He said it. He also said that his religion is NOT tolerant. He said it. When I report on his saying it, I get called "intolerant." He doesn't get called intolerant by his coreligionists. I do. See how the game works?
A fuller story on Abu Bakr's remarks, from The Age, with thanks to SRoss:
A Melbourne radical Islamic teacher last night described Osama bin Laden as "a great man" and declared he would be betraying his religion if he told students not to train in terrorist camps.Abdul Nacer Benbrika, also known as Abu Bakr, said: "My religion doesn't tolerate other religion . . . Jihad is a part of my religion."
ASIO revoked Mr Benbrika's passport earlier this year, the ABC reported, and it recently raided and questioned him. But although it took papers, charges had not been laid.
Earlier this week former ASIO officer Michael Roach said Australia had about a dozen terrorist cells, with up to 60 individuals in Sydney and Melbourne. Australian Federal Police chief Mick Keelty has confirmed this....
Mr Benbrika told The 7.30 Report, which reported that some of his students had gone to overseas terrorist training: "According to my religion, here, I don't accept all other religion except the religion of Islam."
He said he was "not involved in anything here. I am teaching my brothers here the Koran and the Sunna and I'm trying my best to keep myself, my family, my kids and the Muslims close to this religion".
"I am telling you that my religion doesn't tolerate other religion. It doesn't tolerate. The only one law which needs to spread, it can be here or anywhere else, has to be Islam."
Pressed on why he did not tell students not to go abroad for terrorist training, he said: "If I do this, it means I am betraying my religion."
"Jihad is a part of my religion and what you have to understand (is) that anyone who fight for this sake of Allah . . . when he dies, the first drop of blood that comes from him . . . all his sin will be forgiven."
He described Osama bin Laden as "a great man. Osama bin Laden was a great man before 11 September, which they said he did . . . and until now nobody knows who did it".
He said the problem was that there were two laws - Australian law and Islamic law.
Mr Howard strongly rejected the notion of two laws. "Suggestions that there is an exclusivity of religious belief in this country is against the values we hold," he said. "It's also very unfair and damaging to those hundreds of thousands of Muslim Australians who share my view . . . that we should respect other religions and we should try and live in tolerance and harmony."
OK, let's see those thousands of Muslim Australians who share Howard's view start working against people who think like Abu Bakr in their communities.
So,
A Prime Minister Howard/Abu Bakr public debate would be a win/win for non-Muslims.
If Mr. Howard can prove Abu Bakr wrong (which he can't) then Abu Bakr will be forever discredited.
But, if Abu Bakr proves Mr. Howard wrong (which he will) the Australian people will then understand, once and for all, one of Islam's ugliest tenets.
Funny how my Australian politcians will throw two Christian preachers into court for speaking this same truth about Islam, yet when a Muslim does it, its OK??????
Where is the Equal Opportunity Commission??? Where is Mr Bracks, Premier of Victoria????????
One rule for Muslims, another for us infidels.
I worry that people assume that allah and the god of Christianity are one and the same.This is patently not true when one says kill and dominate,the other says love and the meek shall inherit.....
Read "Islamic Invasion " by Robert Morey.
Regarding the so charming Abu Bakr, please Australia don't just remove his passport. Send this man and his family back to his country.Do this nicely and lovingly but definitely. Australia does not want or need evil imports.
There is surely provision for the removal of citizenship and this kind of case cries out for this.
Please Western World stop being so accepting ....lets have our views and our needs dominate or we shall be overrun from the inside.
Islam wants only world domination and this means lots of dead before we rid the world of this cancer,because as we can see islam's way to domination is through killing. This doesn't mean we can't fight back.....we have to.
This is more evil and definitely more insidious than Hitler,please don't let's leave it until the final hour.
Perhaps islam is the next antichrist.
Over the past month in Australia, a lot of publicity has been directed at resident Muslim 'religious leaders' like this one - the media has given them enough rope and they are proceeding to hang themselves. Various Muslims have made comments to the media revealing their basic hatred of and lack of loyalty to Australia -and they don't even seem to realise what they are doing. There is no excuse now for any Australian to be ignorant of the dangers of Islam.
