<As a reminder to those Muslims who still appreciate what the Taliban did, let me quote the relevant Quranic source: "Do not insult their Gods, lest out of ignorance they insult Allah" (6:108)>

Sadly religious zealotry is used as an excuse to commit barbaric acts.

Piss Christ revisited

I would never produce a photograph such as "Piss Christ"

See:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/de/Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_%281987%29.jpg

It is a photograph of a crucifix immersed in a yellow fluid that the photographer, Andres Serrano says was his own urine.

While I dislike the photograph I respect Serrano's right to make it.

The photograph was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts." The aforementioned Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art receives funding from the US Government through the National Endowment for the Arts.

I would never grant such a meretricious piece an award but I respect the right of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art to award whatever it deems worthy.

The National Gallery of Victoria displayed Piss Christ in 1997. I would not have done it but, at the time, I defended NGV's right to display whatever it chooses.

Eventually NGV cancelled the exhibition of Piss Christ. It was roundly condemned for succumbing to Catholic bullying.

Well here we are in 2010. Terry Jones, a Florida Pastor, has called off his koran burning caper. I'm glad he has. I have a horror of burning books.

Here's what a book burning looks like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF5kMVIolYw&feature=fvst

But I am also struck by the hypocrisy of the whole thing. Some of the same people who were adamant in defending the right of NGV to display "Piss Christ" were also most vehement in denouncing Terry Jones.

Either you are in favour of protecting ALL religious symbols; or none. To argue for the protection only of the symbols of a religion whose adherents threaten mayhem smacks of moral and physical cowardice.

I am in favour of protecting none. To do so would be a denial of free speech.

So while I would never burn a koran, or, for that matter, commission cartoons of Muhammad, I shall defend the rights of Jyllands Post and Terry Jones to express themselves freely.

Muqtedar Khan, the first amendment to the US constitution protects free speech. The US Supreme Court has included the right to burn the flag.

Get over yourself.

So how about not burning bibles, effigies of American leaders or burning the American flag at every opportunity, I'm sure you realize it p*sses them off. (even if it is legal, burning the quran or bible is not illegal either)

If you do these things, expect retribution .. oh

Pastor Terry Jones has agreed not to go ahead, since the mosque builder has agreed to move it .. see you can reason with religious zealots, well, some of them anyway.

"Those determined to burn the Quran are doing so as a way to either hurt or get even with Muslims" .. really, not just a protest, of the bible or American (or Israeli) flag burning kind?

I did catch the justification, the Quran is "the only book in the entire heritage of humanity that claims to be solely the word of God" and since the christian bible is not, it's OK?

This is not going to smolder endlessly, one side appears to have zero tolerance, and the other is tolerant of the intolerance.

When that changes, and it will change when the tolerant one has had enough, I expect there will be trouble.

Preaching tolerance has no effect on the intolerant, they have the book written by god (!) on their side, so why should they tolerate you with your book of stories?

This article is yet another veiled threat by another intolerant person.

The author betrays an ignorance of the Constitution. Free expression of views which are loathsome to some is allowed. The right to say or express what nobody finds offensive is allowed in the darkest tyranny.

I don't like the idea of burning books. As an American I don't the idea of burning our flag. However, both the flag and the book are symbols. It is an admissible expression of feeling to destroy a symbol.

Burning or harming people in other ways is clearly wrong. Burning books may lead to burning people. Usually it does not. Allowing loathsome expressions is a necessary part of free expression.

"" the Quran belongs to all people, it is part of the human treasury and the Quran attests that it was sent, not to Muslims, but to the entire humanity: "It is nothing less than a message to all nations" (Quran 68:52). It belongs as much to Terry Jones as it does to Muslims."" @ Muqtedar Khan

Religious texts are fiction, so what they supposedly attest is irrelevant to modern humanity.
...................

""My children have been listening to it since even before they were born. I use to recite it to them while they were still in the womb. Their children will be reciting it to them when they will be lowered in to their tomb."" @ Muqtedar Khan

Foetuses in the womb do not understand such pronouncements, and dead bodies will not hear them
.

The author writes
'If Muslims react with anger and indiscriminate violence then one of Terry Jones' goals will be fulfilled. He would have shown the world that some Muslims are more barbaric than even he is. '

It is only those in total denial that don't know that some Muslims have for a long time been more barbaric than this misguided Pastor.

Muqtedar Khan

If you are reading this I hope it has dawned on you that while OLO posters may differ on many things we are resolute on the right of people to express themselves freely. And yes that includes the right to say and do things that may wound Muslims deeply.

Note, this is a RIGHT, not a privilege. We have a RIGHT to burn your koran.

Poster may be interested in this piece by Johann Hari in The Independent.

DESPITE THESE RIOTS, I STAND BY WHAT I WROTE

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-despite-these-riots-i-stand-by-what-i-wrote-1608059.html

[quote]

"...My column reported on a startling development at the United Nations. The UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights has always had the job of investigating governments who forcibly take the fundamental human right to free speech from their citizens with violence. But in the past year, a coalition of religious fundamentalist states has successfully fought to change her job description. Now, she has to report on "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets." Instead of defending free speech, she must now oppose it.

"...So now, whenever anyone on the UN Human Rights Council tries to discuss the stoning of "adulterous" women, the hanging of gay people, or the marrying off of ten year old girls to grandfathers, they are silenced by the chair on the grounds these are "religious" issues, and it is "offensive" to talk about them."

[/quote]

THIS IS SHOCKING!

Book burning is barbaric, especially symbolic book burning.

stevenlmeyer .. is that the same UN who we get smacked by about our"human rights" violations, the one the leader of the ACTU complains to about our government, the one our government regularly sidles up to to sign things the populace knows nothing about? The one our previous PM has spent a fortune of OUR money on to get himself a job, (why don't we just give him some money, a jet and a crew and let him do whatever he wants, it will probably be cheaper and less embarrassing in the long run. He's rich anyway so it's not the money, it the ego isn't it?)

Sorry to be sarcastic, but the more I hear of the UN, the more I want us out of it, since it appears to be becoming a corrupt tool of various regimes to enforce their lack of tolerance, on the tolerant.

This theme keeps coming through to me I guess .. predominantly western (civilized) societies tolerate primitive tyrannical and medieval regimes and all that changes is we give up more and more.

I saw Ban Ki Moon making all manner of comments on this, so he's not in favour of freedom of speech either, as he's under pressure from all these despots and tyrannies as well.

Your example is horrifying, and I'm sure is not isolated. I for one want to get out of the UN, it serves us badly and has become a tool of oppressors.

The Koran is primarily a concoction anyway, put together by bunch of his henchmen after his death, and most of it was just variations of the old jewish texts.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200112100017

or

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/03/scholar-researches-origins-of-the-quran-fears-for-his-life.html

or

http://www.christoph-heger.de/palimpse.htm

The real tragedy in all of this has been and will always be, the inability of the Muslims to give there religion, or more properly their ideology, an open critical analysis ...to the same extent that other religions have undertaken.

Threatening violence upon others just demonstrates how medieval and violent it really is.

The author writes:

"The Constitution does not permit this. The Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment. For Muslims this is worse than torture."

This is a novel and self-serving definition of something worse than torture. Nobody has a right to shut somebody up if they feel offended by what they say.

I am offended by your article in distorting the Constitution of my country, but you have a right to write it. Olo has a right to print it. I have a right to set you straight.

A truly astonishing and terrifying article.

The author states 'A society must abandon basic decencies in order to muster the immoral courage to burn books..'
I remind him that it was his mob - Muslims - who burned Rushdies books in Bradford years ago. (Was that 'abandoning basic decencies'?) I was appalled when that happened because it marked how degraded some people were, but I did not rush around threatening death and destruction. It was his mob's leaders who placed a sentence of death on Rushdie. It was from a place a few miles away from Bradford that some of his mob set out to kill people on the London underground. It is his mob who killed the Dutch film maker and placed a death sentence on Hirsi Ali. And so on and so on.

For this Muslim author to talk about the evil of book burning is either pig ignorant or, more likely,an exhibition of cant and hypocrisy. Perhaps ignorance might still be relevant, after all it seems to have taken the threat of burning a book that has made him realise the pain infliced by his mob on others

That is why I called the article terrifying. It is bad enough that he talks to the unborn and the dead, that is just weirdo behaviour that does no harm; but it is frightening to think that there are intelligent people about who would rather be burnt than see a book burnt. That is the 'thinking' that leads to people becoming mass murderers calling themselves 'martyrs'.

So now that the burning has been canceled will the extremists say.
a) Wow those Americans respect our beliefs there not so bad after all.
OR
b) Wow those people are so scared of us we burn a flag and make some noise and there head of state gets involved.

Back to lose lose.

A question: People have been arguing that Jones has a right to burn the Koran. This is supposedly his right to freedom of expression. However, what about my right to security:

"Where books are burned in the end people will burn." Heinrich Heine.

I would like to be able to follow my religion and go to work without fear of persecution or discrimination. I’d also like the same for others. This is only going to happen if we accept that with rights comes responsibility. If we don’t then we empower extremists like Jones.

People like Jones ...Muslims like Jones, Christians like Jones, Jews like Jones and Atheists like Jones...don’t like to express their opinions in a reasonable way. They do not have reason on their side. So they use inflammatory tactics. When inflammatory tactics are used people get hurt.

Jones actions will invite retaliation. Retaliation will result in deaths. Deaths will embitter both sides, leading to polarisation and further conflict. Extremists win, the rest of us lose. At least that is a reasonable prediction.

I think Jones has abused his right to freedom of expression.

Afterall, no-one accepts the unfettered right to bear arms or drive a car. If you do not handle your weapon responsibly or drive responsibly, the weapon/car can be taken away. Who doesn’t accept this? Those who own a weapon/car are expected to handle the weapon/car in a manner that minimises the chances of others being hurt. Otherwise they face charges.

The same applies to the right to freedom of expression. If you have something to say you say it in a way that maximising the chances of resolution of any grievance and minimises the chances of others being hurt. This means you have to think responsibly about your behaviour and the impact it can have on others.

That is what being civilised is all about.

Troposa,

Agreed,unfortunately 'b' is the most likely interpretation.

I wish the loony had actually burned the Quran,this apparent backdown will simply encourage more Islamic bullying and special pleading.

Many Moslems seem to have problems understanding liberal democracy and freedom of expression.To most people in the world the Quran is superstitious nonsense.

A see no problem with a Mosque being built at ground zero, since Muslims did not do the 911 controlled demolitions of the Towers or WTC 7. http://ae911truth.org/

MAC:
<<I wish the loony had actually burned the Quran,this apparent backdown will simply encourage more Islamic bullying and special pleading.

Many Moslems seem to have problems understanding liberal democracy and freedom of expression.To most people in the world the Quran is superstitious nonsense.>>

I do not believe the Qur'aan is "superstitious nonsense" and i do not have a problem "understanding liberal democracy and freedom of expression".

Most people are not in a position to express an opinion about the Qur'an because they have not read it.

Of those who have read it, the overwhelming majority would disagree with your accessment that it is "superstitious nonsense".

Mac, it seems to me you are suggesting most people in the world (i.e. the other 3/4) should gang up on the Muslims, and burn their Qur'aans. And if we object then we are behaving like bullies.

Zig heil!

Grateful asks:

"…what about my right to security:"

You have the same "right to security" as Salman Rushdie.

As Kurt Westergard:

See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article6973966.ece

As Ayaan Hirsi Ali who has to be accompanied by bodyguards wherever she goes.

You have the same "right to security" as he LATE Theo van Gogh.

You have the same "right to security" as Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow "…who in Somalia in 2008, in front of a thousand people, was dragged to a hole in the ground – all the while screaming, "I'm not going – don't kill me" – then buried up to her neck and stoned by 50 men for adultery? After 10 minutes, she was dug up, found to be still alive and put back in the hole for further stoning. Her crime? She had been raped by three men and, fatally, her family decided to report the facts to the Al-Shabab militia that runs Kismayo."

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-crimewave-that-shames-the-world-2072201.html

And while you will claim that this last mentioned is "un-Islamic" the fact is that it was done in the name of Islam.

Understand this Grateful:

Your right to tell Christians their Bible has been corrupted and Jones' right to burn that compendium of seventh century garbage you call the koran all stem from the same source. You cannot curtail one without curtailing the other.

