I watched the first episode of Muslims Like Us last night.
The cast list was a bit odd. Yes, it was balanced between the sexes, with five men and five women. But the racial and (lack of) age mix was strange for me.
Among the women was an opinionated woman of white appearance in Islamic dress. She was called ‘Saba’, which means ‘soft breeze’ in Arabic. She was anything but soft.
There was a Middle-Eastern-appearing woman called Naira (Arabic for ‘source of light’), dressed British-style. Then we had two head-scarfed Asian girls, Humaira (which means ‘rosy’) and Zohra (‘bright’).
Finally, although she appeared first, there was an Asian girl called Mehreen, (possibly ‘loving nature’) described as a teacher, although she is also a model. Some Muslims, she said, think she is ‘a Muslim girl gone bad’. One could see why, as she tottered on her heels in Western dress. ‘But I pray every single day’, she said. (Yes, it’s a ‘religion of works’.) There was no black woman among them.
In contrast, there was no-one of white extraction among the males. Ex-boxer Anthony Small, now styling himself ‘Abdul Haq’ (translates ‘servant of truth’), was brought up by Christian parents in a Caribbean household before associating with Anjem Choudary. Nabil (which means ‘noble’) was a Nigerian stand-up comedian from Croydon.
We had a Syrian, Baraa, (‘innocent’), a Pakistani, Mani (‘one who prevents’), who is married to a girl waiting for her visa in Pakistan, and Ferhan, (which means ‘happy’) the much-trailed homosexual.
Everyone his own scholar
Without an authoritative older man to defer to, each of the five, all in their late twenties or early thirties, became his own ‘alim’, or Islamic scholar. But it was normally left to Abdul (Tony) to set a standard. He wanted not just separate bedrooms but separate floors for boys and girls. He lost that one.
Although obviously irritating with his endless supply of tracts on non-mixing of the sexes, Islamic dress for women, the imperative of preaching (‘da’wah’) and so on, he came across as someone of integrity, so to speak, and on his own terms.
Gay Muslims Like Us?
He was the only one to separate himself from the women at mealtimes. He was also the only one to avoid eye contact with them, although he could not help the odd glance at Mehreen. And when Ferhan’s appalling white gay friends pitched up (he has also associated with the notorious Birmingham activist and promoter of LGBT to children Andrew Moffat, Abdul/Tony was the only one to clear off.
Mehreen turned out to have a soft spot for Abdul/Tony as well. ‘I wonder if he’s married?’ she pondered early on (the answer, according to the Mirror, was ‘Yes’, but he might have found room for another three), before venturing at the end: ‘Abdul’s not a nasty man. He’s a mixed-up man’.
So ‘mixed-up’ indeed that he was charged and acquitted of wanting to join IS in Syria in 2015 and of inciting terrorism in 2018. The BBC had to defend including him.
Early on they had to sort out the direction of Mecca in order to pray correctly. Naila did not pray. ‘Religion is control’ she ventured.
Nice sadness turns to karaoke
By a horrible coincidence, the Nice atrocity occurred the previous night to filming. Naila was overcome by it, but for Abdul/Tony the important thing was to remember that ‘Muslims are best because we believe in Allah’. Saba snapped that scholarship was ‘dangerous’, while the others held their peace.
For excursions, Naila took all the girls except Saba out to a karaoke pub, while only Baraa joined Tony/Abdul leafleting in town. Nabil managed to get everyone out helping at a soup kitchen. Tony/Abdul could not help doing da’wah among the down-and-outs, while two of them managed to give the inoffensive Mehreen some racist comments about her sort of people taking our jobs.
Tee-shirts were instructive. For Nabil it was ‘Black Lives Matter’, for Tony/Abdul ‘Islamic Revolution’.
Have the BBC put our safety at risk?
Tonight, according to the trail, the ‘housemates’ will explore the divide between Sunni and Shia. But already my worst fears are justified. Yes, you can find plenty of comments on social media about how bad, unrepresentative, bigoted, etc etc is Abdul Haq. But in truth, Mehreen’s comment about him makes some kind of sense. He is a good-looking guy, quiet and reserved, not ranting and raving. He is not coming across so badly as to alienate every single viewer by any means. The danger is, he is providing a focus for those who want to take their religion seriously to the point of radicalisation. Anyone concerned about modesty and feeling that Western society has gone a bit far in the permissive direction and that Islam of the IS variety is the answer will find a ready champion in him.
Let us leave aside the question of whether the programme should have aired at all. I freely confess I found it fascinating and instructive. I am sure many Christians will say the same. Equally, I am uneasy at anything promoting a religion of death, and pray that hearts will be more receptive especially at this time of Christmas to the Lord Jesus, Prince of peace and Lord of life.