I usually hesitate to speak for anyone but myself, but I'm pretty confident that approximately 90% of people want them gone, and that includes other immigrants. I have never heard one person opt for more Muslim immigration - in Sydney at least, they have a bad reputation in all areas. Last week the Sydney Daily Telegraph printed a list of shonky builders who had ripped people off or were working with false qualifications. Every name on the list (excepting four) was Muslim, usually Lebenese.
These comments should legally be regarded as treason. He should be deported as an example to others of his persuasion.
Abu Bakr, you have done a great service. You have made much clearer to Australia's leaders (and hopefully George Bush by conversation with Howard) what is going on worldwide. Islam is rising and poised to strike. Surely our leaders can put the pieces together. So many others have.
Marilyn:
Perhaps islam is the next antichrist.
You bet!
BTW, just outta curiosity, what other entities do you consider antichrists thus far?
Mormon kills 4 innocent Christians in Israel
Oh wait.... it wasn't a mormon. But guess what??
It wasn't a muslim either
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/608864.html
I cannot understand the minds of the likes of Abu Bakr. I will mention this about tolerance in Islam and you judge. Prophet Mohammad started inviting people to Islam for thirteen years. After that, Muslims got persecuted by the idolators, which caused them to migrate to what is now Ethiopia. The reason for migrating to Ethiopia was that Prophet Mohammad advised his followers that there is a rightous king in Ethiopia (a Christian) who would offer his protection to them.
The idolators followed the Muslims to Ethiopia and begged the king to return the Muslims back to Makkah so they would be persecuted and forced back into being idolators. The king had one of the followers speak on behalf of the Muslims and once he heard what Islam was about he saw two strobes of sunlight coming down from a window. He said that your religion and our religion is the like of these two strobes. They are parallel and come from the same source. He refused to return the Muslims back.
With the likes of Abu Bakr, I can care less if his citizenship was revoked, if he was deported or even jailed. He probably deserves it. What he said was not ideals of Islam. At least not to me and I am a Muslim. As for calling Islam the antichrist. I find that laughable. Sallahuddin was called the antichrist in Europe before. I saw it on history channel. It is not new.
YourGuest,
I have a friend planning to visit Riyadh shortly as he is interested in spreading the word of Christ. You pointed out that the above article is 'full of holes' and that Islam is tolerant. Can I assume therefore that he will be made to feel most welcome?
Also who are you to judge that Abu Bakr is not a true muslim? His statements are perfectly in tune with Mohammed's modus operandi and with teachings of the Koran and the Sunna.
http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=3411
http://www.persecution.com.au/news/article.asp?artid=82113187-3D8F-4C9D-ABBC-A7CECEE744B4&c=9
http://www.christianresponse.org/articles/159/saudi-police-arrest-40-pakistani-christians
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/105/16.0.html
http://www.worthynews.com/christian-persecution/saudi-police-raid.html
http://www.graceandpeace.org/?action=article&ID=312
I get always amazed by the common excuse used by muslims (such as YourGuest) in explaining the murderous behavior of their co-religionists; i.e. that they are being persecuted. Thus, to justify the brutal behavior of Muhhamad and his followers, muslims make the simple claim that their actions are justifiable because they were persecuted. I would like to ask any muslim what persecution justified the brutal murder of the following by Muhhamad and his henchmen:
1) The killing of Abu Afak.
2) The killing of Asma Marwan.
3) Attack upon the Banu Qaynuqa Jews.
4) The killing of Kab Ashraf.
5) The killing of Ibn Sunayna.
6) Attack against the Banu Nadir Jews.
7) The killing of the Shepherd.
8) Massacre of the Qurayza Jews.
9) The torture killing of Kinana.
10) The killing of a slave Wife and Mother.
11) The slaying of an old woman from Fazara.