You quote Heine, a writer born Jewish. Here is what an imam at the Grand Mosque in Mecca has to say about Jews:

"In Mecca two years ago, al Sudais described Jews as "scum of the earth", "rats of the world" and "monkeys and pigs who should be annihilated".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3618243/Where-is-the-Gandhi-of-Islam.html

stevenlmeyer,

Like Jones your intention is to steer a path towards conflict. I can site hate speeches by Christians and Jews just as easily as you can for Muslims. I can also highlight injustices meted out by Christians and Jews agains Muslims (contemporary, not of the past). But unlike you i do not believe that gives me any right to discriminate and persecute people based on their religion. And this isn't just a personal thing, but something embedded in the religion of Islam itself.

Stevenlmeyer,Perhaps the Zionists should stop the gradual genocide of the Palistinians,then the lunatic Muslims will stop hating them.

Religion is a curse and the crutch for insecure humans.

Arjay: <<Stevenlmeyer,Perhaps the Zionists should stop the gradual genocide of the Palistinians,then the lunatic Muslims will stop hating them.

Religion is a curse and the crutch for insecure humans.>>

The irony in these remarks is that the front-man for the global persecution of Muslims (tax hijabs, burn their Koran), Geert Wilders, is an ATHEIST who draws his funding from right-wing ZIONISTS:

http://www.dutchnews.nl/columns/2010/06/wilders_and_the_us_israel_lobb.php

As for the crutch remark, Muslims (from young to old) have just completed 30 days of fasting which means no drink, food, sex etc from dawn to sun-set each day: an exercise in sincerity, unity, commitment and self-control (not to mention outpouring of charity that comes with it) that belies your depiction of us as "insecure humans". We feel bloody confident and secure in our belief, mate!

What about you? Unlike yourself and others, I feel no compulsion to resort to such insults?

The laws of every organized society form a
complicated pattern of balanced
freedoms and restrictions. Some people think
of laws as the natural enemies of freedom. Anarchists
believe that all systems of government and laws
destroy liberty. Most people believe that the law
both limits and protects the freedom of the individual.
For example, it forbids people to hit others. But it
also guarantees that people will be free from being
hit.

What I'm trying to say is that the major reason that
we have for restricting freedom in our society is
to prevent harm to others. To achieve the goal of
equal freedom for everyone, a government may have to
restrict the liberty of certain individuals or groups
to act in certain ways. Laws banning racial
discrimination in employment is an example.

Society limits personal freedom in order to maintain
and keep things running smoothly. When two cars cannot
cross a road junction at the same time without
colliding, regulations specify which should go first.

Every person must accept certain duties and
responsibilities to maintain and protect society.

People who enjoy the rights of free speech and
expression have a duty to respect other people's
rights. A person's freedom of expression is limited by
the rights of others. All societies, including
democratic ones, put various limitations on what
people may say and do. The idea of personal
freedom has nearly always carried with it some
amount of duty to society.

Pastor Terry Jones with 50 parishioners plans to mark the anniversary of the abhorrent events that occurred on September 9, 2001 (9/11) by publicly burning two hundred Qurans to show the hate they feel towards Islam and Muslims.

Dr Muqtedar Khan is right to feel indignant at this totally unchristian demonstration of intolerance. The act that was committed on 9/11 represents the behavior of a minuscule number of an obscure Muslim sect.

Following 9/11 there wasn’t a Muslim country that didn’t condemn the act and even Syria offered its assistance.

Dr Khan as much as I disagree with the Pastor’s planned burning I believe that he has every right to do so.

Fellow Muslims I beg restraint and remember that the Quran is only so much paper and ink. If your belief in Allah is strong you should pray to Him to forgive Pastor Terry and his practitioners for their ignorance.

Cartoons of Prophet Mohamed, books and insults have rained down on Islam. Muslim overreaction, creates an importance out of proportion to the deed and give the perpetrators far more attention than they deserve.

When hypocritical EU countries break their own laws to specifically discriminate against Muslim women then they should be presented before the UN court of Human Rights and should be shown for what they are, racists and uncivilized bigots.

Muslims must object to things of substance and not ego: The invasions and slaughter of our brethren in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Obama relocating troops from Iraq for possible use in Afghanistan or Iran. The Israelis continuing theft of Arab land to build more settlements in contravention to UN resolution 242 of 1967 and Israel's starvation of Gaza through the illegal act of collective punishment by an illegal siege.

Leave Pastor Jones and his congregation alone. Leave those that write book on Islam alone and leave those that draw Prophet Mohammad alone They don't harm us, they don't kill us. We are offended but there are many things in this world designed to offend us and detract our attention of the continual murder of Muslims.

Incidently, this episode is nothing new. The Westboro Baptist Church burned the Koran back in 2008 on the anniversary of 9/11.

The fact is, Jews, Christians and Muslims have always despised eachother, do despise eachother, and will continue to despise eachother until everyone works out that the Bible and Koran are nothing more than contemporary Iliads.

.

Dear Dr Muqtedar Khan,

.

The fratricidal family feud continues. It has been going on now for two thousand years and is far from abating. What is it that justifies that the members of the same family of religious belief continue to tear each other apart ?

Muslims, Christians and Jews all worship the same God but are incapable of living together peacefully on the same planet.

Not one of them can be deemed truly worthy of his God.

As you clearly identify yourself with Islam, I must say I do, however, find it positive that despite the considerable amount of harm caused to Islam by Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda over the past decade, it is to your credit that not a single fatwa has been pronouced against any of them.

A death penalty similar to that directed against your fellow Muslim, Ahmed Salman Rushdie, by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, for the publication of his novel "The Satanic Verses" in 1988, could only exacerbate existing tensions within the Islamic community and result in further bloodshed.

.

Foxy,

The fact is that, Muqtedar Khan's preposterous interpretation of the US constitution notwithstanding, Terry Jones would be doing NOTHING ILLEGAL in burning copies of the koran. If he were doing something illegal there would be no difficulty. The relevant law enforcement agency would simply tell him to cease and desist on pain of imprisonment.

Let me repeat that in a different way. Terry Jones & Co would simply be burning their own property. There is nothing illegal about that.

If you doubt me consider the case of Texas vs Johnson. The US Supreme Court stated that laws banning the desecration of the US flag were unconstitutional. You are allowed to burn the flag in the US. The language of the decision is such that it would apply equally to bibles, koran's crucifixes, etc. In the US BURNING A SYMBOL IS PART OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

In the US just about the only speech that is prohibited is incitement to violence. However incitement is narrowly defined. The speech must contain "fighting words" as in "kill dem ….."

According to two lawyers I consulted the situation is not much different in Australia outside Victoria. If I announced my intention of barbequing a koran in my backyard in the presence of invited guests there is not much anyone could do about it.

In Victoria the so-called Racial & Religious Tolerance act MAY make such an act illegal. However, judging by the words of the High Court in the Nalliah-Scott case such a prosecution may not stand up to a legal challenge.

In the end the only laws that may stop me burning my own property are smoke and fire safety regulations. However that would not stop me doing to a koran what Serrano claims he did to a crucifix – immerse it in a yellow fluid of my own manufacture and photograph it. I could even place the photograph on the internet.

So the question is, Foxy, do you want the US and Australia to change their laws to protect religion?

Grateful religion has nothing to do with spirituality or belief in God.It is about having power over othe people.The Zionists just got rid of the middle man we call god and went for money and power.Both the Zionists and a section of the Muslim faith want to control the planet.

The whole war on terror is a lie.The Muslims did not do 911.There is now absolute scientfic proof that explosives brought down all 3 large buildings on that day.see http://ae911truth.org/

http://patriotsquestion911.com/ There are now;
400+ medical professionals
1200+ Architects and Engineers
220+ Senoir Military,Intelligence,and Govt Officials
400+ professors
300+ 911 survivors and their families
200+ artists,entertainment and media professionals

Who all question the events of 911 and are asking for a new independant investigation.

"I am amazed at how millions of Americans who are decent and honourable can watch this happen."

Well, I am amazed the millions of Muslims care so little about the vile things they do, the hate and discrimination practiced in all countries where islam dominates and the evils that are found in the Quran.

Here we have a Muslim, a man that says "Praise be unto him" after the name of Mohammad, telling us how bad we are. Well, in case the writer doesn't know, Mohammad attacked non-Muslims dozens of times, he looted, murdered, lied, tortured, enslaved men wome and children and children and let his men rape captives - well that is what Islam's traditions (hadith) say.

Speaking of barbarity, isn't Allah the god that likes to burn the skin off unbelievers (Q4:56) and then it on again so he can repeat the torture?

Mr. Khan says the Quran explicitly forbids such acts against non-Muslims. Actually it doesn't, much to the contrary (Notice that he doesn't give any reference). There are hundreds of verses demonizing non-Muslims in the quran. Allah makes it very clear that unbelievers are lower than animals and deserve the vilest punishment. Perhaps that explains why in 50 some Islam dominated countries, 50 some discriminate against and persecute non-muslims, and even other Muslims.

Khan can't even quote the Quran correctly . There is no "gods" in verse 6:108. It simply says "those they call upon". Even so, the Quran has no problem saying the Christians commit blasphemy (Q5.17) because of the concept of trinity (Q5:73). That is insulting but Muslims don't care.

The fact is that Muslim values are not those of the west. They don't believe in freedom of speech and religion, equality, human rights and separation of religion and state. The mass immigration of Muslims to the West has been, is, and will be a disaster.

Radical Muslims kill, moderates make excuses and blame others.

Kactuz

@ grateful

There are two approaches to the text of the Quran-

(1)There is no evidence that the personal god of the Quran even exists,it's simply the ramblings of desert nomads,so what's the point of reading it? Your sacred book means nothing to this infidel.

(2)I'll leave the textual analysis of the Quran to the experts,many report it as a collection of contradictory nonsense,a record of the depradations of a desert bandit and his followers and of course, vicious anti-semitism.(No,I don't have a pro-Zionist agenda).

As to 'ganging up on Moslems',most Moslems in the West are allowed to practise their religion,contrast this with the treatment of Jews,Hindus and Christians in Moslem majority countries.No society is completely tolerant of 'difference',however, which would you prefer to be,say, a Coptic Christian in Egypt or a Moslem in Australia? Where are the churches in Mecca(or synagogues)? There are mosques in Rome.So you'll understand if I don't express much sympathy for the poor 'persecuted' Moslems in the West.

The problem with many Moslems in the West is that they can't adjust to the liberal democratic doctrine that Islam is simply 'just another religion'. Moslems can object as much as they like,however legitimate 'objections' don't include rioting and murder.

Well said Coombs and Banjo Patterson

Here is yet more evidence to support the fact that the Koran is like all the others before and after, it has a history, and therefore could not be the immutable word of anyone other than the manipulative imaginations of the ignorant.

http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/the-political-violence-of-the-bible-and-the-koran/

...of which arjay above would be a pefect example

He is nuts.

Stephen, your idea of barbecuing a Koran is a good one. But let's not stop there. Let's barbecue a religious book each time we have a barbie. Holy smoke, we'd have a good time. And there's a bonus!

Eventually, there would be no religious books and finally the world would be freed from the nonsense that is religion. There'd be freedom from fear, our brains would finally be freed from infantile superstition, wars would stop, and we'd all become realists.

Thanks for your brilliant suggestion!

I'd be interested to know who is backing Pastor Terry Jones, and what is their hoped for outcome, because I find it difficult to believe he is doing this all by himself.

He's somebody's puppet. The question is, whose?

Really says something when an unknown man who has a flock of 50 can ignite such hatred and murder among the Muslims. It says far more about our idiotic leftist immigration policies that has caused so many to pander to terrorism/Islam than anything else.

Arjay,

I had a look at the 'evidence' you put forward in support of your conviction that 911 was not done by Muslims. Unconvincing and at about the same level as the stuff that claimed Armstrong etc did not get to the moon.
I know it is hard for you to accept the evil done in the name of Islam, but your self deception is rather pitiful.

If the Muslims did not commit 911, do you, Arjay, also have a fruit loop story re the London bombings and the Madrid slaughter. What story have you there? Martians?

It is hard for me to decide who frightens and bewilders me more; murderous 'martyrs' or people such as you Arjay who have but a tenuous grip on reality.

Grow up.

Dear Steven,

As I stated in my previous post the major
reason for restricting freedom is to
prevent harm to others. To achieve the
goal of equal freedom for everyone, a
government may have to restrict the liberty
of certain individuals or groups to act in
certain ways. Like most rights, freedom is
not absolute and when an individual's private
acts places lives in jeopardy - those acts will
be curtailed. In the case of Pastor Jones, -
clear concern by US military officers have
been expressed, - of retaliation against troops
in Afghanistan and Iraq - this makes it a case of
National Security.

