Omar Bakri Mohammed (former leader of al-Muhajiroun) can't leave Beriut for the UK

[Mid]

From here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5202018.stm):

Controversial Muslim cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed, who was banned from the UK, has attempted to board a ship evacuating Britons from Lebanon.

Mr Bakri Mohammed argued he should be allowed back to see his children but was turned away by British officials.

I'm sure it had nothing what so ever to do with the Israel bombs and all :rolleyes:

Still I'm a bit surprised he's complaining as he said last year (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4702107.stm):

"If God destined for me to be deported, or to be imprisoned, nobody can save me."

As it's God's will he really shouldn't be complaining surely.

[andyandy]

my heart bleeds.....

can't see what the issue is - the navy are evacuating UK citizens, he isn't a UK citizen, therefore he was refused entry.....

you can hardly start having special dispensation for non-uk citizens.....and if we were to have special dispensation, he'd be pretty low down on the list....:)

[Darat]

Thank goodness and good on the FO Minister for speaking in plain terms:

..."We've got about 30 immigration officers from the Home Office processing people who've got legitimate visas and no doubt they will be taking appropriate decisions but so far as I'm aware, he's made no application whatever to us to come in any case.

"It's a bit of theatre to be candid with you."...

[pchams]

Oh great, the weasel will probably end up in Canada then.... :mad:

[BPSCG]

People, focus. He wants to see his children! For Allah's sake, won't someone tihink of the children?

Here's an idea. Why doesn't he send for them? I'm sure the Brits wouldn't mind getting rid of a half-dozen terrorists-in-training. Hell, I'll bet they'd be willing to pay for the one-way airfare.

[Mid]

Oh great, the weasel will probably end up in Canada then.... :mad:

Oh I'm sure there's nothing to worry about, the BBC notes that:

...he believed Islam forbade Muslims to fight the people they lived side by side with.

"To live among them, and sell with them and deal with them and trade with them and then fight them, that is completely not Islamic."

What more reassurance could you need?

[pchams]

Oh I'm sure there's nothing to worry about, the BBC notes that:



What more reassurance could you need?

The Canadian govt. will require no more than that.
That is the problem.

[BPSCG]

Oh I'm sure there's nothing to worry about, the BBC notes that:...he believed Islam forbade Muslims to fight the people they lived side by side with.

"To live among them, and sell with them and deal with them and trade with them and then fight them, that is completely not Islamic." Hm. That's not what the Koran says. Koran says this about having unbelievers for friends:
[3.28] Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.

[9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

[Darat]

Hm. That's not what the Koran says. Koran says this about having unbelievers for friends:

Sounds as if he was cribbing from Corinthians!

[Rob Lister]

Sounds as if he was cribbing from Corinthians!

Please expound.

[RyanRoberts]

This verse is applicable to Muslims living in infidel countries:

"Those who believed, and adopted exile, and fought for the Faith, with their property and their persons, in the cause of Allah, as well as those who gave them asylum and aid,- these are all friends and protectors, one of another. As to those who believed but came not into exile, ye owe no duty of protection to them until they come into exile; but if they seek your aid in religion, it is your duty to help them, except against a people with whom ye have a treaty of mutual alliance. And remember Allah seeth all that ye do. The Unbelievers are protectors, one of another: Unless ye do this, protect each other, there would be tumult and oppression on earth, and great mischief." (Surah 8:72-73)

i.e your primary loyalty is to believers in foriegn countries.

[Darat]

Please expound.


Just been quoting from it today by coincidence (from: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=54&chapter=6&version=31)



14Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15What harmony is there between Christ and Belial[b]? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."[c]
17"Therefore come out from them
and be separate, says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you."[d]
18"I will be a Father to you,
and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty."[e]

[BPSCG]

Just been quoting from it today by coincidence (from: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=54&chapter=6&version=31)
What's Paul got to say about killing unbelievers?

[Darat]

What's Paul got to say about killing unbelievers?

No idea.

[Darat]

But I do know the Quantum praedecessores papal bull granted absolution for anything any Christian may have done it the went on the second crusade so the Christian teaching was certainly then of the "kill in my name and it's OK".

[Rob Lister]

Then it does not appear to be topical.

Of course, being the agnostic I am, I would as what Paul has to do with Jesus. But that too is non-topical.

[Pete Tattum]

What a crying shame that is! Whatever will we do without him?

[Jocko]

But I do know the Quantum praedecessores papal bull granted absolution for anything any Christian may have done it the went on the second crusade so the Christian teaching was certainly then of the "kill in my name and it's OK".