Given that it aired at all, the BBC should not have included ‘Abdul Haq’, despite the publicity he has brought to the venture and the occasional spark he has prompted. The danger is not that Tony is winning any argument, but that he is providing a point of witness. It is one that any number of disaffected young men – and women – may attach to, become radicalised and possibly turn to terrorism. BBC2 could end up putting our safety at risk.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
I recorded the first programme, and have now watched it.
The really good thing about this programme is that it demonstrates that all Muslims are not like Abdul Haq (and I don’t share Stephen’s admiration for him). On the strictish side, I was much more impressed by Saba. But it seems to me that Naira and Mehreen are the way to go, along with Baraa perhaps, and Nabil. Still, it’s no surprise that I disagree with Stephen, and no surprise that Stephen and Robin (his former colleague, the champion of Christian swimsuits for ladies) sometimes agree with Muslims.
It’s interesting how perceived skin colour depends on knowledge of origin. Not realising that Baraa was Syrian, I took him as being a white Frenchman who had been converted to Islam.
This programme demonstrates that you won’t learn much about moderate Muslims in England by reading the Koran, and certainly not by reading Ibn Ishaq. Not for the first time, I recommend this book to you.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/West-Meets-Islam-2nd-Edn/dp/1515348245/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1481663083&sr=1-2&keywords=West+Meets+Islam
“The book examines the dilemma of Muslims living in the West, and how they often approve of their western lifestyle while feeling it is not sufficiently Islamic. On the other hand, they may realise that a lot is wrong with existing Muslim states, and long for a pure Islamic state …”
But most of them don’t, and we need to keep it that way,
It does not matter which person among them embodies for you ‘the way to go’ as you have absolutely no power to change the way Muslims go.
How ‘we’ keep ‘most’ of them not longing for an Islamic state here exercises minds greater than ours, and still to no avail.
The best the Government can come up with is the ludicrous, patronising and counter-productive ‘Prevent’ programme.
Sometimes liberals have to realise that there actually is no answer and no way of achieving what they want.
The rest of us, Christians anyway, have to keep praying for MI5 but it is rather scary that, ‘Except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh in vain.’ (Psalm 127). That’s why the UK should be walking in the ways of the LORD. You can watch my video on that subject.
Surely we can all influence everybody we meet by the way we behave towards them. It’s not exactly “power”, but it does have some effect. For example, my view of Frenchmen or your view of Frenchmen is affected very strongly by the behaviour of Frenchmen we have met, and vice versa. There exists terminology like “setting an example” and “role models”. No man is an island.
However, it’s true that they will go their own way, and for most of them that is increasingly our way, except for approximate adherence to mere religious details. Abdul Haq seemed to impress none of the others. It was Stephen who described him as “someone of integrity”.
well, there we have it: treat them like Frenchmen and everything will be ok.
Well, it would help. Actually some of the apparently North African Muslims here are legally Frenchmen, and even display Eiffel towers etc in their cafés. They are the best source in England of French-style cakes, too. Try talking to them in French. They rather like it.
But that wasn’t really my original point. They are human beings. You can treat them like Poles if you want to. But you probably don’t like Poles either (despite their high rate of adherence to Christianity).
The myth that radical muslims are a tiny minority, as we’re constantly told: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg
Why the “moderate muslims” we’re told so much about are effectively irrelevant, and will not be a help in the fight against terrorism (indeed their attitude towards terrorism is ambivalent, at best). Nonie Darwish and Pamela Geller have seen real islam close up, not the sanitised version(s) dished up by the BBC: http://pamelageller.com/2015/11/nonie-darwish-obama-terror-and-the-irrelevance-of-moderate-muslims.html/
Meanwhile, in 2016 alone, there have been 1274 Islamic attacks in 50 countries, in which 11774 people were killed and 14303 injured. https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/terror-2016.htm
Islamic terror attacks since 9/11 (an average of 5 a day worldwide): https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/site/the-list.aspx
Were that it were simply a question of “picking, and “encouraging” the islam you like”, as Rox seems to be suggesting.
“But most of them don’t [long for an Islamic state], and we need to keep it that way,” And how do you propose “we” “keep it that way”, Rox?
That was a very brief summary of a book following a quotation of part of the official description of the book on Amazon. You would do better to read the whole book than to ask me.
You claim that moderate Muslims are not a help in the fight against terrorism, but presumably the intelligence services employ some of them, as linguists at the very least. . Even if the intelligence services depend entirely on English people who have learnt the appropriate languages (which I find very unlikely), somebody must have taught them.
why muslim men and women are over-represented in unemployment figures, and why corresponding welfare payments, and other benefts they claim, are crippling Western countries https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/britain-sinking-under-unproductive-muslims-costing-13-billion-a-year/
Of course, according to the BBC and the Grauniad, etc, they are unemployed because they are discriminated against: time for yet another costly government initiative to try to persuade them to integrate (which they have NO INTENTION of doing, indeed islam tells them not to)? Of course, we are not talking here about the fake snowflake “muslims” shown on this BBC programme: how are they muslims? because they say they are (ie they were born into a muslim family)? most don’t seem to know what the koran says, and live their “muslim” lives with no reference to it.