In case you haven't googled Pastor Jones biography
you need to do so to get a complete picture of the
man. He was expelled from Germany - and is a totally
unbalanced extremist. It's unfortunate that he's
being given so much media attention.

Briar

I doubt anyone is "behind" Jones. I think with Jones, what you see is what you get, a pathetic little man seeking attention. In fact Jones is a bit like Arjay who seeks to turn every thread into a discussion about his bizarre conspiracy theories.

However, even if some mysterious entity (who exactly?) was "behind" him, what of it? Burning your own property is NOT illegal. It may be foolish but, let me say it again, it is NOT illegal.

Foxy,

I am well-aware that Jones is a bedbug.

So what?

He was NOT planning anything illegal. Even scumbags are allowed to express themselves.

Let me repeat that YET AGAIN

It is not against the law either in the US or Australia to burn your own property.

What is more Foxy, if it weren't for the fear that a whole lot of Muslims would be encouraged by equally scummy little "holy men" to feel such hurt by this display of silliness that they had to go out and kill people no one would care. So who is being really silly here?

David G

I have learned to live with the fact that people have strange beliefs.

Case in point?

Back in the early 1990s in South Africa I saw a demonstration against the death penalty. Not being a fan of the death penalty myself I had no quarrel with the demonstrators. What I did find weird was that they were all wearing Che Guevara T-shirts.

I pointed out to the demonstrators that Che Guevara was Castro's executioner, that he had organised the execution by firing squad of hundreds of "enemies of the revolution" in 1959 – 60.

They refused to believe me.

They didn't believe an itinerant Jewish preacher walked on water and rose from the dead 2,000 years ago. They didn't believe that a compendium of seventh century claptrap, much of it cribbed from Jewish and Christian religious texts, was a direct message from the God. And they didn't believe that Che Guevara was Castro's executioner.

In the end people will believe, or not believe, what they choose.

Sooner or later someone who wants to stir the pot will burn a Koran and hoist it up on Youtube, or some like place, and will keep doing it till a reaction is realized.

Bound to happen, people are not going to allow intransigent bullies to rule, they have got away with it so far, but you sense a groundswell of people just aching to tweak their noses.

If they start burning a Koran every day, by the thousand in every non muslim country, then that would be interesting to see what the reaction to that is.

Would they then threaten everyone, more than they do now?

What happens when the threats no longer work?

Will islam then have to confront itself that you actually cannot bully the whole world? Maybe that would be good.

People tweak the noses of western religions people all the time, e.g. The Life of Brian.

Generally though, aside from the odd fanatic, western religions just deal with these things and tend to outlive them, more because there is a tolerance that appears to be missing in islam .. wasn't there a reaction to The Da Vinci code by some over sensitive Christians?

No one died though or threatened death though, Dan Brown and the Monty Python crew do not live with bodyguards or in fear.

Rpg wrote:

"Sooner or later someone who wants to stir the pot will burn a Koran and hoist it up on Youtube, or some like place, and will keep doing it till a reaction is realized."

You got me thinking rpg.

Guess what?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DFZbr5bWrI&skipcontrinter=1

It includes an English translation so it may not be a "real" koran. Perhaps in this case it's the thought that counts. The clip has had over 124,000 hits.

The clip web page also provides the following link:

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1798.htm

"In the end people will believe, or not believe, what they choose."

Stephen, although it pains me to admit it, I agree with your statement. Unfortunately it means that humans will drown in their own stupidity or, more correctly, perish in a nuclear war or an evironmental catastrophe.

I have spent a lot of my life trying to point out that we humans are on a course to extinction. I might as well have saved myself lots of stress and taken up knitting.

Humans have such potential too. It was wasted on them!

stevenlmeyer, so that's been on Youtube for 3 years, and so far that's the first I've heard of it - so really the reaction come only when the media draw attention to it.

hmmm, maybe the radical religious types are targeting the wrong people and if they target the media, not to report anything, then will that make everything all right?

I just think some people are going to end up wound too tight about the whole muslim bully boy act and respond - the bullying act has worked so far, but only because most westerners are tolerant and expect some tolerance in return, all we seem to get is yet more intolerance and increased bullying.

It seems to me that that if people of faith want to be upset by insults to their holy book's they should be most offended by those who claim to follow those books yet bring the book and their faiths into disrepute by the way they live.

If Allah existed and does not endorse the barbaric acts committed by some muslims which the author and other shave referred to a far greater offense would be given by those who've carried out those actions in the name of Allah then by a hick preacher from another faith wanting to burn printed (eg man made) copies of a book which can easily be replaced by just printing more.

How about some scene's of community outrage in predominately muslim lands against those who acting in the name of Allah commit atrocities which bring the faith into disrepute.

The same goes for christians who consider the abuse of children by christian's a beat up but who get all bothered by gay's wanting to marry.

R0bert

Dear Steven,

On this one point we agree - that people
will believe what they want to believe.
However, when their individual actions
have the capacity to cause harm to others
(for whatever "silly" reason as you point
out), that's when authorities have the right
to step in and curtail those actions for the
"greater good."

This is a public Forum Steven, and we don't
have to agree - I'm sure that you realize
that. It also doesn't make your opinion (or
mine)the "right" or more valid one. Both, are
merely opinions being expressed.

Mac,

I am sick and tired of hearing this totally misunderstood adjective when applied to Muslims of the Middle East: "ANTI-SEMITE" it demonstrates such complete ignorance on the subject.

Muslim and Christian Arabs ARE SEMITES. If you want to criticize a people at least understand the basics. There are more pure Semites in the Arab world then there is in the entire State of Israel as most of the Jews in Israel arrived from Europe and America and their genes were mixed with the citizens of those countries.

As for the Quran being the mad musings of a wandering nomad. Islam is the first and only religion that recognized women as something other than an inferior human for man’s pleasure.

Women were given the right to own land in their own name and were allowed to inherit money from their husbands rights not accorded them by Christianity or Judaism.

If you want a rant please inform yourself on the fundamentals of the subject and then have a rant.

[“The fratricidal family feud continues. It has been going on now for two thousand years and is far from abating. What is it that justifies that the members of the same family of religious belief continue to tear each other apart ?”]

Religious Jew and religious Muslim have NO problems co-habiting and have been doing so for generations. They are kinfolk, brothers and the God of Abraham made a Covenant with both of them in which he promised to make both prosperous for loyalty and obedience of his laws. At one time the two united under Saladin and threw the Kingdom of Jerusalem back to Europe bringing seven hundred years of peace to South western Asia that lasted till the return of Europeans and terror in 1914.

The situation turned into the festering, pus dripping sore that it is today on the arrival in Palestine of European Zionist settlers who began the rot by forcibly displacing the Palestinians from their homes, farms and towns. The Zionists also introduced discriminatory practises regarding ethnicity, skin colour and religious choices applying them not only against the Palestinians but to their own fellow Yehudi that had remained in Southwest Asia/North Africa such as the Mizrahi and Sephardi.

[“There are hundreds of verses demonizing non-Muslims in the quran. Allah makes it very clear that unbelievers are lower than animals and deserve the vilest punishment.”]

Yes indeed......the Bible also gives explicit details on God’s barbarity in the treatment of the Aboriginals of Palestine and others. Nice juicy bits for ya regarding the treatment of non-Jewish females and what can be freely done to them!

[“The fact is that Muslim values are not those of the west. They don't believe in freedom of speech and religion, equality, human rights and separation of religion and state. The mass immigration of Muslims to the West has been, is, and will be a disaster.”]

The question should be “but why the mass migration”?

Gee....is it because the militaries of the west are tearing their countries apart? So it’s leave or die, let’s see what would a normal sensible person do?

Foxy,

The authorities cannot just "step in" as you put it. They need a legal basis for their actions and none exists. The Supreme Court has ruled that acts such as those Jones contemplated were protected by the first amendment*. The ruling is binding on courts throughout the US.

So what do you expect the authorities to do Foxy?

Arrest Jones? On what grounds?

Serve him with a court order prohibiting him and his church from burning their own property? What would be the legal basis of such a court order in the light of the Supreme Court's ruling?

I also strongly contest the notion that giving in to religious bullying and death threats serves the greater good. I think it does exactly the opposite.

The "greater good" as you put it is better served by standing up to bullies.

But if you feel so strongly about it agitate to have "A Life of Brian" banned lest outraged Christians go on the rampage.

Or get Arjay's outrageous claims about the Jews banned from OLO in case I get so wounded by his posts that I go on a shooting spree in Flinders Street Station.

Or is it only people who threaten violence whose feelings need be considered? And what kind of example does that set?

And where does it stop? If someone finds "The God Delusion" so hurtful that they feel bound to kill people in revenge do we ban the book? Do we stop teaching evolution because somebody thinks it's "anti-God"? Is that really serving the "greater good"?

Eventually we're going to have to stand up to religious bullies or go back to servitude. The longer we delay the inevitable confrontation the worse it will get.

Right now is as good a time to draw a line in the sand as any.


* Texas vs Johnson 491 U.S. 397 (1989).

I wish one of our leaders would say:

Sensible people realise that all Muslims are not to blame for 9/11. Muslims can be sensible enough to realise this is one nut burning his own property which he has a perfect right to do.

It is a bigoted stupid act, but it is the act of one stupid bigot.

As we don't blame all Muslims for 9/11 we think it unreasonable for Muslims to blame us for one man who acted offensively but legally.

"As we don't blame all Muslims for 9/11 we think it unreasonable for Muslims to blame us for one man who acted offensively but legally."

Oh right, that kind of understanding should stop suicide bombers from killing innocent people .. sheesh, it's sooo simple.

Dear ulis,

The word, antisemite, was coined in 1879 by Wilhelm Marr, and he meant it to mean hatred of Jews. That is what he meant, and the way the word has been understood. Marr was not referring to Arabs or other semitic people.

There is no such thing as a semitic gene as the adjective, semitic, refers to a language group. Some of those semitic languages are Aramaic, Hebrew, Arabic, Akkadian, Amharic, Ge'ez, Maltese, Phoenician, Tigre and Tigrinya.

Dear rpg,

You are right. It is simple. It is obvious, but nobody says it.

Pastor Jones has the right to burn any book he likes. Nobody can force him not to, he lives in America.

Hopefully, he will reconsider his threat.

I think what david f says is absolutely right. It's simple but it isn't easy, and somebody should be saying it and I don't know why they aren't. It should be coming from Muslim leaders, and US and Western leaders.

I suspect there is not the political will on either side to take such a stand. I think there are too many powerful interests on both sides that prosper from discontent and instability. That's our tragedy.

Just listen to Tony Blair, flogging his memoir and still justifying the invasion of Iraq, while some of his fellow country men and women shout for him to be tried for war crimes.

While I really hope Jones doesn't burn the book, at the same time it does not sit well with me that an action that is perfectly legal in the USA is prevented by the threat of terrible retribution from another country

Stevenlmeyer = liar "Arjays outrageous claims about Jews banned from OLO in case I get so wounded by his posts that I go on a shooting spree in Flinders Station." No such words have eminated onto OLO ever from my posts.I expect an apology for your errant lies and mis- representations.

I'm a 911 truther.Most of you know this.The movement worldwide is enormous but small in the land of oz.

There are a multitude of anomolies in 911 that need to be addressed.
eg Mobile phones operating at impossible heights,scientific proof of nano thermite a highly sophistocated explosive used in all 3 buildings,why did it take 6 yrs to put out a sham report on WTC 7 which no plane impacted? ,people secretly making money on the stock market, steel girders hurled horizontally for 600 ft,human bone fragments found atop of buildings hundreds of feet away,photographic evidence of molten steel according to workers that flowed like lava,aircraft fuel will burn in optimum conditions to half the melting point of steel,concete pulverised to dust when there should have been layered structures due to pancaking,media announcing the collapse of WTC 7 20 minutes before it occurred,Larry Silverstein's infamous "pull it" and checking with his insurance co that they'd pay out on his controlled demolition,buildings defeying the laws of physics thus falling at freefall speeds thus impossible to explain.The anomolies go on and on.

I will debate anyone any time on the scientific facts.Just go to http://ae911truth.org/ and start the debate.So stevenlmeyer and others put up or shut up.Most of my detractors are gutless wonders.