12) The killing of Abdullah Khatal and his Daughter.
13) The attack upon Tabuk.
What persecution did the poetess Asma Marwan commit that she was executed in the most cowardly manner in the middle of the night while she was with her baby? Unless, by persecution you mean her taunting Muhhamad by saying she can produce verses finer than Muhhamad's. What persecution did the poor blind 100 year old Abu Afak commit that he too was so cruelly dispatched? He was no apparent physical threat to Muhammad, and he did not urge people to commit violent acts against Muhammad or his followers. There was no discussion with Jewish leaders, no dialogue with Abu Afak, simply an apparent outright killing of one of Muhammad's weak and defenseless critics. The aged Abu Afak urged the people who lived in Medina to doubt and question Muhammad's words and acts. Muhammad's sayings probably seemed strange and dictatorial to the old man, and he chided the Arabs that put their faith in Muhammad with satirical verses. But apparently when Muhammad heard of this he viewed the 120-year-old man as a threat, not , not to his life, but to his credibility. Nowhere does it say that Abu Afak urged his fellow Arabs to attack or harm Muhammad. Yet for creatively speaking his mind for the benefit of his friends, this man was killed. And the fact that the Banu Qaynuqa Jews rejected Muhhamad was that enough of a justification to slaughter over 600 Jewish males and keep their wives as slaves?
yes, Foehammer, and we also know which country gets labelled as a racist apartheid state, largely at the behest of Muslim countries and their "non-aligned" friends, and it ain't Saudi Arabia.
Keep it in perspective.
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/inquis1.htm
http://www.scotchirish.net/1641.php4
Well, at least Abu's honest. Give him his due, at least he's not trying to con us like YourGuest.
Meanwhile in happy Sydney, a Pakistani doctor said that Aussie girls deserve to get raped because they don't dress like the grim reaper. Three of his good Muslim sons are being tried for gang raping Australian "sluts". And just the other day a gang of thirty Lebanese youths ran riot in a shopping centre and somebody got killed.
Australians are just sick of Muslim thugs - and (as the learned Razdan points out) any Muslim that isn't a thug, hasn't been reading his/her Koran properly. Muslims are a curse on this great southern land. But what can we do? We have to vote in this country, but there's not a single politician who stands forward to sort this mess out. Women are afraid to walk home at night, and billions are spent in security and Muslim dole money just to keep them in check.
Islamic terrorism is sure to follow.
cedarlite says: Keep it in perspective
Pathetic, pin-headed reasoning. Comparisons drawn between ignorant, superstitious european peasants hundreds of years ago and modern day muslims in order to "prove" we are no better than the islamofascist murderers we confront is moronic sophistry.
If you have to go back more than a couple hundred years to find an example of Christians behaving with violence and intolerance...IT DOESN'T COUNT! Hideous, delusional and dangerous moral equivalency. A muddle-headed prescription for cultural suicide. Attitudes like this in the face of facts are bizarre and a real impediment to honest, intellectual confrontation of the islamist terror we face in the real world.
I'm with THw6kds on this one.
Just yesterday I had a discussion with one of the brightest friends I know -- and as is often the case with such a brain, he is an atheist, believing all organized religion to be fantasy.
While he has a right to his opinion, I took the time to remind him that regardless of how he might feel spiritually about his role in the universe, there can be no denying that Christianity (and Judaism) are a central part of Western Culture, and without these influences we would not be the people we are today.
Sure, our historically superior use of gunpowder and alloy metals gave the descendents of Western Europe the power to control the greater part of the world in the past few centuries, but it is the basis of our LAWS, drawn from such things as the 10 Commandments as an example, that have made things like the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights a fact and not just an abandoned hope lost in the tomes of history. Judaeo-Christian values, and not Muslim hatreds, are what have maintained our humanity and superiority as a culture.
Yes, superiority.