How can it be "OK" if it requires absolution? All that says is that it's not unforgiveable, which is hardly the same thing.

[Darat]

How can it be "OK" if it requires absolution? All that says is that it's not unforgiveable, which is hardly the same thing.

I agree that the RCC actions have often lacked sense - but that's not my fault.

[Jocko]

I agree that the RCC actions have often lacked sense - but that's not my fault.

No, but equating "absolution" and "approval" is. ;)

[Darat]

No, but equating "absolution" and "approval" is. ;)

The RCC said "go and kill for us and we will absolve you of all your sins".

The RCC rewarded people for killing, the reward was absolution from all past sins.

[BPSCG]

The RCC said "go and kill for us and we will absolve you of all your sins".

The RCC rewarded people for killing, the reward was absolution from all past sins.Did Jesus promise rewards for killing?

How about Paul?

How about Muhammad?

[Darat]

Did Jesus promise rewards for killing?

How about Paul?

How about Muhammad?

Throughout its history Christianity has not only approved but demanded the killing and torturing of unbelievers.

[The Don]

Throughout its history Christianity has not only approved but demanded the killing and torturing of unbelievers.
For goodness sake Darat, when will you ever learn.....

Christians and Jews - good
Muslims - bad

Anything in scripture or history which says that Christians or Jews are encouraged to kill non-believers is either taken out of context or is said by someone who isn't a true Christian or Jew.

Anything in the Koran or said by any muslim past or present to encourage Muslims to kill non-believers must be taken at face value AND be inferred to be the view of ALL muslims.

It's as simple as that.

[WildCat]

Throughout its history Christianity has not only approved but demanded the killing and torturing of unbelievers.
Problem is, what happened 500 years ago is hardly relevant now. And today it is Islamists demanding and doing the killing and torturing of the infidels, not the Pope or even Pat Robertson.

[Mycroft]

Throughout its history Christianity has not only approved but demanded the killing and torturing of unbelievers.

And today Islamic extremists are as bad as Christian extremists were 500 years ago. That is a huge problem.

[Mid]

There's an ammusing comment by Rod Little in the Sunday Times Today (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2281367,00.html) about Omar Bakri Mohammed. A sample:

Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, everyone’s second favourite bearded barking-mad Islamist cleric, has had a remarkable change of heart. His appetite for bloody jihad has dramatically waned; he would now like to engage in nothing more strenuous than a cup of tea with his family back in Britain — who are, he says, terribly worried about him.

The man who from safe and agreeably leafy north London suburbia offered his continual support to suicide bombers and refused to condemn the attacks of 9/11 and July 7, all the while ranting against the perfidies of western civilisation and its infidel cockroach minions, now wishes to return to the bosom of Satan as quickly as possible.

[andyandy]

Did Jesus promise rewards for killing?

How about Paul?



You might skipped through them, but there's several hundred pages before all that New Testement "Turn thou cheek" lovey dovey stuff.....

[BPSCG]

You might skipped through them, but there's several hundred pages before all that New Testement "Turn thou cheek" lovey dovey stuff.....Show me where Jesus promised rewards for killing.

[Darat]

Show me where Jesus promised rewards for killing.


Can I just ask you two question? Who do you think Christians think Jesus was/is? Who do you think Muslims think Mohammad was/is?

[andyandy]

Show me where Jesus promised rewards for killing.

why reduce christianity to jesus? :)

if christians exclusively believed the NT teachings then the faith would be rather more tolerant than it is today.....

truth is, Christianity includes several hundred pages of OT gubbins with plenty of rewards promised by God for killing.

and seeing as how christians believe that Jesus is part of the holy trinity - and therefore is part of God - then it's foolish to try and take jesus as a stand-alone figure - however more palatable that may make the religion.....

[BPSCG]

Can I just ask you two question? Who do you think Christians think Jesus was/is? Son of God, God walking the earth in human form, part of the Holy Trinity, the Messiah predicited in the Old Testament. Pick any one or more or all.
Who do you think Muslims think Mohammad was/is?Mortal man, but the last and greatest of the prophets, whose teachings take precedence over all others'.

[Darat]

Son of God, God walking the earth in human form, part of the Holy Trinity, the Messiah predicited in the Old Testament. Pick any one or more or all.
Mortal man, but the last and greatest of the prophets, whose teachings take precedence over all others'.

Thanks.