It's refreshing to see a Muslim perspective. I am hoping to read more on topics such as the stoning of women adulterers, and also the march of the Taliban in Pakistan. Forcing girl children out of school, bombing their schools, killing teachers.... I hope you have reserved some moral outrage for these kinds of issues, Muqtedar Khan. The innocents of Pakistan's Swat Valley are denied their rights to education and peace, Sir.

.

IN THE NAME OF GOD

.

The righteous punishment decreed by Peter Jones and Osama bin Laden rings of similar inspiration for the First Crusade.

Radulph of Caen reports that during the siege of the city of Ma'arrat al Numan (today's Syria)in 1098: "some people said that, constrained by the lack of food, they boiled pagan adults in cooking-pots, impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled."

Another chronicler, Fulcher of Chartres, reporting on similar events during the First Crusade, wrote: "I shudder to tell that many of our people, harassed by the madness of excessive hunger, cut pieces from the buttocks of the Saracens already dead there, which they cooked, but when it was not yet roasted enough by the fire, they devoured it with savage mouth."

Albert of Aix remarked that "the Christians did not shrink from eating not only killed Turks or Saracens, but even dogs..."

[The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and Other Source Materials (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998)]

In the Christian world, the memory of all this has long been lost in the sands of time. Not necessarily so for those who still live in those sands.

.

ulis,

david f has already corrected your mistake,however-

Arabs are Semites in a cultural sense,but the dictionary definition of 'Anti-semite' is basically 'Jew hater',which Mohammed and his followers were, and some Moslems still are,the scientific definition is not relevant.You're confusing categories,a trap for the unwary,such as you.

Your historical references are also irrelevant,what have Islamic societies achieved lately? Name a developed progressive Moslem nation.

Banjo Paterson,

I'm not sure what point you making by mentioning the atrocities committed by the Crusaders, as Moslems were equally guilty of barbarous behaviour.The Crusades should be seen in context, they were,in fact, a counter-attack against the previous 400 years of Moslem attacks on Christian lands.
The Islamic threat to Europe ceased in the 19th century only because the West had achieved overwhelming military and industrial superiority,not because Moslem societies had renounced aggressive expansion.

Moslem propagandists usually present the Crusades as simply a product of European expansionsism,that is self-serving nonsense. That interpretation is as ludicrous as if the Japanese claimed that WW2 consisted entirely of US air-raids on Japan.

Mac

Better still would be to ask Ulis and all the brain dead followers of Islam who are also mainly Arab why it is that 30m jews can produce 180 Nobel Prizes, but 2bn arabs can only do 8.

Thats telling us all something about the relativity of it all.

Next we could tlak about the hypocrisy of the Islamic/Muslim religion that insists upon having access to the west, and assert their rights conveyed by our tolerance and liberal democratic institutions..but can never explain why these same rights are not available in the dumps they came from.

Saudi arabia would be the worst ..closely followed by pretty well of them. Just google Freedom House and get a list.

Next to that we could ask him about the appalling behaviour of the OIC in the UN and the Durban 1 & 2 Human rights conferences where they are actively worked to shut down the very things they all want to migrate to, and then alter.

To hell with Islam and their medieval idiocies.

I reckon to hell with all religious idiocies which have been plaguing the world for thousands of years and feeding conflict!

We are all humans but far too many of us are deranged by the claims of religion which have not a shred of evidence to support them.

How come humans, if they get sick, want to employ a specialist with proven qualifications and skills but when it comes to religion they accept the words of people who can offer no evidence for their claims except for some ancient manuscripts that came out of the Stone Ages?

There's one born every minute!

http://www.dangerouscreation.com

The Associated Press reported on the 9th September 2010
that FBI agents visited the Florida church over
the Quran burning and spoke to Pastor Jones several
times. The Governor of the state is also monitoring
events quite closely. President Obama has made several
appeals to the Pastor - it looks like things are taking
a turnaround.

TO Muqtedar Khan,

you say:

"Books are . . . the soul of civilisation. A society must abandon basic decencies in order to muster the immoral courage to burn books as a celebratory act. Once it starts burning the souls of civilisation, human souls will not be left behind."

I agree with these sentiments. However, Islamic societies everywhere are in need of education on these ideals more than any other culture.

Suadi Arabia offically burns bibles if they are found in luggaege of incoming passengers. That is one of the richest countries on earth, and it boasts some of the main authorities on Islam who back these practices, as well as the banning of the existence of Christian churches in their lands. Most other gulf states are the same.

As for books though, well, what books? In Islamic societies exists the lowest rates for a literate culture of transaltion of foreign books into Arabic. The amount of non-muslim/non-Arabic books translated into Arabic in a period of 500 years is about the same amount that a country like Spain translates in only 1 year.
There are many sources that confirm these kinds of rates. I dare you to check UN stats for instance.

To me, this represents an extremely racist and xenophobic culture. Burning the Quran is the least we should do to protest this human atrocity of a totalitarian civilization.

I see muslim protesters burned the American flag outside the US Embassy in London, now is that just to protest, or just the usual show of muslim tolerance?

So to protest someone burning something they hold sacred, they burn something that ALL Americans hold sacred.

So who is it here is stirring the pot?

If muslims don't want people to burn their holy book, then stop burning peoples flags.

It's not just a "flag" to Americans it is the symbol of their great country and it makes them very angry to see this, the muslims know this very well (which is why they do it) but then are indignant if an American wants to burn the koran.

So how about some demands of moderation by the muslims, and some indignation in these articles about the muslims deliberately trying to irritate the Americans?

I get the impression the muslims are spoiling for trouble and just continue to push the US and everyone else till they either fold and become muslims, or eventually fight back.

It might no t be today or tomorrow, but a lot of people are very worried that it will come sometime in the future - we don't seem to be able to avoid it and the lack of tolerance in muslims is astounding.

To By Muqtedar Khan,

you say:

"I am amazed at how millions of Americans who are decent and honourable can watch this happen. No matter how ugly the act the Constitution permits this, is not an acceptable excuse. The Constitution does not permit this. The Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment. For Muslims this is worse than torture."

To equate the mere burning burning of a book with "cruel punishment" is representative of the type of arrogance that is common in Islamic culture. Muslims burn churches, bibles, flags, and non-muslims people every day. It is common place. Wherever muslims have control they are without fail unfair in the extreme to non-muslims. In Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus, all the shop fronts were painted the Islamic green when Hamas took over, and the population of Christians there and elsewhere in Palestine has dropped drastically since Hamas took power.

I can give unending examples of the unfairness. Muslims seem to expect special treatment.

Also, the pastor burning a Quaran IS a fundamental western value. It is "protest". The debate must turn to Islam itself. Westerners need to stop assuming that, just because our own historical religion (Christianity) has an ethic that is compatibel with human decency and equality, we should not assume that ALL religions are like this. It is a sad truth that the moral framwwork of Islam is quite simply tribal, and due to that inherently racist, mysogynistic, anti-equal in all respects, and extremely violent.

The fact that one man can burn a book and then every American may be killed on site, is testament to the mentality of Muslims in general. In general, every individual within islamic culture has the arrogance of an ancient Persian or Roman emporer, and this is partly demonstrated by their marriage practices (which are akin to western royalty, of trying to marry as close to the family and tribal "bloodline" as possible). E.g. in Australia the Lebanese muslims have a high proportion who go back to their parents' home towns in Lebanon to find suitably close genetic partners (often cousins).

I see many here who criticise Islamic countries for being backward and oppressive.George Bush brought in presdential orders that have attacked civil liberties making the USA almost a police state.You can be arrested and detained indefinietly without legal council on the mere suspicion of being a terrorist.Obama wants to legalise assassination of suspected terrorists.

What is so progressive about the USA and it's submissive allies?

The reason why Islamic countries are being targeted is that of oil and resources.In the case of Afghanistan it is lithium,drugs,oil piplines which amount to $ trillions for industrial military complex.Iraq was a lie and Bush/Blair and their cronies need to indicted for war crimes.

Quite simply Mr Khan,

the Islamic people's struggle with their metaphysical errors is just beginning, and it has been triggered by the Western cultural expansion, namely Reason and Rationality and an ethics of True equality, not just for my "own tribe" type "equality".

What makes me really furious about this type of situation between westerners and muslims is that it shows that those in the west who call themselves "left" are racist. They treat the "other" (here the muslim) as less than they would treat a fellow "white" westerner. For instance, if I were to protest outside of a church by burning the bible, and the pastor came outside and warned me that if I don't stop he will not only kill me but many christians will kill people who support me (or even just people who are the same tribe or race as me) will be killed, what would these "leftists" say then?
Can anyone seriously imagine that they would back down. On the contrary, thwey would step up there anyagonism. Everyone, especially them, know that.

So why, when it comes to non-white, non-westerners, do they not only back off, they actively seek to make appear immoral and even evil anyone who attempts to protest against ANY non-western, non-white culture. E.g. the Indian cricket racism against Symonds last year, and any issue regarding muslims.

These "leftists" treat the "other" as though they had downs syndrome or something. If they truely want to act like everyone are equals, they should look to the Cosmopolitan's moral code. For them, people are INDIVIDUALS first, cultures second. Leftwing people can't get their head around this.

In fact, leftists are the last racists that exist in western culture. Despite what they think, most so-called "right-wing" poeple are at heart cosmopolitans, and when they complain about some muslims or other, it is most of time because they have identified racist behaviour, and it disgusts them.

Arjay..you are nuts

Want to talk about Freedoms and the relativies bewteen nations, well here is a reliable web site that will tell you.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw10/FIW_2010_Map_Africa.pdf

Have a scout around the web site ...I am not doing your h/w for you... but in there somewhere is/was a table with all countries listed. Take note of how its the Islamic despots that all congregate near the bottom.

To hell with all religions, and particularly that hypocriticla version cobbled together by a depraved and murderous thug and his mates.

bigmal, start disproving the physics of freefall of WTC 7.It come down in 6.5 sec and from 3 sec is was absolute freefall as in a vacuum.How did all the component parts in this building decide in unision to collapse giving absolutely no resistance to the massive concerete and steel structures.

Let's see how nuts I am.Choose your own facts from http://ae911truth.org/ to disprove if that one is beyond you.Would you like some help in formulating some questions?

Sigh

Here we go again.

Congratulations Arjay, your monomania has hijacked yet another thread.

On a happier note I am pleased that most OLO contributors have seen through Muqtedar Khan's egregious piece.

We should not let Islam, or any other religion, bully us into giving up freedom of expression. That freedom SPECIFICALLY includes the right to say and do things that true believers may find hurtful. Most OLO participants seem to understand that.

In answer to Posted by Foxy, Friday, 10 September 2010 8:01:38 PM

Foxy you take a balanced and sensible approach to the burning of the Quran that aims to take the emotion out of the subject in an attempt to deal with it logically.

I must however comment on your absolute belief in law makers and laws in general. A successful government is often judged on the amount of legislation that it puts into law. There are no laws that give all citizens a right. Voting in Australia is not a right it is the law, so much for democracy.

Every piece of legislation is designed to take away the personal freedom of one part of society to the advantage of another. Some legislation takes away some rights of the entire population to strengthen the government and assist it to control its citizens.

Think legislation passed as a result of 9/11. Think legislation passed by the Northern Territories that directly discriminate and treat a people who have lived and survived within their unique culture for 40,000 years as children.

The law is a slippery eel and I wish we humans were evolved to such a degree that would make the law and lawmakers redundant and a more inclusive form of civilization take root.

Unfortunately in evolutionary terms human beings have just stepped out of the cave.

bigmal,

I agree with your concluding comments,many Moslems just don't seem to understand that the reason for the West's superiority on just about every measure of human development is liberal,secular democracy. The East Asians adapted Western models of industrialisation, rapidly,you'd think that Moslems would 'get the message'as well,but they haven't.
Contact with Western technology galvanised the Japanese into modernisation which later inspired the South Koreans and Chinese to industrialise. Actually the Islamic world came into contact with European technology (50 years before the East Asians) in the late 18th century,during the Napoleonic invasion of Egypt,what did Moslems do with this lead? Nothing.

Islam is just another religion and there's nothing special about Moslems-it's about time Moslems understood that obvious fact.

So stevenlmeyer says I've hijacked another thread.The Koran burning was in response to Muslims doing 911.The truth movement has absolute proof that it was impossible for people like Mohommad Atta to achieve such a sophistocated exercise without the help of insiders.

The the very basis of this present argument is seriously flawed from the outset.I have been banned from many sites such s Skeptic Lawyer but to their credit Graham Young and John Passant still believe in freedom of speech.