The BBC and Grauniad etc are spinning us a lle folks.
Of course, all this must be encompassed with our knowledge, as Christians, that our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against spirtiual principalities and powers. We are not to hate individual muslims as people, but we should be in no doubt that, to quote Sam Harris, “islam is the motherlode of bad ideas”, and that therefore to invite, indeed facilitate, mass immigration by the followers of islam into our countries is a recipe for disaster, as we are, and will continue, to find out.
Are we going to discuss the second programme, in which it looked as though fights were going to break out ?
The four white neighbours admitted to the house got more than they bargained for.
The only extremist one is Abdul Haq, and some of the others would agree with me that the security authorities are probably already keeping a close eye on him ! If not exactly in favour of it, he seemed to have nothing against the idea of killing the one Shia in the House, which understandably upset her .
I still have a very soft spot for Mehreen, also now for Zohra. But I have gone off Nabil.
The question of race came up. I myself find it impossible to accept that they are all “black” except Saba. It doesn’t make much more sense to categorise them all as “ethnic” except Saba.
It would be very interesting to hear other people’s views.
Nabil was a bully and it was interesting seeing Tony/Abdul making peace by trying to separate Nabil away from the trouble. Yes, the trip around York Minster showed that Muslims have a lot of trouble seeing themselves as British. The tension between Abdul and Zohra gives some indication as to why President Assad simply cannot ever give up power in Syria.
It wasn’t exactly tension between Abdul and Zohra, it was tension between Abdul (the fundamentalist Sunni) and Zohra (the moderate Shia). The moderate Sunnis all sided with Zohra, and in fact nobody had noticed she was a Shia until she mentioned it.
It was like if, in France, somebody mentioned that he was a protestant, which is of course unusual in France. This would cause hardly a ripple, but you might get one fanatical Roman Catholic who objected to it.
One tends to forget that the house must have been swarming with camera crews. One wonders what might have happened otherwise, at times.
For those who did not see the programme, they didn’t actually go inside York Minster. They just ate ice-creams looking at it,
They were on the ramparts, as I recall.
Yes, that is mainly what they did, so that was a trip around the city inside the city walls, not around the minster. It doesn’t matter very much, but I think they started arguing eating ice-creams outside the minster, and continued as they walked round the city walls. It wasn’t around the walls of a cathedral close, or anything like that.
Before that, a dark-skinned neighbour whose family had partly originated in Pakistan wanted to take them to see the local war memorial, pointing out in reconciliatory mood how Muslims had fought against Nazi tyranny. Of course, Abdul wouldn’t go, but to my surprise several of them wouldn’t, including Saba/Hilary, the white Englishwoman (who was a convert to Islam, but was born in India as it happens. like Harry Secombe).
I fail to see why Islam should should disrespect a monument to people of various religions who fought to defeat fascism. They seemed to think vaguely that it was monument to British imperialism, but that doesn’t really make a lot of sense. Of course. other Muslims take part in Remembrance Day services. Muslims are not all the same.
It was not suggested they should go inside the Minster, or at least, we saw nothing of it if it was. I don’t know why not. I have been in a couple of modern mosques. Imagine Marks & Spencers, empty, with no clothes on sale. They like having open days, in my experience (I could have gone more often).
Most of them refused to visit the WW2 memorial, if I remember rightly, citing Western invasion of muslim countries. This is another red herring, designed to make the West feel bad (not that I am expressing support for the Iraq or Afghan wars). 9/11 for example occurred before any of this.
Islam has been trying to invade Europe for 1400 years, the last time their armies tried to invade, they were turned back at the gates of Vienna in 1683: the date? 9/11. So islam saw the attack on the Twin Towers in New York as re-opening their jihad against the West.
Exactly (more or less, anyway). Glad you watched it.
Some authorities place the Battle of Vienna on 12th September 1683, but no matter. The Muslim side were, of course, famously Turks, not Arabs. In 1919, the Arab territories of the Ottoman Empire were delighted to be liberated by the British and French, but no matter. They became League of Nation trust territories under French or British protection, but developed into autonomous countries like the kingdoms of Jordan and Iraq quite quickly (except part of Palestine, which was more of a problem).
It is true, though, that between 1683 and 1919 Britain and France mopped up large tracts of Muslim territory from Morocco to Bengal, and not forgetting Nigeria, the Sudan, and Somaliland. And despite the Battle of Vienna, the Ottoman Empire held on to quite a lot of Europe for a good long time, so they didn’t actually need to invade it ! You know, Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, Bosnia, that sort of thing. You will still be served Turkish coffee routinely in Greece or the former Yugoslavia (even Slovenia) to this very day.