[BPSCG]

why reduce christianity to jesus? :)

if christians exclusively believed the NT teachings then the faith would be rather more tolerant than it is today.....

truth is, Christianity includes several hundred pages of OT gubbins with plenty of rewards promised by God for killing.

and seeing as how christians believe that Jesus is part of the holy trinity - and therefore is part of God - then it's foolish to try and take jesus as a stand-alone figure - however more palatable that may make the religion.....Look, I've been told dozens of times, "Oh look, Christians kill/have killed, in the name of God, too. Priests have burned Jews and Muslims and heretics and witches, Popes have blessed holy wars, blah blah blah."

Fine. All true. But you can not find one word in the Bible where Jesus says any of that is okay. If Jesus had come back during the Crusades and seen Christian knights putting the sword to Muslim cities, do you think he would have said, "Way to go, guys"?

Or would he have more likely asked, "What made you think this is okay with me?"

In short, a Christian can not point to anything Jesus said to justify killing another human being, under any circumstances.

An Islamist, OTOH, can point to dozens, even hundreds, of things Muhammad said to justify killing other human beings.

[Mojo]

But I do know the Quantum praedecessores papal bull granted absolution for anything any Christian may have done it the went on the second crusade so the Christian teaching was certainly then of the "kill in my name and it's OK".Reported to the Quantum Police (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=51435)!

[andyandy]

Fine. All true. But you can not find one word in the Bible where Jesus says any of that is okay. If Jesus had come back during the Crusades and seen Christian knights putting the sword to Muslim cities, do you think he would have said, "Way to go, guys"?

Or would he have more likely asked, "What made you think this is okay with me?"

In short, a Christian can not point to anything Jesus said to justify killing another human being, under any circumstances.

An Islamist, OTOH, can point to dozens, even hundreds, of things Muhammad said to justify killing other human beings.

:bwall

but a christian can point to things God said to justify killing another human being.....

[Darat]

Look, I've been told dozens of times, "Oh look, Christians kill/have killed, in the name of God, too. Priests have burned Jews and Muslims and heretics and witches, Popes have blessed holy wars, blah blah blah."

Fine. All true. But you can not find one word in the Bible where Jesus says any of that is okay. If Jesus had come back during the Crusades and seen Christian knights putting the sword to Muslim cities, do you think he would have said, "Way to go, guys"?


And you will not find the majority of Christian beliefs and doctrines in the Bible and certainly not in the "words of Jesus". Jesus words only form part of what Christians use to define and justify their various beliefs and doctrines. Indeed I don't think any mainstream theologian would argue that out of the Bible the most important material as regards to the Christian doctrines is not the very few words said to have been uttered by Jesus but from the likes of Paul.

Christians for almost 1700 years have seem to be quite clear over this point!


Or would he have more likely asked, "What made you think this is okay with me?"


Well since the Gospels can't agree on what he did say I doubt anyone could second guess what the fictional character described in the Bible would have said - we'd have to try and work out what the various authors of the Bible wanted their fictional character to say! And personally I've always found fan-fiction to be a bit disturbing....
In short, a Christian can not point to anything Jesus said to justify killing another human being, under any circumstances.

An Islamist, OTOH, can point to dozens, even hundreds, of things Muhammad said to justify killing other human beings.

And a Christian can point to dozens, even hundreds, of things God said to justify killing other human beings

[BPSCG]

In short, a Christian can not point to anything Jesus said to justify killing another human being, under any circumstances.

And a Christian can point to dozens, even hundreds, of things God said to justify killing other human beingsAre you saying that the Christians' God and the Christians' Jesus disagree? I think you'd have trouble finding a preacher who would say that.

You see Christians here wearing bracelets that form the letters "WWJD," standing for "What Would Jesus Do?" Supposed to give them guidance in their day-to-day lives. Note the letter "J." That's for Jesus, not Joshua or Jeremiah. It's not a "G", for God, or "M" for Moses, or "D" for Deuteronomy. Next time a Christian proselytizer comes knocking at your door, ask him who he looks to as his ultimate guide for living his life. I'll pay you a thousand bucks (or pounds sterling) if, instead of Jesus, he says, "Leviticus," or "Pope Urban III."

[andyandy]

Are you saying that the Christians' God and the Christians' Jesus disagree? I think you'd have trouble finding a preacher who would say that.