Where's that apology for your lies stevenlmeyer?

Ulis

I suppose this is what you mean by women having rights under Islam

She is honoured of she is not beaten about the face, according to this odious Imanic creep.

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2600.htm

But if she was in Iran she can be killed by stoning, just for being suspected of having an affair with someone else.

Bigmal,

Get with the program. All these terrible things that Muslims do to women are not part of "true" Islam. They are cultural left-overs that Islam hasn't yet gotten around to eradicating. They are, to use the popular phrase, a "perversion of Islam" which in its pristine form is a kind and gentle belief system.

At least that's what Islamic spokesmen tell their useful idiots in the western media who then repeat this drivel to the rest of us.

Of course the people who actually perpetrate these atrocities against women do so in the name of Islam and seem to have many citations from the koran and ahadith to back them up.

Fact is, Islam is not a religion - it is a cult (controls every aspect of their Muslim lives). They are Mohammadists. They cannot question anything in the Koran. They are brainwashed as they are not permitted to think for themselves. Including a belief in anti-innovation and much much more anti-progress stuff. It is ultimately inhumane all-over.

As was mentioned above - they hardly read anything outside their own culture.

Arjay:

You would interested in this: “The “meaning” of 911 – it’s not what you think”: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/09/09/the-meaning-of-911/

You may also be interested in this: “Bin Laden is Dead; Long Live “Bin Laden” Who’s keeping the terror myth alive?” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26164.htm

<<Assessing the evidence, Angelo M. Codevilla, a former U.S. intelligence officer who studied Soviet disinformation techniques during the Cold War and a professor of international relations at Boston University, wryly concluded that “Elvis Presley is more alive today than Osama bin Laden.”>>

In the end there was a Qu'ran burning at ground zero, it'll be interesting to see who this guy turns out to be, I'm guessing a stooge of some sort, either ADL or one of those crazy 700 club Fundies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRcUdruhgyw&feature=player_embedded&skipcontrinter=1

Mac wrote:

<<(1)There is no evidence that the personal god of the Quran even exists,it's simply the ramblings of desert nomads,so what's the point of reading it? Your sacred book means nothing to this infidel.>>

Posted by mac, Saturday, 11 September 2010 9:27:55 AM”

WHAT DOES MAC AND PASTOR JONES HAVE IN COMMON?

JONES:
“Pastor Jones, dressed in a dark suit, said at a press conference that he had never read the book he intended to burn. “I have never read the Koran,” he said. His opposition to the book, he said, was rooted in his belief that it doesn't contain the truths of the Bible. ” (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/terry-joness-koran-fire-protest-plan-burns-out/story-e6frg6so-1225918479142)

MAC:

Mac’s opposition to the book is rooted in his belief that “no evidence that the personal god of the Quran even exists, it's simply the ramblings of desert nomads”.

ANSWER: BOTH HAVE NOT READ THE BOOK and base their conclusions on their beliefs. How can you say the Qur'aan is the "ramblings of nomads" when you haven't read a word.

Yet another fundamentalist, eh David F

WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO HAVE READ THE BOOK
1) a number convert once they realise how at variance with the truth are opinions such as those of Mac and Jones :"Koran burning on hold for 9/11 as US sees boom in Islam conversion " http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Go_WnA8B2HE&feature=player_embedded

2) Others have the decency to uphold the truth in the faces of the lies by leading public figures:

An editorial in the Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/21009543), refers to "Got Medieval", the fascinating blog of Middle-Ages buff Carl Pyrdum.

Carl got stuck into Newt Gingrich remarks about the NYC mosque project:
http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2010/08/professor-newts-distorted-history.html

Given your aversion to reading anything good about Islam, and in light of your remarks about anti-semiticism, i thought i'd quote a few paragraphs for you:

CONT...

CONT..

Carl Pyrdum (http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2010/08/professor-newts-distorted-history.html):
<<Muslim historians of the late tenth century tell that Abd-ar-Ramman bought the church from the Christian congregation after sharing it with them for fifty years "following the example of Abu Ubayda and Khalid, according to the judgement of Caliph Umar in partitioning Christian churches like that of Damascus and other [cities] that were taken of peaceful accord".The Christians, we're told, took their money and relocated their church to the outskirts of Cordoba. Now obviously, these are Muslim historians writing two-to-three-hundred years after the events they describe, so we must always take their accounts with a grain of salt (as we would with any historian's work, Muslim or not) and consider the political motivations responsible for their histories.

These tenth-century historians were writing to please the ears of the Cordoban caliphs, Abd-ar-Ramman III and his successors, in the wake of yet another victory of Muslim over Muslim. Abd-ar-Ramman III, after all, is the one who declared Cordoba to be an independent caliphate, not just an Umayyad emirate. In rewriting the history of the Mosque of Cordoba, these historians were writing imperial justifications for their patron, explaining why Cordoba deserved to be the capital of its own caliphate, held up as the equal to Damascus, site of the Great Mosque of the Umayyads, and even Mecca, the holiest of cities, which was still under Abbasid control.

This is the important fact that Newt hopes those who read his polemic will be ignorant of: for a ruler to be legitimate in Muslim eyes in the tenth century, during the time when the Great Mosque was being expanded into its present-day dimensions, it was important to emphasize the peaceful succession of Islam from the other religions in the area. A caliph was expected to have arrived at an accord with the Christians and Jews over which he ruled. Far from "symboliz[ing] their victory" the Mosque was held up by Muslim historians a symbol of peaceful coexistence with the Christians--however messier the actual relations of Christians and Muslims were at the time.>>

Mac, i'd love to ask you to quote passages fronm the Qur'aan that you would regard as "ramblings of desert nomads" but there is not much point since you haven't read the book!

LOL mac

If you read the koran you will see that Muhammad was an earlier incarnation of Monty Python. I mean only Monty Python could make this stuff up.

Muslims believe the koran was dictated verbatim to Muhammad from Allah via an angel called Gibril (Gabriel). Allah is supped to be the creator of the universe.

Only this creator of the universe gets the basic facts of mammalian reproduction wrong. He also flunks geology 101. In fact he's all over the place.

Eg:

[18.74] So they went on until, when they met a boy, he slew him. (Musa)(Moses) said: Have you slain an innocent person otherwise than for manslaughter? Certainly you have done an evil thing.

[...]
[18.80] And as for the boy, his parents were believers and we feared lest he should make disobedience and ingratitude to come upon them:
[18.81] So we desired that their Lord might give them in his place one better than him in purity and nearer to having compassion.

Sort of preemptive euthanasia!

Muhammad had a thing about geckos as recorded in certain ahadith.

See Bukhari:

Book 026, Number 5562:

'Amir b. Sa'd reported on the authority of his father that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) commanded the killing of geckos, and he called them little noxious creatures.

Book 026, Number 5565:

This hadith has been reported on the authority of Abu Huraira through another chain of transmitters (and the words are): - He who killed a gecko with the first stroke for him are ordained one hundred virtues, and with the second one less than that and with the third one less than that.

Book 026, Number 5566:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying (that he who kills a gecko) with the first stroke there are seventy rewards for him.

Question: What is the exchange rate between "rewards" and "virgins". How many reward points do you need to get one virgin?

In fact mac here is the koran in comic book form

Mohammed's "Believe it or else".

http://islamcomicbook.com/comics/english/pdfs/MBOE-HIRES.pdf

.

Dear Mac,

.

It seems there is no consenus among historians on the motivations of Urban II, the reigning pope, for launching the First Crusade in 1096.

According to Thomas Asbridge, the University of London medieval history scholar: "on his (recruitment) tour of France, Urban tried to forbid certain people (including women, monks, and the sick) from joining the crusade, but found this nearly impossible. Peasants volonteered in tens of thousands with an outpouring of emotional and personal piety that was not easily harnessed by the ecclesiastical and lay aristocracy".

The French princes and knights are described as having been motivated by the sense of adventure and, as the peasants were extremely poor, some historians have suggested that many of them jumped on the occasion to improve their miserable material conditions of daily life.

Whether the First Crusade was aggressive or defensive is debateable. It is, however, generally considered a "holy war".

The reason I posted on this forum (page 9 of this thread) the historical account of the barbarism of the first Christian crusaders was simply as a reminder that barbarism is not the exclusivity of present day Islamists.

Those of Christian faith will recall the biblical recommendation:

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye but
considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye" ?
—Matthew 7:3 (King James Version)

.

grateful, Justin Raimondo does make some excellent points.He often posts on http://mycatbirdseat.com/

His quote of Martin Luther King rings home so true."In the end we will not remember the words of our enemies,but the silence of our friends."

There are so many professionals and people in Govt who know the truth but are too gutless to speak up.911 is the most important event of the last 150 yrs.If they get away with this,then facism will bring on a new dark age for our Western humanity.

Bin Laden is said to have died at Tora Bora in late 2001.There are two Bin Ladens on youtube published by the authorities.One has a thin nose and one a flattened nose.Perhaps he uses Michael Jackson's plastic surgeon.

Arjay, it may already be too late, but you ought to get a life, you know.

>>There is now absolute scientfic proof that explosives brought down all 3 large buildings on that day<<

Not at all. There are merely a number of untested, inconsistent and downright fanciful theories.

If there were proof, it would be front page news - in Riyadh, at the very least.

The fact that there are a few hundred random thrill-seekers signing up for the conspiracy theory is actually quite unimpressive, given the claim for "absolute scientific proof". It says a whole lot more about the personal insecurities of those people than it does about the theories themselves.

>>The movement worldwide is enormous but small in the land of oz.<<

Define "enormous", Arjay.

It's just a bunch of unhappy people who lack direction in their own lives, so they have to look for it elsewhere. Reality is not a prerequisite.

>>I will debate anyone any time on the scientific facts<<

Sadly, you don't. All you do is point to theories gathered from a conspiracy web site that you have chosen from the very large number that exist on the topic. Could you tell us why you picked this one, rather than one of the others?

>>The truth movement has absolute proof that it was impossible for people like Mohommad Atta to achieve such a sophistocated exercise without the help of insiders.<<

Not so. The proof is in the fact that he did just that.

No viable alternative scenario - how it was achieved, who was behind it and - most importantly - how many people were involved, has ever been presented. Not one single person has even come under suspicion of being part of your alternative scheme.

That has to tell you something, surely?

If you download the koran, then delete it .. is that a violation of the muslim ruleset? (buring the korran, or ripping a page out are said to be acts of unforgivable violence on the religion)

Does it only work if you pay for it? As opposed to free copy of the koran, in the electronic "wild" so to speak.

If you bought an ecopy, then by deleting it, destroy that copy forever, what then?

Will we have to track all ecopies of the koran?

What about quotes from the koran, they are supposedly the written words, if the server they are on is destroyed, or wiped clean, is that the same as burning a koran?

I suppose it must be ok to reproduce bits and quotes, otherwise many authors would not be able to write their pieces, or am I wrong about that. Above in the posts, we have someone demanding quotes from the koran be posted - what's the religious view on that, how would an imam from Iran for instance see it?

grateful,

I have read numerous extracts from the Quran,after 9/11 there's been no shortage of commentators,however, as I said before, there's no evidence that Mohammed's god even exists. I'm certainly not going to become involved in more arguments with believers over their sacred books,as I've discovered in the past, rational discussion is impossible. One fact is clear, the followers of Mohammed's teachings have produced one of the most oppressive and conservative cultures on earth and that indisputable fact is what is significant to me.

stevenlmeyer,

Yes,the Quran must have seemed a laugh,initially.

I've sometimes suspected that the authors of the Quran were 'on' something or perhaps, 'off' their medication.

Banjo Paterson,

I'm not disputing your facts,obviously most of the Crusaders were just psychopathic gangsters or deluded peasants,my point was that the Crusades should be seen in the context of the centuries long conflict started by Moslems.

There are several key pointers to just how evil and stupid is this so called religion.

The number words in the Koranmc trylogy given over to violence... 328,000.

The number of words in the Hebrew bible ...34,000.

The number of words in the New Testament ...0.

When the target audience are illerate and delusional then it is easy to see how they get manipulated by the priestly class ...in this case Imans and mad mullahs.

http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/the-political-violence-of-the-bible-and-the-koran/

I knew that reminded me of something.

>>The number words in the Koranmc trylogy given over to violence... 328,000<<

"Percentage of statistics made up on the spot by people who are determined to make a point, regardless of truth and accuracy: 99.73%"

Good one Pericles

Why dont you take it up with the author of the document I referenced

Despite the smart arsed retort, it is still a metric of merit ..indicating where the substance of the underlying problem may reside.