The only question for me is why our “leaders” seem so intent on flooding the West with muslims: I’m fine with taking in genuine refugees, but 4/5 of the “refugees” are single, fit, young men (who have probably abandoned their womenfolk in their countries of origin to fend for themselves (encouraged by the koran which tells them that women and children are of minimal value), (the BBC, Channel 4 etc only show crying women and children but if you look closely, there are the lots of unaccompanied young men in the background). Further, 4/5 are not from Syria but from Africa etc!! Indeed, Obama has been keen to let into the USA only muslims, and has sent back Christian refugees. Some say that the muslims, when they spread the havoc that is their wont, will provide excuses for NWO governments to clamp down on civil liberties, which is certainly happening. All these anti-terrorism laws etc are because of ONE group of people! (but I see that, to give just one example, anti-extremism measures are providing the excuse for Ofsted to monitor Sunday schools!). “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” folks.
Why have rich muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, who certainly have the wealth and facilities to handle them, not taken in a single “refugee”?
Why have these “refugees” crossed several countries from their original landing points in Greece, Italy etc to arrive in Calais, hoping to get into the UK? The UN Convention on Refugees says that they must seek asylum in the FIRST safe country they come into, in this case Greece or wherever: why are they, as I say, crossing nearly an entire continent to arrive in Calais? (with the connivance of the countries they cross, who are glad to see the problem passed on to someone else).
I agree with a great deal of this.
On the subject of Nabil, he, to my mind, made a fairly innocuous comment, when he thought Fehran (the gay) had stolen something from him, asking if Fehran’s mother had brought him up to steal. Cue a meltdown from Fehran (who screamed “don’t bring my mother into this”: Freud would have had a field day?), and general loathing by the others that Nabil had, this time, gone too far. Fehran sobbed into Humaira’s comforting embrace, but fortunately didn’t seem to require extended counselling.
On the subject of “not all muslims are the same”, this is the latest meme from the pro-islam lobby, as in “1.6 billion muslims in the world, 1.6 billion different versions of islam”. Its another lie. As my previously posted video from Ben Shapiro shows, based on polling by a well-respected polling group, the Pew Group, upwards of 50% of muslims in muslim countries want sharia law, and support suicide bombings, etc. 78% of muslims in UK want the muhammad cartoonists prosecuted. This means that something like 700million of the world’s 1.6billion muslims have radical ideas.
If you have watched both these programmes and believe that “Not all Muslims are the same” is a lie, there is no hope for you.
There was only one Muslim in this programme who was true to his faith, and that was Abdul Haq, but all he got throughout was verbal abuse.
Interestingly, his opposition gave no evidence to the contrary, quoting from their own scriptures to counter anything that Abdul Haq said, but were more than happy to oppose him from their position of ignorance.
This programme highlighted clearly how divided Muslims are, as well as how much they do not know their own religion, repeating the often touted mantra that Islam is as diverse as its Muslim people, which may be true on a cultural basis, but should not be the case on a religious one, as the Quran is said to be clear, and easy to understand for all times and places.
However, Islam is defined by the actions of its prophet, Mohammed, a man who understood the Quran and put it into action the way Allah intended, enough for him to be classified as a role model for Muslims for all time and places.
Here are several of reports from Islam’s most reliable of sources, proving Mohammed did not use the usual word of mouth method used by the Bible prophets he aligned himself with, to propagate the word of God i.e Yahweh, but used the violence which Allah commands when spreading his message of Islam, thereby justifying the violence perpetrated in the name of Allah throughout the centuries, until the present day.
Sahih Al Bukhari Volumn 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 196.
—————————————–
Narated By Abu Huraira : Allah ‘s Apostle said, ” I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has
the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ his life and
property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)”
Sahih Al Bukhari,Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.” Abu Huraira added: Allah’s Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).
Tabari 9: 82
The Messenger sent Khalid with an army of 400 to Harith [a South Arabian tribe] and ordered him to invite them to Islam for three days before he fought them. If they were to respond and submit, he was to teach them the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Prophet, and the requirements of Islam. If they should decline, then he was to fight them.”
Sahih Muslim: Book 019, Number 4294:
It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muilims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai’ except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.
Thank you for this, georgia. At last, some sense.
Mark : “not all muslims are the same” …..Its another lie.
Georgia: There was only one Muslim in this programme who was true to his faith …..This programme highlighted clearly how divided Muslims are.
Mark :Thank you for this, georgia. At last, some sense.
Discuss !
If you are are only going to count fundamentalist Muslims as Muslims, Mark, then of course you will have no difficult proving that all Muslims are fundamentalists or extremists. But these are in fact out-numbered by moderate Muslims, call them bad Muslims or ignorant Muslims or even ex-Muslims if you wish. But aren’t these the ones you would really prefer to have around, if you are so opposed to Islam ? Have you read West Meets Islam ? This paints a much clearer picture of Islam in 21st century England than Ibn Ishaq does.
