Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My discussion is .. I wonder if he was not stationed in saudia arabia, and elsewhere. Would he have converted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by philkirkham
Did you read your own link??
Maybe he meant that if he was not stationed in Muslim countries (not specifically Saudi Arabia ) for the past 30 years would he have converted from Christianity to Islam.
Some Muslims put their allegiance to religion as supreme, even above their country. That is why you saw some cheering when WTC came down, all the while enjoying the fruits of USA.
As a recent convert in 2011 and living in a Muslim country it is not unreasonable to ask where the allegiance will be if UK and Saudi have major issues in the future ( like an attack on UK by Saudi nations and sponsored by the hard liners in the royal family / State / Clergy).
Indeed it is only a small percentage that commit terrorist acts,but millions more look the other way.Its like the holocaust,about 100,000 took part actively but millions more knew,despite the claims of some.Plenty of Muslims here in the UK have at least some sympathy with the likes of ISIS and Al Qaedea.Nowhere near the majority but too many.
Now while i admit this survey goes back to 2007, i would think the results would be similar.it makes scary reading.
It's his decision, and as long as it isn't a national security issue then he can convert to Islam if he wants, there is nothing to suggest he is a radical muslim.
You can be Muslim and join the Civil Service, Police, Armed Forces and even Security Services, you can even be Mayor of London, now there's a thought, can you imagine a Muslim as Mayor of London.
It's his decision, and as long as it isn't a national security issue then he can convert to Islam if he wants, there is nothing to suggest he is a radical muslim.
You can be Muslim and join the Civil Service, Police, Armed Forces and even Security Services, you can even be Mayor of London, now there's a thought, can you imagine a Muslim as Mayor of London.
You know very well that the two situations are not similar. One is a born Muslim with a long track record of being a Muslim and the people knew that and elected him a Mayor.
The other is an appointment, not an election. He was a Christian for most of life and while serving in Muslim countries decided to become a Muslim as recently as 5 years ago. He is serving as ambassador of Britain in a country which supplied almost all the hijackers of 9/11 and is one of the main sources and safe harbors of international terrorists. Britain is on the opposite side,, fighting (? was fighting) the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
No one is questioning his right to change religions. But don't be surprised if the foreign office and MI5/MI6 keeps a close eye on his movements and actions and if it deems him a security risk, he may be moved to a less sensitive country.
And if you think the Muslim Mayor of London and the recent Muslim conversion of ambassador to Saudi are in the same vein, I am speechless.
To bad that formal religion that is actually political - tainted the teachings of Christ...who was a brilliant thinker. Those who abandon Christianity simply did not really understand it...So who was a better man and the better thinker? Was it Christ or Mohamed? I would say Christ by far...this ambassador was never a real Christian to begin with so there was no conversion. In fact most Christians do not grasp the real concepts...
To bad...maybe this ambassador should have researched the tradition he was raised in...Islam is simplistic and a lazy way of thinking. Oddly - Mohamed did acknowledge Jesus...he admired him..to bad that Islam has relegated Christ to the back pages of the Koran.
You know very well that the two situations are not similar. One is a born Muslim with a long track record of being a Muslim and the people knew that and elected him a Mayor.
The other is an appointment, not an election. He was a Christian for most of life and while serving in Muslim countries decided to become a Muslim as recently as 5 years ago. He is serving as ambassador of Britain in a country which supplied almost all the hijackers of 9/11 and is one of the main sources and safe harbors of international terrorists. Britain is on the opposite side,, fighting (? was fighting) the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
No one is questioning his right to change religions. But don't be surprised if the foreign office and MI5/MI6 keeps a close eye on his movements and actions and if it deems him a security risk, he may be moved to a less sensitive country.
And if you think the Muslim Mayor of London and the recent Muslim conversion of ambassador to Saudi are in the same vein, I am speechless.
Just because someone converts to a religion does not automatically mean they are a radical fundamentalist and I am sure he has discussed the situations with his superiors at the Foreign Office.
He's not breaking any law, and can choose his own faith, being Muslim does not equate to being a terrorist, as for 9/11 it was indeed carried out by Saudi nationals, which is why of course Iraq was invaded.
As long as Simon Collis Ambassador carries out his duties, just like the Mayor of London, then I don't see an issue, indeed it's his own personal choice.
In terms of Collis's background he has spent most of the last three deades in the Middle East in various Muslim countries, is married to a Muslim (Huda Mujarkech) and is a very highly respected member of the Foreign Office, he's hardly a radical fundamentalist.
Indeed the problem lies with relgious fundamentalism whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish or any other religion, however the vast majority of people who practice any religion are moderate rather than radical fundamentalists. If this man had announced his support for radical fundamentalism then there would be a problem but he hasn't.
Just because someone converts to a religion does not automatically mean they are a radical fundamentalist and I am sure he has discussed the situations with his superiors at the Foreign Office.
He's not breaking any law, and can choose his own faith, being Muslim does not equate to being a terrorist, as for 9/11 it was indeed carried out by Saudi nationals, which is why of course Iraq was invaded.
As long as Simon Collis Ambassador carries out his duties, just like the Mayor of London, then I don't see an issue, indeed it's his own personal choice.
In terms of Collis's background he has spent most of the last three deades in the Middle East in various Muslim countries, is married to a Muslim (Huda Mujarkech) and is a very highly respected member of the Foreign Office, he's hardly a radical fundamentalist.
Indeed the problem lies with relgious fundamentalism whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish or any other religion, however the vast majority of people who practice any religion are moderate rather than radical fundamentalists. If this man had announced his support for radical fundamentalism then there would be a problem but he hasn't.
You don't have to stray into fundamentalist territory to admit that all religions are simply ideologies. The one he's chosen is undeniably sexist and homophobic, at the very least. That's nice for him. At least he didn't chose the maya pre-colombian human sacrifice religion (where you didn't even need to be a fundamentalist to go along with awful stuff).
One would hope people in such responsible positions were just humanists or agnostic at least. Not believers of magical ideologies.
You don't have to stray into fundamentalist territory to admit that all religions are simply ideologies. The one he's chosen is undeniably sexist and homophobic, at the very least. That's nice for him. At least he didn't chose the maya pre-colombian human sacrifice religion (where you didn't even need to be a fundamentalist to go along with awful stuff).
One would hope people in such responsible positions were just humanists or agnostic at least. Not believers of magical ideologies.
There are plenty of people who hold religious views, are agnostic/atheist who carry out their duties free from prejudice or discrimination, and there are a raft of equality and discrimination laws in place in the UK and other countries as well as Human Rights Legislation.
In terms of the Bible, you have groups in the US who use Bible passages as proof that Homosexuality is wrong, and the Koran and Bible can be twisted and interpreted in different ways hence the dangers of Fundamentalism.
In terms of the Muslim faith, and as with any other religion or indeed in relation to agnostic/atheist views thay moderate and not radical then equality laws and human rights apply, and this man has every right to practice the religion he has chosen. In terms of a religion that advocates Human Sacrifice I think that might be illegal and break Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights - 'The Right to Life'.
Better than being Evangelical or those that talk to snakes.
Really? When was the last time those people put on a suicide vest and blew up a bunch of innocent people? Or drove a van and mowed down a bunch of people at a festival?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