Bigmal

Words given over to violence in the NT is zero?

A load of cobblers, mate.

Just a few:

"# Peter claims that Deuteronomy 18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be killed. 3:23

# Peter and God scare Ananias and his wife to death for not forking over all of the money that they made when selling their land. 5:1-10

# Peter has a dream in which God show him "wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls." The voice (God's?) says, "Rise, Peter: kill and eat." 10:10-13

# Peter describes the vision that he had in the last chapter (10:10-13). All kinds of beasts, creeping things, and fowls drop down from the sky in a big sheet, and a voice (God's, Satan's?) tells him to "Arise, Peter; slay and eat." 11:5-6

# The "angel of the Lord" killed Herod by having him "eaten of worms" because "he gave not God the glory." 12:23

# David was "a man after [God's] own heart." 13:22

# The author of Acts talks about the "sure mercies of David." But David was anything but merciful. For an example of his behavior see 2 Sam.12:31 and 1 Chr.20:3, where he saws, hacks, and burns to death the inhabitants of several cities. 13:34

# Paul and the Holy Ghost conspire together to make Elymas (the sorcerer) blind. 13:8-11

Romans

# Homosexuals (those "without natural affection") and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them") are "worthy of death." 1:31-32

# The guilty are "justified" and "saved from wrath" by the blood of an innocent victim. 5:9

# God punishes everyone for someone else's sin; then he saves them by killing an innocent victim. 5:12

1 Corinthians

# If you defile the temple of God, God will destroy you. 3:17

# Paul claims that God killed 23,000 in a plague for "committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab 10:8

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

All religions exhort violence, especially the 3 Abrahamic religions of which the NT is a fundamental part.

All holy texts should be burned.

Freedom FROM religion.

bigmal would you care to clarify the meaning of "given over to violence".

Off hand I can think of a number of words about violence in the new testament. Will this be another one of those "when our god does it it's good, when it's a muslim thing it's bad" examples of how bad their faith is?

R0bert

God save us from all religion!
All mainstream religions provide rules for the in-crowd, but also out clauses for when your tribe needs to off another tribe. In other words, "be nice at home, but kick ass when at war".
Our modern multi-cultural world has created confusion as to who is "in" our tribe and who is "out". Nationalism cannot keep up with culture...and probably never will.
Given that all religious "wisdom" is over 1000 years old and not particularly relevant, it is sad that folks take it this seriously.
If folks worried about Good instead of God we'd be better off.

Big Mal

The manner in which some Imams, Ayatollah's and the like translate the Quran in one of the reasons that while I believe in God I don't believe in none in of the so called men of God.

Iran's particularly odious view of the Quran's on adultery is just one point of its denigration of Islam and the arrogance of the Imams, Mullahs and etc.

Whilst it is true that the punishment provided in the Quran for adultery is stoning the Quran requires that the accuser provide the collaborating evidence of 4 witnesses and that a sheet of paper be unable to to divide the two bodies. An impossibility I would say.

Equally whilst it is true that a man may have four wives (the idea of the time was to increase the Muslim faith at a rapid rate) it also states that the man must treat his four wives equally, another impossibility I would think. The taking of more than one wife today is rare indeed.

R0bert, Johnny Rotten,

The bottom line here is not which brand of superstition is worst. It is whether Terry Jones' Church has the right to burn its own property.

Clearly it does.

Whether you or I or Barrack Obama or Muqtedar Khan or a billion plus Muslims approve of this action is irrelevant.

Steven

Sure the book is private property and if it was burned without all the publicity, no problem.

But it is being burnt deliberately with world wide attention to deliberately insult decent Muslim people who constitute the majority of Islam worshippers - none of which will help this world to heal.

Hatred simply foments more hatred.

I have read many of your diatribes on religion - your emphasis is always on Islam, you never cast the same critique over Judaism. In this you are no more objective than Big Mal.

Johnny Rotten

If you had bothered to read the article referenced before sounding off you will see that the more precise definition of violence is political violence.. and the article goes to some length in defining it.

More than I was going to repeat, thinking wrongly, that if someone wants to pick it up and respond they might do the bleeding obvious and look up what was meant by the basic term.

Objectivity indeed

bigmal

Please explain what you mean by "given over to violence" as R0bert politely requested, to which you can also explain what you mean by "political violence".

Given that all the Abrahamic religious texts exhort physical violence, subjugation, bigotry, political manipulation and other methods of controlling people, your claim that the NT does no violence of any variety is quite simply; a blatant lie.

The act of burning a religious text in public is an exhortation for hatred - irrespective of which religious adherent is burning which religious book.

"Metric of merit"? You're kidding, bigmal.

>>Despite the smart arsed retort, it is still a metric of merit ..indicating where the substance of the underlying problem may reside.<<

It's nothing more than a throwaway line, relying upon the credulity of the listener to be sucked in without question.

>>Why dont you take it up with the author of the document I referenced<<

You referenced the document, not I. So I'm "taking it up" with you.

So go on. Justify your position.

If it is no more than quoting some random numbers from a clearly biased source, then fine, come clean and admit it.

Incidentally, as to the "source". Here's an excerpt from the material immediately following the item you referred to.

"SUPPORT PASTOR TERRY JONES, for LIBERTY’S SAKE.

THE FLAME OF FREEDOM SPEAKS!

THE FLAME OF FREEDOM SPEAKS, THE FLAME OF FREEDOM WITHIN EACH HEART.
THE FLAME OF FREEDOM SAITH UNTO ALL: COME APART AND BE A CHOSEN PEOPLE, ELECT UNTO GOD.
MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE CHOSEN THEIR ELECTION WELL, MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE DETERMINED TO CAST THEIR LOT IN WITH THE IMMORTALS.
THESE ARE THEY WHO HAVE SET THEIR TEETH WITH DETERMINATION, WHO HAVE SAID, WE WILL NEVER GIVE UP, WE WILL NEVER TURN BACK, WE WILL NEVER SUBMIT.

IMPEACH PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, OR ELSE THINK MAO, STALIN, HITLER AND MOHAMMED.

ARCH ANGEL MICHAELS WARRIORS OF GOD’S LIGHT, ARISE!

STOP FEARING MUSLIMS REACTIONS, LET THEM FEAR US.

STAND AGAINST THE LUCIFERIAN MEDIA!"

I've left the capital letters exactly as they appear, so that you can get the full flavour.

Nice, isn't it?

Quote: Islam is first religion that recognized women as something other than an inferior human for man’s pleasure.

Hah, right, Ulis. So lets not talk about woman's worth being half that of a man, or being a field to plow at his pleasure, or of a man's duty to beat a wife, or even a Muslims right to rape captive and slave women – all found in the Quran. Only a fool could look at the condition of women in Muslim societies and say it has nothing to do with Islam. In case you don’t know, the traditions say that Mohammed beat Aisha, his child-wife.

Westralis - No, jews and Muslims were never united against Christians, not even under Saladin. If you want a good indication of the relationship between Muslims and their subjects in the early middle ages, I suggest one read the life of Maimonides – undoubtedly the greatest Jew of his time and certainly one who had far reaching contacts with the Muslims of his time, from Spain to North Africa and then to Egypt. His letter to the Jews of Yemen is the definitive commentary of how Muslims treat “the other”. It is not a nice story. For Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindis and Buddhists were second-class citizens, persecuted and mistreated mostly.

As to your “yes, Indeed” about barbarities on both sides, the difference is in the West we recognize our faults and failings. We look back and say we made mistakes, that great injustice was done. I see no self-reflection in the Muslim world. Every problem is blamed on the others. We condemn crusaders, priests, popes and biblical figures that did evil. Muslims say “Praise be unto him” after the name of the man that did so many evil deeds, including attacking non-Muslims, killing them, torture, looting, enslaving men women and children, and rape of female captives. These are found in Islam’s traditions, the hadith.

Radical Muslims kill and preach hate, the moderates blame others and pretend that the deeds of the radicals have nothing to do with Islam. The future will not be nice.

Kactuz

Pericles,

In your rush to score points you obviously have NOT noticed that the quotes you are repeating in capitals, belong to some person who posted a comment ...for which the author of the paper I referenced could not be held responsible for.

His particular name and contact details were provided, and I repeat them herein for your convenience.

Lorenzo Bouchard
labouchard@shaw.ca
http://mypage.direct.ca/l/lbouchar/"

Vent your spleen at him

Johnny Rotten

The difference between Muqtedar Khan and me is that if Khan wanted to burn a torah in public, on camera, and post the results on youtube I would support his right to do so.

I consider myself entirely objective in my critique of Islam. If you had REALLY read what I have written you would have seen WHY I focus on Islam. However, for your sake, I'll repeat myself.

It goes back to Salman Rushdie. Imagine if the Pope were to call for the death of an author. Imagine if the Prime Minister of Israel were to call upon Jews to assassinate an author whose book he did not like. What would have been the reaction?

Yet at the time many on the Left blamed Rushdie for provoking Muslims. Instead of leaping to the defence of a fellow author under threat of death many Left-wing writers blamed the victim!

Don’t tell me it wasn't so. I lived through it. It was so. As one of those who supported Rushdie I was threatened with violence, not from Muslims, but from so-called human rights activists!

I realised then that the danger came, not from Islam, but from appeasing Muslims.

Then we went through a phase in which a loathing for Islam was equated to racism. There is even a word for it – Islamophobia. It was as if detesting a belief system made you a racist. (Note the Orwellian Racial & Religious Tolerance Act in Victoria)

I decided I was having none of it. Islam is a grotesque belief system. It is not the only one but it was the only one for which people who ought to know better kept making excuses.

And it is the only one on whose behalf we seem ready to pass laws that curtail freedom of speech in Australia.

BTW although I can see the logic behind laws that supposedly protect races or ethnic groups (such as Jews) from hate speech I think they are counter-productive. I can see NO justification for protecting a belief system from critique, analysis, satire and scorn.

The religious hatred has been purposefully stirred up.They've done it right throughtout history.Divide and conquer.It is just a distraction so you don't see their end game.It is all about money and power.

The World Reserve Banks have in the past funded both sides of wars.Prescott Bush, George Dubwooya's Grand daddy was a senior executive of the Union bank which laundered money for the Nazis.

It is all about creating wars,selling arms,uniforms,medicine,coffins,stealing energy/resources and making even more money rebuilding economies after the destruction.They are pushing for war right now trying to demonise the Muslims or antagonise the Chinese or the North Koreans.

The USA/Israel is the by far the most potent force on the planet in terms of military strength.No country will dare threaten them.Why are they being so aggressive? It is pure unadulterated imperialism.They,the elites want it all.

"I can see NO justification for protecting a belief system from critique, analysis, satire and scorn."

In which case would you be happy for radical Muslims to freely and far more publicly spout their views in Australia. Would you be happy if their views were given way more coverage in the Australian media? If they were able to speak directly to the Australian public?

Free speech cuts both ways.

"Muqtedar Khan, the first amendment to the US constitution protects free speech. The US Supreme Court has included the right to burn the flag.

Get over yourself."

How wonderfully contradictory. If you truly supported his right to free speech you'd let the author speak too without abusing him. By the way, this is an Australian website, so the First Amendment doesn't apply here. We have an implied freedom. Read the Constitution.

Mac – “ the Crusades should be seen in the context of the centuries long conflict started by Moslems.” Spot on!

Kactuz—great post--good to see you back on the forum.

Horos,it matters not which religion started a war.They as a bad each other.Religions are the tools of the elites to grab and maintain power.Religion ad nothing to do with any deity.Many wars are started by false flag events and history constantly fails to opportion blame to the real cause.

Jjplug

>>In which case would you be happy for radical Muslims to freely and far more publicly spout their views in Australia. Would you be happy if their views were given way more coverage in the Australian media? If they were able to speak directly to the Australian public?>>

As I have said in many posts I respect the right to freedom of speech excepting only incitement to violence narrowly defined. I've repeatedly given the following example:

Jews are slimy and dishonest – allowed.

Kill the Jews – not allowed.

(For the record, I am Jewish)

So, yes, subject to that one constraint – no actual incitement to violence – I defend the right of radical Muslims to say whatever they like.

Of course the same right of free speech gives kafirs the right to say what they think about Islam without let or hindrance.

Would I be "happy" if radical Muslims had a bigger megaphone in Australia?

No, I would not. But, since when did anyone's right to free speech depend on my happiness? Or yours for that matter?