A true Muslim is one who follows the example of Mohammed, who put Allah’s commands into action the way he intended.
Mohammed is proved to be a man of violence throughout the Sunnah which in turn makes anyone who follows his example a person of violence too.
It is agreed that not all Muslims are violent people, but want to live in peace, but they are peaceful in spite of their teachings, not because of them.
If Islam was as peaceful as it claims to be, there should be no verses of violence held throughout its scriptures, which could be misconstrued, but there are violent verses held in the Quran which are being read as literal and eternally binding, as the Quran is held to be, by those perpetrating violence in its gods name, as they have done so since this faiths inception.
“This paints a much clearer picture of Islam in 21st century England than Ibn Ishaq does.”
Ibn Ishaq does not hold authority over a Muslims action of his faith,only Mohammed does, and he obeyed the Quran correctly enough to be nominated a Muslims role model for all times and places.
Exactly so. Not all Muslims are “true Muslims”, if that is the terminology you wish to use.
Most of them are peaceful moderate “Muslims”, and a good thing too. It’s a bit like European and American tourists visiting the Holy Places in the Holy Land. They are not crusaders.
Indeed Ibn Ishaq does not hold authority over Muslims. It is certain Christians, notably Bill Warner, who claim that there is a Muslim Trilogy of the Koran, the Hadith, and Ibn Ishaq’s Sīrat Rasūl Allāh . It’s a fascinating book to dip into, but it was deemed unreliable not very long after it was produced, and is very seldom read by ordinary Muslims.
Of course there are different kinds of Muslims. There have been throughout the centuries .
You are still not addressing an important fact here.
Mohammed is the man whose life personifies what being a Muslim is, whatever he did is held as Islamically legitimate throughout a Muslims life.
In the same way Jesus is held as a role model for Christians, Mohammed is held as a role model for Muslims, but the major difference is, Jesus taught His followers to love their neighbours, have compassion and forgive their enemies, to be in obedience to Yahweh’s,i.e the Bible God’s, commandments.
Mohammed did not obey Yahweh’s commandments, he obeyed Allahs,i.e the Sharia, which diametrically oppose the Ten Commandments of the Bible God, making Mohammed a false prophet which as Jesus warns us, “deceive many”
Whilst it is true that Christians in the past have used violence in the name of God, their is no justification in the teachings of Jesus to do so.
Muslims however can find justification to use violence in the name of Allah, from the Quran and the ways and example of Mohammed, which makes them Muslims true to their faith.
You are still not addressing an important fact here.
Mohammed is the man whose life personifies what being a Muslim is, whatever he did is held as Islamically legitimate throughout a Muslims life.
In the same way Jesus is held as a role model for Christians, Mohammed is held as a role model for Muslims, but the major difference is, Jesus taught His followers to love their neighbours, have compassion and forgive their enemies, to be in obedience to Yahweh’s,i.e the Bible God’s, commandments.
Mohammed did not obey Yahweh’s commandments, he obeyed Allahs,i.e the Sharia, which diametrically oppose the Ten Commandments of the Bible God, making Mohammed a false prophet which as Jesus warns us, “deceive many”
Whilst it is true that Christians in the past have used violence in the name of God, there is no justification in the teachings of Jesus to do so.
Muslims however can find justification to use violence in the name of Allah, from the Quran and the ways and example of Mohammed, which makes them Muslims true to their faith.
A word of caution georgia: you appear to be about to enter The Twilight Zone, otherwise known as “debating” with Rox. You can show him he’s wrong all you like, no matter, he will keep asserting the same thing over and over again, together with lots of red herrings and deviations from the point.
Good luck!
I wasn’t really trying to address this. I am more interesting in explaining to Mark Jones, and to any other readers we may have, that (as with Christianity in England by the 1950s) a less rigorous form of Islam is being practised by most Muslims. In fact, for many young people in the 50s and 60s, their first exposure to the theoretical framework of Christianity was Handel’s Messiah (despite Religious Education every week in schools).
Where do Muslims find a reliable biography of Mohammed, if not Ibn Ishaq’s ?
But that extensive work is completely unknown to most of them, having been deemed unacceptable at a high level.
Sharia Law developed gradually over the centuries after Mohammed’s death, so it doesn’t make sense to say he obeyed it. Paul and later thinkers added a great deal to Christianity, whereas Jesus like Mohammed didn’t actually write anything down. Some quite fundamental things were completely unknown to Jesus, for example the decision to allow eating pork. Well, did Jesus even realise that his followers were Christians not Jews ? But that is another story. (As are the followers of John Wesley)
If you could bring Mohammed back, and take him into the mosque in Finsbury Park (either during or after the time of Capn al-Huk), he would be unlikely to be very happy about what was going on.
What did Paul add to Christianity, do you think, Rox?