You see Christians here wearing bracelets that form the letters "WWJD," standing for "What Would Jesus Do?" Supposed to give them guidance in their day-to-day lives. Note the letter "J." That's for Jesus, not Joshua or Jeremiah. It's not a "G", for God, or "M" for Moses, or "D" for Deuteronomy. Next time a Christian proselytizer comes knocking at your door, ask him who he looks to as his ultimate guide for living his life. I'll pay you a thousand bucks (or pounds sterling) if, instead of Jesus, he says, "Leviticus," or "Pope Urban III."

find me a preacher who says the OT is not the word of god.
:bwall:bwall:bwall:bwall:bwall

[Darat]

Are you saying that the Christians' God and the Christians' Jesus disagree? I think you'd have trouble finding a preacher who would say that.


I hold that view and many, many Christians have been arguing and trying to reconcile the many contradictions at the heart of their beliefs for centuries.


You see Christians here wearing bracelets that form the letters "WWJD," standing for "What Would Jesus Do?" Supposed to give them guidance in their day-to-day lives. Note the letter "J." That's for Jesus, not Joshua or Jeremiah. It's not a "G", for God, or "M" for Moses, or "D" for Deuteronomy. Next time a Christian proselytizer comes knocking at your door, ask him who he looks to as his ultimate guide for living his life. I'll pay you a thousand bucks (or pounds sterling) if, instead of Jesus, he says, "Leviticus," or "Pope Urban III."

I suggest you ask them is "Is Jesus God"? ;)

[RyanRoberts]

The issue at hand is the interpretation of text by people at this point in time. All religious texts cannot sensibly be equated as equally dangerous to unbelievers but using the Bible in contrast with Islam doesn't offer a particularly stark comparison given the long history of religiously sanctioned violence in the Christian world.

The fact remains that the heretic burning interpretations of Christianity are in most part a relic of the past, where as in Islam they are a day to day reality.

This is in part due to the far more rigid theological reasoning of the Islamic world, literalism is the norm rather than the exception and in part due to the character of Mohammed, a conqueror whose rhetoric and behaviour increased in savagery as he acquired power.

[Darat]

...snip...

The fact remains that the heretic burning interpretations of Christianity are in most part a relic of the past, where as in Islam they are a day to day reality.


I disagree slightly with this - the ability to be able to put such interpretations of Christianity into practice has been curtailed for many reasons yet we all know that many policies in even secular states like the USA are very much influenced by Christian groups preaching a quite literal interpretation of the Bible.



This is in part due to the far more rigid theological reasoning of the Islamic world, literalism is the norm rather than the exception and in part due to the character of Mohammed, a conqueror whose rhetoric and behaviour increased in savagery as he acquired power.

I again at least slightly disagree with you. The majority of Muslims in the world live, like the majority of Christians, in secular states even where they form the vast majority of the population.

[BPSCG]

...using the Bible in contrast with Islam doesn't offer a particularly stark comparison ...But using Jesus in contrast with Muhammad certainly does.

[Darat]

But using Jesus in contrast with Muhammad certainly does.

Does what?

[RyanRoberts]

for many reasons

Yes, agreed. Theology has a funny tendency to mirror wider society..

in Secular states

Often maintained by tyranny, with Islamists being the primary threat ever since the Iranian revolution.

Jesus in contrast with Mohammed

Agreed, though Jesus isn't a historical figure in quite the same way as Mohammed.

[Darat]

...snip..


Often maintained by tyranny, with Islamists being the primary threat ever since the Iranian revolution.

...snip...


Not at all - have a look at this list http://members.tripod.com/arabicpaper/country.html (I've checked some of the figures with the CIA worldbook & Encarta and they seem to pretty much agree with each other) - you may be surprised to find that the vast majority of Muslims live in democratic countries and although their laws are influenced by their Islamic beliefs are not theocracies (or at least not any more theocracies then countries like the UK, France, USA and Germany & Italy are).

[BPSCG]

Does what?Jeezum crow, just go back two or three posts and get the context; it's not like I'm CFL telling you to go back and search out what he meant by "approximately" in a 213 page thread.

...using the Bible in contrast with Islam doesn't offer a particularly stark comparison ...

...using Jesus in contrast with Muhammad does offer a particularly stark comparison ...

[RyanRoberts]

Not at all

Which countries on that list do you think qualify? Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey, certainly, though all 3 are making increasingly scary noises. Pakistan hardly qualifies and the middle east is ruled by paternal autocracies.

[Darat]

...snip...

...using the Bible in contrast with Islam doesn't offer a particularly stark comparison ...

...using Jesus in contrast with Muhammad does offer a particularly stark comparison ...

But you have already posted that Jesus and Mohammad are not comparative figures according to their respective religions so what is the comparison you are making?