>>if you truly supported his right to free speech you'd let the author speak too without abusing him.>>

Muqtedar Khan is free to write whatever he likes and OLO is free to publish it. Commenting on whatever Muqtedar Khan has written is part of MY right of free speech. If he thinks it's abusive too bad,

Freedom of speech means that Khan, you and I have the right to say what we like irregardless of who dislikes it. It does NOT mean Khan can sprout and I don’t have a right of reply.

>>By the way, this is an Australian website, so the First Amendment doesn't apply here.>>

Terry Jones is in the US, not Australia. Therefore my comment about his first amendment rights stands.

You call it points-scoring, bigmal...

>>In your rush to score points you obviously have NOT noticed that the quotes you are repeating in capitals, belong to some person who posted a comment<<

I call it providing context.

And thanks for this, mac

>>I'm not disputing your facts,obviously most of the Crusaders were just psychopathic gangsters or deluded peasants,my point was that the Crusades should be seen in the context of the centuries long conflict started by Moslems.<<

Ah, it's the "Aww Mum, but he started it" argument. A most valuable insight.

Interestingly, the rationale of the crusading "Soldiers of God" is eerily reminiscent of something far more contemporary.

"They had also been told by the pope that if they were killed, they would automatically go to heaven as they were fighting for God."

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/cru2.htm

No virgins waiting to greet them, I notice. But in every other respect identical to the excuses made by today's fanatics.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Pericles,Arjay,

Actually you've both missed the point,I thought the significance was obvious,apparently not. It is in fact relevant to consider the original source of conflict between Moslem and Christian.
Moslem propagandists usually represent the Crusades,out of context, as a sudden outburst of Christian religious fanaticism. There's more to it than that,until the 18th century the West was under continuous pressure from Islamic states. However, Moslems present themselves as the perpetual victims of Western aggression,which is of course self-serving nonsense,unfortunately many ignorant non-Moslems accept these lies and think that Westerners 'owe' the Islamic world. That's why history is relevant today.

Dear mac,

One factor promoting the Crusades had nothing to do with either religion or Muslim pressure. With primogeniture younger sons of the nobility inherited little or nothing and had no skills except those of warfare. Wealth and land were possible in the Middle East. That took pressure off Europe where the younger sons of the nobility were a great nuisance and menace.

Relevant to consider? Sure.

>>It is in fact relevant to consider the original source of conflict between Moslem and Christian.<<

But you appear to have determined that the conflict was "started" by one specific side.

The two religions have been in conflict from the outset, which leaves - superficially, at least - two obvious possibilities:

The earlier-established religion resents the formation of the second, and the power that it quickly gains from conversion and conquest.

The later-established religion resents the earlier, on the basis that it occupies territory that holds particular significance.

Many wars have been fought because they are an inevitable outcome of a clash of lifestyles or ideas, not because one or the other was the first-mover.

>>Moslem propagandists usually represent the Crusades,out of context, as a sudden outburst of Christian religious fanaticism. There's more to it than that<<

You might have phrased that a little less confrontationally, but in essence you are correct. It is however equally true that Christian propagandists represent the Crusades, out of context, as a war between the righteous and the godless. And there's more to it than that, as well, is there not.

>>However, Moslems present themselves as the perpetual victims of Western aggression,which is of course self-serving nonsense<<

This begs the question, of course, as to how the West presents itself in the face of Islamic aggression.

Any suggestions?

Pericles,

Bigmal says :"In your rush to score points you obviously have NOT noticed that the quotes you are repeating in capitals, belong to some person who posted a comment."

Pericles says in reply: "I call it providing context"

Bigmal responds: You would have to be terminally stupid to think that the auther of this particular subject Item Mr Kahn, for example, was responsible for the context of all the subsequent comment posters, including your own.

With that sort of logic you would have to be a disgrace to your own pseudonym.

Dear david f,

Well yes,of course it's better to divert the attention of a destructive military class away from their homelands. However that's hardly the prime cause of the Crusades which were initially inspired by (1) a call for help from the Byzantine Emperor whose lands had been invaded by the Moslem Seljuk Turks and (2) the treatment of Christian pilgrims in the ME by Moslem rulers. The moral deficiencies of the Crusaders are not relevant to the context.

Pericles,

You seem to be arguing from some kind of PC first principles without having any knowledge of the early stages of Islamic aggression against the Christians,Zoroastrians and Hindus.

The conflict was indeed started by one specific side,the Moslems. The Byzantines had no concept of 'Holy War'(which was originally an Islamic doctrine) and after fighting an exhausting war with the Persians were unable to defend much of their territory from attacks by Mohammed's followers.

I think you mean 'raises the question',I hope I haven't been 'begging the question'.

As to victim status,I have never suggested the West is blameless, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are criminal acts in my opinion. We should have expected retaliation for intervention in the ME,why the Americans were amazed at 9/11 is beyond me. In the final analysis it's a matter of relative power,the West sets the agenda now, it was the Moslems 1000 years ago.

You might find the following informative-

(1) 'Byzantium and the early Islamic conquests'-Walter Kaegi
(2) 'Byzantium'-John Julius Norwich
(3) 'The Dream and the Tomb-a History of the Crusades' -Robert Payne
(4) 'Holy Warriors-Islam and the Decline of Classical Civilization'-John J O'Neill

No, I meant what I said, mac.

>>I think you mean 'raises the question',I hope I haven't been 'begging the question'.<<

You deliberately presented an argument, whose conclusion - that it was self-serving nonsense - was implicit in the evidence presented in the premise. I was simply providing you with the opportunity to show how this premise "that they are perpetual victims" was unique, and somehow different when presented by "the West".

Your response shows that it is not.

>>As to victim status,I have never suggested the West is blameless, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are criminal acts in my opinion<<

So we can now assume that you would agree with the statement "the US present themselves as the perpetual victims of Islamic aggression,which is of course self-serving nonsense"

I'll go along with that.

Nice try, bigmal.

>>Bigmal responds: You would have to be terminally stupid to think that the auther of this particular subject Item Mr Kahn, for example, was responsible for the context of all the subsequent comment posters, including your own<<

It is the posts themselves that provide the context to which I referred. This site, I sincerely hope, would have moderated M. Bouchard's post into oblivion. Along with all those shouty capital letters.

You could argue, of course, that the poster was exercising his right to freedom of speech. But he clearly felt that he was posting somewhere that was warmly sympathetic to his views. That's the "context" I referred to.

It is of course entirely possible that Mr Warner himself might see fit to squirm with embarrassment to see what nature of folk it is that crawl out of the cesspool and applaud his bloggery.

On the other hand, he might not.

THREE CHEERS FOR ANGELA MERKEL

Germany's Chancellor seems to be the only Western leader willing to make a stand on free speech.

See:

From Pariah to Guest of Honor in Five Short Years

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,716665,00.html

Quotes:

Chancellor Merkel was on hand on Wednesday night to honor Muhammad caricaturist Kurt Westergaard for his contributions to free speech rights. Yet just a few short years ago, he was a pariah in the West for having offended Islam. What happened?

…Kurt Westergaard, the Danish cartoonist, was honored with the M100 Media Prize, given out annually by a group representing the editors in chief of Europe's leading newspapers and magazines. It is an elite collection of heavyweights.

[…]

German Chancellor Angela Merkel delivered the keynote address, and Joachim Gauck, a respected German pastor who was a human-rights activist in East Germany, paid tribute to Westergaard in a speech.

[…]

….Merkel declared: "Freedom of religion does not mean that Shariah stands above the German constitution.* ... No cultural difference can justify the disregard for fundamental rights."

[…]

Millions of Muslims across the world took to the streets in protest. Danish flags were burned, and Danish diplomatic residences were set on fire and vandalized. …While Islamists in London demonstrated against the affront to the Prophet ("Kill those who insult Islam"), Britain's foreign minister at the time, Jack Straw, told reporters: "I believe that the republication or these cartoons has been …wrong" Indeed, not a single British newspaper dared to republish even a single one of the 12 caricatures.

The Observer said that Islam would have to be treated with sensitivity in the future. The Daily Telegraph also pledged respect of Islam. And the Times, a flagship of European press freedoms, said its reserve was not born out of appeasement, but out of a desire to wield free speech rights responsibly.

At first, Merkel said nothing. But at the Munich Security Conference in 2006, she said "I can understand that religious feelings were hurt. But it is unacceptable to find therein a legitimation of violent reactions.*"

*Hear hear

Thanks for the link stevenlmeyer.

It is a pity that it has taken so long for someone (internationally important) to stand up and state the obvious, very loudly.

Another thought occurred to me, as I followed a link from the article in Der Spiegel Online, to an earlier item on Thilo Sarrazin.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,715876,00.html

The article is in six substantial sections, looking at the topic (he wrote a book about Muslims in Germany) from a number of angles.

My thought was... wouldn't it be great, if we in Australia were treated, even occasionally, to journalism of this quality?

Read it, and weep.

Yep! I’m liking Mac’s work more and more:

“Moslem propagandists usually represent the Crusades,out of context, as a sudden outburst of Christian religious fanaticism. There's more to it than that,until the 18th century the West was under continuous pressure from Islamic states. However, Moslems present themselves as the perpetual victims of Western aggression,which is of course self-serving nonsense,unfortunately many ignorant non-Moslems accept these lies and think that Westerners 'owe' the Islamic world. That's why history is relevant today.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10962#182914

and

“The conflict was indeed started by one specific side,the Moslems. The Byzantines had no concept of 'Holy War'(which was originally an Islamic doctrine) and after fighting an exhausting war with the Persians were unable to defend much of their territory from attacks by Mohammed's followers.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10962#182945

He’s right on the money!

Even Davidf’s old wounded bird routine (it was all about jobs for the boys) , didn’t succeed.

And Arjay’s usual mantra (it is all part of a giant conspiracy) – got drowned out .

While I’m talking about Arjay , I was beginning to like him till he came out with this quip/ slur: “Horos” –Now, I’m just going to have to go back and re-read/savor all those nasty things Pericles has been saying about him!

Horos.It is no longer a theory.This is forensic science.Unlike environmental science,the variables are few thus there is a clear delineation of fact and fiction.

None of you can debate the real facts of 911.Either you don't have the intellectual capacity,or have other agendas wanting to cover up these crimes.

Mac & Horus,

That's it. Muslims act and think like the Crusades happened yesterday. And it was all about defending Europe. They amazingly ignore this aspect of having invaded Europe in the first place. I met a Pastor once who was heavily involved in inter-faith dialogue who said it was steadily going nowhere. He said their mentality is that the Crusades occurred only yesterday, and is impossible to have logical talk with Muslims. That they are always happy to criticise the West and cannot ever ever take criticism of themselves, ie. Islam.

StevenM,

Yes, the weasles in England. Apparently London is widely known as Londonistan in international foreign agencies etc. You've probably heard it. And from what I hear - a long time since I've been there - that is what it has become.

Well Constance,who created the problem you see as Londonstan? You like Stevenlmeyer are trying to justify the invasion of Iran and take it's oil,like they took Iraq's.Where were the weapons of mass destruction?

You are trying to justify imperialism via a social conflict( ie hatred of Muslims) created by an elite to subjugate the masses.It is your very own Govt that creates division to surpress you.

The Communist bogey is gone and thus there was the need for another source of repression,called terrorism.Zibigniew Brzezinski from his book "The Grand Chessboard" prior 911 "What we need is a truely massive and widely perceived direct external threat." Enter Osama Bin Laden.Where's Wally Bin laden now? Oh China is the new threat.Let's go to war with China.

Arjay, Thanks for the Justin Raimondo link

I think you're right about greedy men at the top "wanting it all" and the need to create an existential threat to advance their geo-political goals.

As for the threat of facism. It is real and while i fully sympathise with Mac when he states "the followers of Mohammed's teachings have produced one of the most oppressive and conservative cultures on earth and that indisputable fact is what is significant to me.", his distain for providing ANY authoritive sources to back up his statements about the Quraan and history plays directly into the hands of the facists. Look how pleased Horus is with Mac's reading of history.

Mac: To put things in perspective read Daniel Pipes: "The Western Mind of Radical Islam" (http://www.danielpipes.org/273/the-western-mind-of-radical-islam). Of course Pipes is not exacly an apologist for Islam but nevertheless he is able to distinguish between the teachings of Muhammad and the teachings of Wahhabi's who, he argues are largely ignorant of their their religion and more influenced by Western culture and ideas.