Read Paul’s epistles and compare them to the gospels to find out . Theologians’ views may differ (including differ on which epistles are Paul’s). On Christian Voice and elsewhere, Paul (or quasi-Paul) is often quoted, so there must be something distinctive in there. This question was introduced by Stephen, by the way.
Mark Jones refers to “red herrings”. But Jesus was not referred to once in the BBC programmes. Mark Jones has not mentioned Jesus in all he has written here. Jesus was introduced by Georgia, and the word has been used by her eight times. I used it myself three times in answering her, that’s all.
Has Georgia read this ?
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” Jesus, in Matt 10:34 AV
“…and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” Jesus, in Luke 22:36 AV
Sticking to the point, no red herring, Georgia and I agree that all of the people on the programme except one were not extreme Muslims. We differ in that I would call the others “moderate Muslims”, whereas she would say they are not Muslims at all, despite their protests. Could we settle on “less rigorous Muslims”, a term I have already tried out above ? Anyway, it’s good to observe that they seem to present very little threat. Is this a red herring ?
I think you can assume I have read the Bible a few times.
I see no contradictions between the Epistles and the Gospels and no additions.
You said the Apostle Paul added stuff to Christianity. To write that, you must have some idea of what it was. So what was it, in your opinion?
Rox: “Anyway, it’s good to observe that they seem to present very little threat”. “A less rigorous form of Islam is being practised by most Muslims”.
I have said that the BBC have, deliberately in my view, mis-represented this collection of “muslims” as representative of muslims in general, propagating the myth that only a few are “radical”. The video which I posted above by Ben Shapiro, which I assume you have not taken the trouble to watch (its only 6 minutes) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg, which is based on research by a very well respected polling organisation, shows that many muslims ARE radical, upwards of 30% or so in Western countries, and rising to 80% or so in muslim countries. Indeed, the research concludes that approx half of the 1.2 billion or so muslims in the world hold radical views, ie support suicide bombings, sharia law, the death penalty for apostasy, etc etc.
So I state that you are wrong, its not just a few that are radical.
Could you answer this point specifically please (perhaps after you have answered Stephen’s question above?). Thank you.
Why bother, then, to print letters from Paul in the Bible, if they make no addition to what is already in the Gospels ?
But this is a red herring, and we must refuse to indulge in it, or Mark will get angry. Can we agree that most Muslims appear to be not fully conversant and accepting of the entire content and implications of their religion as these are insisted upon by a very few extremists ? I felt that this was the main message to be gleaned from the programmes, and the BBC had had to go out of its way to find an extremist who had actually been in prison but had somehow persuaded a court he presented no danger (which some of the the slap-happy “Muslims” actually doubted as they got to know him better ! ).
Mark seems to have frightened Georgia off, without actually adding anything himself. Thanks.
Because they explain the Christian faith to the new Gentile churches. But there is no addition in the letters of the Apostle Paul or any other apostle to the doctrine put forward in the Old Testament and Gospels, as I hope you now accept.
Rox:
“Can we agree that most Muslims appear to be not fully conversant and accepting of the entire content and implications of their religion as these are insisted upon by a very few extremists ?”
The Muslims not conversant with their own scriptures, are the ones who rely heavily on their Imams/parents, to teach them about their faith, who just tell their listeners what they want to hear, by cherry picking verses from the Quran and hadith, to disguise the truth about this militant belief system.
The Muslims who become “extremists “are the ones who take more time to study their scriptures in more detail, which in turn lead them into violent activity against “unbelievers”
These “extremists “as the you like to call them, are diligently following the ways and example of their role model prophet, a man who understood the Quran and put it into action the way Allah intended.
This being the case, far from being “extremists” these jihadists are radical Muslims, meaning they are adhering to the “roots “of their faith,by copying the ways and example of their prophet, who was himself the first Muslim “extremist”
Disagree?
Was Mohammed obeying, or disobeying Allah when he used physical combat to bring people to accept Islam?
Tabari 9: 82
“The Messenger sent Khalid with an army of 400 to Harith [a South Arabian tribe] and ordered him to invite them to Islam for three days before he fought them. [b]If they were to respond and submit[/b], he was to teach them the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Prophet, and the requirements of Islam. If they should decline, then he was to fight them.”
Sahih Muslim: Book 019, Number 4294:
“It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say:Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muilims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai’ except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). [/b]If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands.[b] If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.”
Very good post, georgia, and pardon my butting in, but I think Rox accepts that “true”, “radical” islam is violent, etc, we just seem to disagree on how many muslims are radical (and therefore disposed to violence).
As a side note, we hear a lot about “extremists”, “radical” islam, etc and are told this is a perversion of islam. One of the points I was attempting to make, with which I think you’d agree, georgia, is that there is nothing “extreme”, or “radical”, about violent islam, it is normal islam, as I think your post above was attempting to show.