[Darat]

Which countries on that list do you think qualify? Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey, certainly, though all 3 are making increasingly scary noises. Pakistan hardly qualifies and the middle east is ruled by paternal autocracies.

I went to the CIA worldbook and looked up their classification of the government in each of thoise countries and I had to get to 16 (Iran) before I reached one that they describe as a theocracy.,

1 Afghanistan Islamic republic
2 Albania emerging democracy
3 Algeria republic
4 Bahrain constitutional hereditary monarchy
5 Bangladesh parliamentary democracy
6 Cameroon unitary republic
7 Central African Republic republic
8 Chad republic
9 Dahomey ?
10 Egypt republic
11 Ethiopia federal republic
12 Gambia republic
13 Guinea republic
14 Guinea-Bissau republic
15 Indonesia republic
16 Iran theocratic republic

The part of the list I looked at represents represents 453.23 million Muslims, out of which only 48 million live in a theocracy. (And even then the CIA world-book states it is a theocratic republic and they define the republic part as "a representative democracy in which the people's elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation.".

[RyanRoberts]

Who said theocracy? The tyranny in many Muslim regimes is directed at Islamists at least as much as democratic reformers. Many of the leaders of Islamic countries dont act like good Muslims and are certainly not Islamic enough for the Muslim brotherhood.

And Iran is in no way a representative democracy, unless you would consider running all potential candidates past Fred Phelps, Billy Graham and Pastor Deacon Fred before they can run for election 'representative'.

[Darat]

Who said theocracy? The tyranny in many Muslim regimes is directed at Islamists at least as much as democratic reformers. Many of the leaders of Islamic countries dont act like good Muslims and are certainly not Islamic enough for the Muslim brotherhood.


Any evidence? (ETA) And what does this have to do with the fact that the majority of the world's Muslims live in secular states?

[BPSCG]

But you have already posted that Jesus and Mohammad are not comparative figures according to their respective religions so what is the comparison you are making?They are both the last word, the ultimate authority, divine or not. If you tell a Christian, "Jesus says..." he's not going to come back at you with, "Yeah but Pope Gregory IV said..."

Likewise with Muhammad. If you tell a Muslim, "Muhammad (PBUH) says..." he's not going to come back at you with, "Yeah but Ayatollah Sellamah said..."

[Darat]

They are both the last word, the ultimate authority, divine or not.



You can say that the "divine Jesus" is the "last word" because Christians believe Jesus is God but not in the sense that the words attributed to Jesus in the Bible are the last word in what Christianity means. And for for Muslims the "last word" even in the divine sense is not Mohammad because he is not considered God.



If you tell a Christian, "Jesus says..." he's not going to come back at you with, "Yeah but Pope Gregory IV said..."


History and current events demonstrate you are wrong. For almost two thousand years the Christian Churches have been the arbitrators of what Christianity means. (As an example of this you will not find Jesus saying that contraception is wrong yet this is the belief (even if it's not always observed) of the vast majority of Christians in the world.)



Likewise with Muhammad. If you tell a Muslim, "Muhammad (PBUH) says..." he's not going to come back at you with, "Yeah but Ayatollah Sellamah said..."

History and current events demonstrate you are wrong, Muslims listen to their preachers who interpret the Koran etc. for them.

[Mycroft]

find me a preacher who says the OT is not the word of god.
:bwall:bwall:bwall:bwall:bwall


Can you find a preacher who doesn't believe Old Testament law was replace with a new covenant with Christ?

[BPSCG]

You can say that the "divine Jesus" is the "last word" because Christians believe Jesus is God but not in the sense that the words attributed to Jesus in the Bible are the last word in what Christianity means. Whose contradictory word overrules Jesus's, then? Give examples of when this has happened.

And for for Muslims the "last word" even in the divine sense is not Mohammad because he is not considered God.Whose contradictory word overrules Muhammad's, then? Give examples of when this has happened.

[Darat]

Whose contradictory word overrules Jesus's, then? Give examples of when this has happened.


See: Quantum praedecessores


Whose contradictory word overrules Muhammad's, then? Give examples of when this has happened.

Sorry I am not as well versed in Islamic history as I am Chrsitian to provide a simple link as I can in the above.

[BPSCG]

[quote=Darat;1791918]See: Quantum praedecessoresOkay, seen. I missed the part where the pope says, "Sorry, Jesus was wrong..." Could you direct me, please?

[Darat]

See: Quantum praedecessoresOkay, seen. I missed the part where the pope says, "Sorry, Jesus was wrong..." Could you direct me, please?

If you don't wish a serious discussion then fair enough.