Islam is anti-modernity and a fascist, theocratic, masogynistic and false ideology. There is no equivalency here or ever between Islam and the West. To look for such is to deny the reforms, civil liberties and freedoms that have been fought and died for by Westerners all over the world, for all kinds of people, in order to supply most of us with the freedoms and liberties we take for granted today.
It is not a perfect world, nor shall it ever be, but to not confront the evils before us, will only serve to further the lie that has perpetuated Islam for 14 centuries and help drive what is already a confused globe down into a turmoil that most of us can not even begin to imagine.
THw6kds: Gosh! You can get a lot out of one line!
Actually the point I was making is that it is possible to find religious justification for unspeakable acts of carnage from many different perspectives.
There was a time when Christian priests would claim, and prove, using the holy book that it was not only right, but imperative that certain groups of people should be subjected to mass murder.
The fact that those people exist within Islam is no excuse to condemn an entire religion and the all of the people that follow it.
There were a couple of Muslims on Breakfast on the BBC this morning. One of them was making a very salient and relevant point to the current discussion.
There are, he was saying, broadly 2 schools of thought within Islam. The first is an esoteric, personal faith which is predominantly about the individuals relationship with God. The second is a theocratic viewpoint that is absolutely determined to restore the kalifah, over throw governments and impose sharia law across the world. Really quite different.
Blanket condemnation of the Islamic faith will have only one result - young Muslims will turn towards the theocratic version and away from the tolerant, faith-based version. If you really don't want sharia law to be imposed on you then ONE of the ways that you might set about doing that is to allow yourself the scope to look a little more deeply at the religion that you are currently treating as a monolithic organisation that has only one perspective on the world. It doesn't and if you think that it does one have one voice then you are wrong.
The reason for highlighting the fact that Christian priests have, in the past mainly, called for intolerance and murder is solely to point out that religions can change their ways without changing their fundamental beliefs.
It is true that the vast majority of Muslims, certainly in Britain, want to get on with their lives, get on with their neighbours and have absolutely no regard for those extremists that persuade their young people to commit murder.
It is also true that a sizeable and significant minority have other ideas.
In my opinion we must find the way to open up effective dialogues and work on the things that unite us and try to deal with the things that push us appart. To do anything would be to acquiese in a process that will lead, inevitably, to genocide on a massive and unprecedented scale. It really wouldn't matter who "won" such a conflict because those left standing would have had to debase their humanity to level where they are nothing more than animals in order to survive.
"Earlier this week former ASIO officer Michael Roach said Australia had about a dozen terrorist cells, with up to 60 individuals in Sydney and Melbourne. Australian Federal Police chief Mick Keelty has confirmed this...."
..if two Auzzie officials can make such a statement,,WTF are they waiting for??
think I'll go outside and ram my head into the old oak tree..once adumbrated this stuff won't
be such a pain.
oops..adumbrated doesn't mean what I've always thunk it did..but you get the picture.
Substituting the blood of Christ for the blood of a murderer to get into Heaven. Satanic.
There are, he was saying, broadly 2 schools of thought within Islam. The first is an esoteric, personal faith which is predominantly about the individuals relationship with God. The second is a theocratic viewpoint that is absolutely determined to restore the kalifah, over throw governments and impose sharia law across the world. Really quite different.
Linda: Yes, quite different. So what do you, as a seemingly moderate, esoteric muslim going to do about those theocratic, facsist, mysogenic barbarian brothers of yours?
Blanket condemnation of the Islamic faith will have only one result - young Muslims will turn towards the theocratic version and away from the tolerant, faith-based version. If you really don't want sharia law to be imposed on you then ONE of the ways that you might set about doing.....
Linda: Look everyone. A veiled threat. "Do this and you won't get sharia-ized". What gonads... the truth always comes out of your mouth and your taquiyya always shows. I bet you cringe knowing that we 'infidels' know all about taquyyia, kitman, and lying to the kaffir.
It is true that the vast majority of Muslims, certainly in Britain, want to get on with their lives, get on with their neighbours and have absolutely no regard for those extremists that persuade their young people to commit murder.