Agreed Mark, like all Muslims, Rox like to distance themselves from the truth about their faith, even when it is presented to them directly from their own sources.
If Rox,and other Muslims, want to be on the side of truth, then they have to come down from the fence they are conveniently sitting on, and face the facts about this insidious belief system, which puts Muslims in direct opposition to the very God they claim to put their faith in.
Georgia, you seem to WANT all Muslims to be extremists, on the ground that this is proper Islam. Most of us don’t want that. There is a problem with the terminology along the lines you have described, but I am very happy to stick to “moderate Muslims” and “extremists” for most purposes, along the lines of the BBC, newspapers etc. Muslins called “extremists” are equivalent to Christians called “fundamentalists”. They are looked on as different from the mass of everyday Muslims or Christians, and so they are. This is partly because both Islam and Christianity have inevitably mellowed over the centuries, but also because not everyone was well versed in the texts originally anyway (not everyone was literate, and not everyone could understand Arabic or Greek/Latin, quite apart from a lack of desire to study the religions carefully).
The Israelites often fought bloody battles with God’s encouragement, so why not the Arabs ? When did the armies of Christian countries stop going out with chaplains to encourage them that theirs was the just cause and God was with them ?
I AM NOT A MUSLIM, STILL NOT.
Rox,
“This is partly because both Islam and Christianity have inevitably mellowed over the centuries, but also because not everyone was well versed in the texts originally anyway (not everyone was literate, and not everyone could understand Arabic or Greek/Latin, quite apart from a lack of desire to study the religions carefully)”
As pointed out previously, both Islam and Christianity are defined by the actions of their founders, the difference being, Jesus is a man of peace, Mohammed was a man of violence.
Christians true to their faith become people of peace, Muslims true to their faith become people of violence, its a simple equation to understand.
When you answer the question truthfully put to you previously, “was Mohammed obeying or disobeying Allah when he used physical combat to bring people to accept Islam”, the answer must be yes he was, because he was the only man who understood the Quran and put it into practice the way Allah intended, enough to be warranted an eternal role model for Muslims.
The objective of the Islamic faith is therefore clear, to bring all people to accept Allah as the only god worthy of worship, to live by his laws, by fighting them, just as Mohammed did.
The objective of Christianity is to spread the Good News, by word of mouth, not through violence.
Although Christians in the past have used violence in the name of their faith, they can find no justification from the teachings of Jesus to do so, they are therefore in breach of their faith.
Conversely, Muslims can find justification from their scriptures and prophets example to use violence to propagate their faith, which they have done throughout the ages, shown in the Islamic conquests of India,Persia,North Africa and Spain,up to the present day.
“The Israelites often fought bloody battles with God’s encouragement, so why not the Arabs ? ”
The stories about the battles of the Israelites are held within the historical context in which they are written, they form the narrative of the Israelites journey towards Canaan, they are therefore not held as God’s eternal instruction for mankind. Neither is Moses held as a role model for humanity, his actions are held within the timeframe of the writings.
The Bible cannot be read like the Quran, as the Quran as a whole, is held as eternal guidance for mankind’s benefit, held together with Mohammed’s ways and example, which in turn defines the Quran.
The Bible is a collection of many books, written by numerous people, on a variety of subjects, within differing time periods.
Obviously neither the majority of Muslims nor the majority of Christians are “true to their faith”. Georgia is very much a theoretician or idealist, and seems to have a lot of trouble accepting this as the reality in the world where we live.
Rox:
“Obviously neither the majority of Muslims nor the majority of Christians are “true to their faith”.
Was Mohammed being true to his faith when he used physical combat to bring people to accept Islam?
Presumably, but it doesn’t really matter.
I AM NOT A MUSLIM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PLEASE NOTE, I AM NOT A MUSLIM.
I am a white Westerner, just like you presumably, with a Christian education and family background.
As Stephen knows, my great-great-grandfather was a Congregational Minister in Somerset, and wrote an entire hymn book which my great-grandfather printed.
I’m too busy at the moment visiting the sick and needy to reply to all the above, but hope to get round to it eventually, probably when this article has slipped out of view, but it will still be there if you go back to find it.
I’m not plural, either.
Hi Rox
You visit the sick & needy? Please tell us, or me at least, more. eg is this a church thing?
Best
Mark
No. I’m afraid it isn’t. I’m afraid the lady in question doesn’t go to church. .
She has had a heart valve replacement, and (as often, but people are not adequately warned) it has led to what is called “post-operative delusion”, what might seem very like dementia to the uninitiated, especially as it usually happens to people over 60. This usually clears up, but can be permanent. On Monday she was moved from the cardiothoracic ward into the gerontology ward, which may or may not be a good thing, I don’t really know. I happened to be the only person there (although she does have family members, who mostly live some distance away, her daughter living nearby but having two young children as well as a job).
