adjusted and amended' by Yehoshua, was still Judaism.

And Judaism followed many practices of the ancient Egyptians including circumcision, non pork taking (see my post Why Orthodox Jews Don’t Eat Pork!) family inheritance and lineage through a matriarchal line, etc. 

Gulp, I don't like the look of what appears to be a pair of pliers (on right)
Hey, what's that tool on the left?

As I had mentioned in my post Why 'God' loved Isaac more than Ishmael:

... that circumcision was then an Egyptian practice. The Egyptians were probably the first people to conduct circumcision, but then only among the royals and nobility.

Please note that when we refer to the biblical Egyptians we’re NOT talking about today’s Egyptian who are and have been mainly Arabs, and of course mainly Muslims since Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) introduced Islam to the Middle-Eastern world.

The biblical Egyptians were a different race, no, not even the people of Ptolemy’s and Cleopatra’s who came later and were mainly Macedonians and Greeks, remnants of Alexander’s army. The original Egyptians were a race of a much earlier era, and have since long gone; no one other than perhaps historians of ancient Egypt or Egyptologists know where they are now - perhaps in Padang and Negeri Sembilan? Wakakaka.

But Paul did away with the foreskin snipping, believing that the circumcision wasn't necessary for salvation.

Paul revolutionized (threw away) many Jewish traditional practices making it convenient for gentiles wishing to follow his teachings. I wonder again whether his 1000-year old Benjaminite grudge was then in action, executing his tribe's long-overdue payback against the tribe of Judah, wakakaka.

In the Book of Joshua*, Chapter 5, it was shown that circumcision was indeed not an original Hebraic religious tradition. As mentioned above, it was an Egyptian practice.

* by the by, the English name 'Joshua' is exactly the same as the Judean name 'Yehoshua', so you could say there were at least two 'Jesus' in the bible, one in the OT and one in the NT. They appear to us as if they were different names because of the 'cleverness' or deceitfulness' or 'act dunno' of the biblical authors, who must have wanted to keep the name 'Jesus' exclusive to one person. 

The bible tells us that after Joshua carried out his god's instruction to circumcise those who were born after leaving Egypt and were thus still uncircumcised, their god said (Joshua 5:9):

And the LORD said unto Joshua, This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you. Wherefore the name of the place is called Gilgal unto this day.

Modern biblical scholars take that to mean, with the circumcision the Israelites were no longer in disgrace in the eyes of the Egyptians who previously viewed them with contempt because of their uncircumcised state.

Okay, a kaytee's question for you, wakakaka: Why the f**k would the Israelites or their god bother about the reproach of Egypt, one where the Egyptians looked down upon the Israelites with contempt because of the latter's uncircumcised state?

Weren't those Egyptians their mortal enemies, whose innocent first born were all massacred by the Israelite god? Shouldn't the Israelites and their god be happy not to follow the Egyptian customs and rites?

And just to help you along with your thinking as to why, wakakaka, I am going to reproduce below part of what I wrote in Why 'God' loved Isaac more than Ishmael:

On Egypt as a perennial sanctuary for the Israelites-Judeans, it may worthwhile venturing across into the New Testament to recall Matthew 2:13 which advised Yosef (Yehoshua’s dad, you know, Joshua or with the Greek name of Jesus) in a dream, of Herod’s murderous hunt for the newborn messiah:

Arise, He said, take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt and stay there until I bring the word ………

Flee to and take refuge in Egypt? Wait a ding dong minute, wasn't Egypt the land of the Israelite-Judean's mortal enemies?

Mind, daddy Yosef and mummy Mariam were not the only Israelites or Judeans who sought sanctuary in Egypt.

When the Israelites were threatened by the advancing Babylonians, their so-called prophet Jeremiah threatened them against running to Egypt for refuge, by relaying their god’s message (Jer 42:18):

“As my anger and wrath have been poured out on those who lived in Jerusalem, so will my wrath be poured out on you when you go to Egypt”.

But the Israelites wisely (wakakaka) ignored him and scooted off to seek sanctuary in Egypt, allegedly the land of their mortal enemies.

Guess who went with them? Wakakaka, Jeremiah of course, despite and in spite of his god's dire warning of divine wrath being poured on those who disobeyed (Jer 43:4-6). I suppose he only went with them in order to be able to rail against them (with god's messages) just in case they picked up Egyptian worship (Jer 44), wakakaka.

And most surprising of all, in Deuteronomy, under 23: Exclusion From the Assembly, the Israelite god warned the Israelites not to allow the neighbouring nationalities to enter the assembly of the Lord, even unto the tenth generation, except for the Edomites and the Egyptians.

The Edomites were of course also Hebrews, ‘cousins’ to the ketuanan Israelite people, as they were descendants of Esau, the firstborn of Isaac, who lost his birthrights to Jacob through trickery and deceit.

In fact, Deuteronomy 23:7-8 read:

You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were an alien in his land; the children of the third generation born to them may enter the congregation of the Lord.

The Edomites I can understand, but why this special treatment for their so-called mortal enemies, the Egyptians, those oppressors who supposedly kept the Hebrews in bondage for 430 years, and required a series of terrifying divine-sent plagues to intimidate the Pharaoh before he released them from slavery.

Indeed why?

I am afraid that again, I’m going to leave all the above for you to find out, wakakaka. Call me a bloody tease if you like, wakakaka.

Indeed, wakakaka!