It is also true that a sizeable and significant minority have other ideas.
In my opinion we must find the way to open up effective dialogues and work on the things that unite us and try to deal with the things that push us appart.....
Linda: Yes that's the ticket. Let's negotiate with the extremists so we don't get burqua-blasted and shariah-ized. Give it up, muslim. You're hear in the West, living in Western culture. If you don't like it, even if you are a born or naturalized citizen of a Western country, you are free to leave and go live in Saudi where you can wahabbi yourself till the raisins come home. The noose tightens.
Reform. Your. Religion. NOW.
Posted by: cedarlite at August 5, 2005 12:33 PM
Posted by Just_Linda who is sick and effing tired of being subjected to muslim demands.
If he "Must Preach Holy War"-
-then we must give him holy hell.
Off to prison with this terorist subversive s.o.b.
And all who love this ideology of militant Imperialistic Islam with him.
Pussyfooting Time is drawing to an end.
Butt-kicking Era is dawning.
cedarlite - maybe if you English would get out of the occupied territories of Ireland Scotland and Wales they (the Irish) wouldn't be fighting you.
You are nothing but a hypocrite. Bemoaning the Irish fighting the English occupation of THEIR lands, yet you attack the Yanks for exactly the same thing.
Pull your head in. Besides, terror is in the Koran, not the Bible. The Irish have killed around 1500 people in their terror war. The Muslims do that daily.
This is a religious war - get over it. The war between England and Ireland is more about land and occupation. The Catholics and protestants live happily side by side in the US, and Australia and many other countries.
Tell the English to end their occupation of Celtic lands, and don’t be a hypocrite.
Oh go read the hate and murder in the Koran and what Mohammed did in his life - is this what you, like many Muslims support>??
Michael Savage just finished playing this freak's speech on the Savage Nation. He played it three or four times so the audience could get a good grasp of what we're dealing with.
"using the holy book that it was not only right, but imperative that certain groups of people should be subjected to mass murder."
cedarlite; we are all waiting with baited breath for you to quote the passages in the Bible that commands Christians to go out and kill.
Would you like some of the 110 verses out of the Koran that do the same??
Where in the Bible are Christians commanded to go out and do a Spanish-type Inquisition?? We are waiting.........
Or are you just full of hot air???
There will never be peace while people follow Mohammed and his teachings in the Koran and/or Hadith.
They may be peaceful today, even born within our society, then London type bombers the next. This belief cannot be tolerated in the West.
"What he said was not ideals of Islam. At least not to me and I am a Muslim. "
So how come he can back it up with koranic verses, AND the life of Mohammed, that arabian warlord??
"So how come he can back it up with koranic verses, AND the life of Mohammed, that arabian warlord??"
Please back up what you said and quote me the Koranic verses that Abu Bakr used. Thanks!
YourGuest, I already gave you plenty of examples of Muhhammad's intolerance (see my earlier comment). For more on the verses within Koran and the Hadiths that Abu Bakr uses to justify his intolerance against other religions have a look at Chapter 7 of the following web site:
Islam Undressed
For all of Abu Bakr's faults, at least he is being honest about the Koran unlike the vast majority of the hypocritical muslims who try to hoodwink non-muslims into believing that Islam is a religion of peace.
Abu Bakr says that his religion doesn't tolerate other religions and "only one law which needs to spread, it can be here or anywhere else, has to be Islam."
Finally, an honest follower of Allah. Maybe those followers commonly called "moderates" are just people who cannot quite bring themselves to be this honest about what their own religion teaches.
The God of the Bible also does not tolerate other religions. He also has one law that will eventually cover the whole earth like the water covers the sea bed.
The difference between this God and Bakr's diety is that God is fully capable of advancing and protecting his interests by himself. Indeed, the God of the Bible promises to destroy those who oppose him at a time an place of his choosing, without the help of any human.
It appears that Bakr's diety cannot advance his interests without the help of self-exploding jihadists.
We will see soon enough which diety is God and which is a false idol.