Needy? She has been threatened with losing her job because of this. So she will be. It is all very worrying.
I don’t know if a church would be interested in getting involved. but I doubt if it could be particularly helpful.
Is there anything else you want to know ?
I wish I was plural, actually. There are further complications which I haven’t mentioned to you, and altogether it has been stressful and taken up a great deal of my time.
Well good for you Rox, may God bless you. Jesus said that whoever helps, well anyone really, imo, will certainly not lose their reward (or words to that effect, imo).
And no, I am not aware that Muhammed said anything like it.
I wasn’t doing it to get a reward from Jesus, but can you give a reference to where in the Gospels he says this, please ?
Matthew 10:42, Rox, and perhaps “better”, Matthew 25 vv 31-46. These spring to mind, there are possibly others, and comparable passages in the other Gospels, it is an important theme, not only in the Gospels but in the letters too.
Matthew 7 vv 21 to 23 is an interesting passage. Here we have people who would seem to be in active “Christian ministry” who don’t “make it”. Jesus said “the first will be last, and the last first”. He came for the sick (sinners, the outcasts from society, the mentally ill, the down and outs etc etc, not for those who think they are righteous (why do you think a homeless person, if you help him in any way, will usually say “God bless you”? Many of these know God imo). Indeed, Jesus said that the “tax collectors (not comparable to HMRC in our day, hmm, well on second thoughts….(!)) and prostitutes are entering the Kingdom of Heaven ahead of you”: He said this to the ultra-religious people of His day, who ultimately conspired to bring about His crucifixion.
There is also a difference, imo, between knowing God and knowing the Bible. Not that I am downplaying the importance of the Bible in any way, but if you read the Bible and don’t do what it says it will profit you nothing (Matt 7 v 26): many “so-called Christians” are like this in my view, huddled in their “churches”, whilst a desperately hurting world goes without our salt and light. And if we lose our saltiness, we are “fit only to be thrown out and trampled underfoot”.
Anyway, sorry, going a bit off-topic from your question.
Rox, I have put you & this lady on my prayer list. Hope thats ok(?).
Thank you. It’s a kind gesture.
They have let her go home now.
Rox:
You said:
“Obviously neither the majority of Muslims nor the majority of Christians are “true to their faith”.
I have asked you this question several times now:
Was Mohammed being true to his faith when he used physical combat to bring people to accept Islam?
An answer would be appreciated.
I did answer, Georgia, in the right place yesterday. You are in the wrong place here, answering Mark Jones.
so is she ok now? will she still lose her job etc?
Reasonably OK, don’t know.
Rox:
“Obviously neither the majority of Muslims nor the majority of Christians are “true to their faith”.
Was Mohammed being true to his faith when he used physical combat to bring people to accept Islam?
Rox:
Presumably, but it doesn’t really matter.
It may not matter to you, but it matters an awful lot to Muslims, as Mohammed is the man they revere as their role model in all things Islamic.
Mohammed fought non combatants to bring them to accept Islam, therefore Muslims can use violence to propagate their faith with impunity, just as Mohammed their role model, showed them.
It matters to Georgia. but it doesn’t matter a lot to the vast majority of Muslims in London and Bradford and Paris. Fortunately.
I can only suggest that Georgia tries walking round Finsbury Park, clearly labelled in Arabic “You should be killing me”, with an appropriate reference to the Koran. That might prove to be an illegal thing for her to do, actually. (Incitement to racial or religious violence).
Rox:
All references to “incitement to racial and religious violence” is found in the Quran, which is the whole point of the discussion, which you wilfully ignore.
I thought the whole point of the discussion was to discuss the various Muslims who appeared on a television programme, most of whom did not hold extreme views like you do.
One has to throw up one’s hands and give up eventually, georgia
If you can see what Georgia wants to achieve, you are probably the only one.
Where is the advantage of having fundamentalist Muslims who want to kill everyone else ? However steeped in Islamic tradition this might be, it’s not fashionable amongst most Muslims now, and it is to everybody’s advantage that it should stay that way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg
WATCH THE VIDEO Rox!! (6 minutes). What is it about this that you do not understand/dispute? Its got NOTHING TO DO with “wishing Muslims to be radical”, Neither I, nor georgia, have any influence over them. What is the matter with you?!!
I don’t know what is the matter with me. This does seem to be a waste of time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF9kPzFvwr8
This video ( 2 minutes) explains the 4 stages of Islamic conquest & takeover, the pattern established by Mo and used to take over (or in their terminology, conquer) other foolish, naive and unsuspecting countries. It explains why not all those with radical views (see first video above) are not yet intimidating or killing unbelievers, throwing homosexuals off roofs, stoning women for “adultery”, etc etc etc: when a country is fully islamic, we will see these things, as we can see them in countries that are islamic at present.
Have you heard of the islamic doctrine of taqiyyah?