Here is an extract:
<<For example Shiqaqi's familiarity with things Western fits a common pattern. The brother of Eyad Ismail, one of the World Trade Center bombers recently extradited from Jordan, said of him, "He loved everything American from cowboy movies to hamburgers." His sister recalled his love of U.S. television and his saying, "I want to live in America forever." The family, she commented, "always considered him a son of America." His mother confirmed that "he loves the United States."
.....
In contrast to this familiarity with Western ways, the Islamists are distant from their own culture. Turabi admitted to a French interviewer, "I know the history of France better than the history of Sudan; I love your culture, your painters, your musicians." Having found Islam on their own as adults, many Islamists are ignorant of their own history and traditions. Some of "the new generation," Martin Kramer notes, "are born-again Muslims, ill-acquainted with Islamic tradition." Tunisia's Minister of Religion Ali Chebbi goes further, saying that they "ignore the fundamental facts of Islam.">>

I'd agree that Wahhabis present an existential threat to civilised way of life, whether you want to call it a form of facism or not, i'm not sufficiently qualified to form an opinion. But it is not the only form of threat to civilisation. Facism is also rising in the West, proudly sponsored by right-wing pro-Israeli groups (http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/news/europe/1328-wilders-launches-anti-islam-campaign-to-support-israel)

Those of us who really do fear a return to something like facism should be able to agree on a civilised form of debate in which discussion can be robust but supported by facts and the research of serious scholars. Otherwise people, like Mac who choose to ignore serious scholarship, will slip into the facist mentality like a lizard slithering into a crack in the wall.

You need to get out more, Constance.

>>Yes, the weasles in England. Apparently London is widely known as Londonistan in international foreign agencies etc. You've probably heard it. And from what I hear - a long time since I've been there - that is what it has become.<<

"Londonistan" was in fact a book. A fine piece of self-serving sophistry by an English journalist - of Jewish extraction - called Melanie Phillips.

A lady who, incidentally, believes that Barack Obama is (simultaneously, apparently) a Muslim and a revolutionary Marxist. She also fulminates regularly in the Daily Mail (that should tell you something) against gays, and supports the teaching of Intelligent Design.

So if you are happy to be guided by a homophobic Islamophobe (she won a prize for her Islamophobia as long ago as 1993), then Melanie's your gal.

I wish you both joy.

And if you had been to London recently, you would also understand how out-of-touch with reality her views have become.

Incidentally, Melanie is so horrified with the whole Londonistan thing that she chooses to live in...

I'll let you guess.

grateful,

I suggest you avoid ad hominem arguments, I don't use them.

What statements about the Quran and history? If you'd read more carefully you'd have noticed my lack of interest or expertise in theology, I'm only concerned with the behaviour of believers, any attempt at a examination of any sacred book with the faithful, is a waste of grey cells. The content of the Quran is of no interest because-'The road to Hell is paved with good intentions'- for example, Communism was originally a humane philosophy, however it produced Stalin, Mao and numerous imitators.

So the Wahabis are the evil geniuses behind the jihad, who cares? Moslems should set their house in order but they haven't, have they. Why not? Too much internal passive support for the Wahabis perhaps.
Those references I listed provide a good introductory overview of early Moslem-Christian conflict, O'neills book is admittedly 'controversial', however it's an interesting perspective. If you can refer me to reputable sources that present a radically different view of history I'd be fascinated to read them.

In my opinion the threat from the 'Islamic jihad' is greatly overstated and is largely a product of inept external and internal policies by Western governments, of course the Moslem world is a mosquito compared with Western power.

Pericles,

I agree with your comments about Melanie Phillips,she's basically a pro-Zionist propagandist, how she gets away with some of her prejudiced rants amazes me.

Pericles,

I consider Spiegel to be absolutely the best source of information about Europe. What you see on their English site is only a small fraction of what is available in their weekly magazine.

Pericles,

So what. Am aware of Melanie and her book. Seems to talk about the Dhimmi Dummies and those who have a hatred of Jews. You seem to have blantantly ignored that I said foreign services all-over use the term. Who cares who invented the term. She may have heard about from someone from a foreign service. Have heard it several times including from an interviewee on Radio National, of which I am an avid listener. Don't you read or listen?

You seem pretty wishy washy. Get out more? Wasn't it you who had never heard about the Spanish Progenitors? And you never bothered to respond to my second post. You seemed to disagree to what was going on in Spain and then silence. Actually, a lot of silence on the post about that one I brought up. Very curious.

Arjay,

You're hysterical and make so many assumptions. If you wish to collude with those for the oppression of females, what are you doing here?

Oh dear, I'm sorry Constance. I'm obviously not paying you enough attention.

>> And you never bothered to respond to my second post.<<

Was a response required? I didn't realize that it meant so much to you. Perhaps I should rectify that, can't have you sulking, can we.

>>As far as I understand it (info about it, is very scant), the two Progs on the birth certificate actually apply to both the natural parents and the same sex couple<<

Ah, now I remember. You were saying that you didn't actually know, because "info is scant".

So you would be guessing, is that right?

(Incidentally, have you worked out how the one certificate could "apply to both"? Thought not)

I probably thought to myself at the time, better not reply, it might be embarrassing to point out that the post was based upon guesswork.

>>Actually, a lot of silence on the post about that one I brought up. Very curious<<

Not really. Just me, being compassionate.

Now, back to the delightful Melanie, and Londonistan.

>>You seem to have blantantly ignored that I said foreign services all-over use the term.<<

Hmmmm. Given your propensity for guessing, I thought it better not to ask how you actually came by this information.

But if you do have a source, please feel free to share.

>>Have heard it several times including from an interviewee on Radio National<<

It is certainly a word that is bandied around, Constance. But it is sometimes important to understand in what context it is used. For example, you may have heard the comment "some bigots and ignoramuses still use the hackneyed term "londonistan", coined some years ago by the Daily Mail journalist Melanie Phillips".

That would certainly count as an example of where you heard it "from an interviewee on Radio National", would it not.

Doesn't make it a) any more informative or b) any more illustrative of the city it refers to.

Slogans aren't reality, you know.

You seem to have a problem with comprehension. "apply to both" - I already made a comment on that. Boy, you seem really shallow. Do you know what the word "compassionate" actually means? You don't seem to. And you also contradict yourself. One minute you seem to express how dum the Prog birth cert scenario is. I perceived that to mean that you actually could be against it. Now you say you didn't make a further comment because you're compassionate. You don't make a lot of sense there, buddy (?)

Slogans not reality. Oh is that what it is? And they are not true - oh how deep!

I wondered how is it that Ayaan Hirsi Ali's recent talk on her latest book at the Sydney Opera House this year sold out months ahead. And why was Wafa Sultan was able to have a private meeting with the Australian Government several years ago (not announced till after she left Oz as her life would have been threatened). You live in your little warped reality and I'll stay in mine.

You certainly don't give your user name any justice. And what a ponce you would have to be to use it. Such self-glorification.

I recall someone else making a comment about you, ie that you don't seem to know where you stand. Yes, you sure are wishy washy and confusing to say the least. How old are you?

Mac, please provide the full reference to O'Neal. i couldn't find it in your posts. Ta in advance

Mac I did find this remark <<Islam is just another religion and there's nothing special about Moslems>>

I think Muslims are very special. They are conscience of their own failings and in one way or another aware of the need to improve in character. I love 'em and islam is a beautiful religion. Its guidance is sound and works.

If Islam wasn't so special, why would there be so many people with a phobia against asking serious scholars about the nature of the religion and its people.

I went to an exhibition of Islam a while back, exhibiting artefacts from various part of the Islamic world. What i found interesting was the background music. It wasn't Islamic whatever it was. Why didn't they play the Qur'aan? I would have loved them to play the Qur'aan because i think people would have been struck by the beauty of its recitation (despite not understanding the Arabic). Perhaps it was for this very reason that the organisers did not play the qur'aan. Who knows?

Islamophobia, in reality, is a fear of telling the facts about Islam.

salaams

Dear grateful,

Probably in every religion many people who belong to it think it is special. If there were a religion whose members didn't think it was special it would be exceptional and therefore special. We would then have a paradox.

grateful,

The reference to O'Neill's book is on page 19, there are also other books on the Crusades and early Christian-Moslem conflict listed. I rely on books as references, rather than the Net. Most references on the Net are superficial.

I agree with David f, all religions are sublime, to their followers.

I respect your right to believe, however,what some Moslems don't seem to understand is, that I have a right not to respect your religion and to simply ignore it.

I disagree with your definition of 'Islamophobia',the term was invented to silence critics of those Islamic practices that violated human rights.The model was probably the way Zionists accuse critics of Israel of being 'anti-Semitic'.

<<<Islamophobia, in reality, is a fear of telling the facts about Islam>>>

Then you must have the mother of all cases of Islamophobia, Grateful!
Since it seems, you’ve spent most of your life rummaging around in the cherry tree assiduously avoiding the 99% of cherries that are either sour, flyblown, or covered in flying fox poop, just so you can shout Yahoo! I found a good one.

LOL Horus

Well put!

Thanks for the feedback, Constance.

>>Yes, you sure are wishy washy and confusing to say the least. How old are you?<<

But this isn't Facebook, you know.

Now, where were we, before you decided to get personal.

>>You seem to have a problem with comprehension. "apply to both" - I already made a comment on that<<

Your comment, as I recall, indicated that you didn't actually know how the birth certificate actually works.

Do get back to us when you have found out.

>>One minute you seem to express how dum the Prog birth cert scenario is<<

Well, it is, isn't it? I thought we had actually agreed on that?

>>Now you say you didn't make a further comment because you're compassionate<<

Compassionate enough to refrain from pointing out to you that you were basing your argument on guesswork. Nothing to do with the "Prog birth cert scenario", as you so delightfully describe it.

>>You certainly don't give your user name any justice. And what a ponce you would have to be to use it. Such self-glorification.<<

I suppose I could have chosen the heroine of a D H Lawrence novel instead. Do you do it justice, by the way?

Incidentally, where did you find the information that "foreign services all-over use the term [Londonistan]"

I'd hate to think you just made it up.

But you'd have to be a bit of a ponce to do that, wouldn't you..

Mac:

"I respect your right to believe, however,what some Moslems don't seem to understand is, that I have a right not to respect your religion and to simply ignore it."

Who for example?

Mac:
<<I disagree with your definition of 'Islamophobia',the term was invented to silence critics of those Islamic practices that violated human rights.The model was probably the way Zionists accuse critics of Israel of being 'anti-Semitic'.>>

One of the reasons i think Muslims are special is because they have always been prepared to debate and discuss their religion: but to do so based on facts.

I've done so on other threads, and the Qur'aan itself does so by inviting people to use reasion, to find contradiction and to reproduce something like it.

Muslims have the confidence to invite critical discussion and in fact want people to actually read the Qur'aan with a view to discussing its content. Muslims do not need to invent terms to "silence critics".

Mac you said the Qur'aan is "ramblings of desert nomads", but you haven't read the Qur'aan! Why would you say such a thing without confirming whether or not it was correct? If you are not interested in reading the Qur'aan, what right do have making such statements? Or were you simply invoking your 'right' to insult. With rights come responsibilities.

You have also said: <<I'll leave the textual analysis of the Quran to the experts,many report it as a collection of contradictory nonsense,a record of the depradations of a desert bandit and his followers and of course, vicious anti-semitism>>

Who are the "many" who report these things?

<<LOL Horus

Well put!Posted by stevenlmeyer, Saturday, 18 September 2010 1:50:40 PM>>

Yes indeed your side-kick is much too clever. He'll be leaving the nest soon. He has obviously learned much from you.

grateful.

I think we should end our dicussion we're not making any progress because of our different attitudes to religion.

Some links-

http://www.jihadwatch.org/

http://www.australianislamistmonitor.org/

http://www.faithfreedom.org/

Islamophobia is hating Muslims for no other reasons than they are Muslims.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia:

In 1997, the British Runnymede Trust defined Islamophobia as the "dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, to the fear and dislike of all Muslims," stating that it also refers to the practice of discriminating against Muslims by excluding them from the economic, social, and public life of the nation. It includes the perception that Islam has no values in common with other cultures, is inferior to the West and is a violent political ideology rather than a religion.[4] Professor Anne Sophie Roald writes that steps were taken toward official acceptance of the term in January 2001 at the "Stockholm International Forum on Combating Intolerance", where Islamophobia was recognized as a form of intolerance alongside Xenophobia and Antisemitism.[5]

Antisemitism is hating Jews for no other reasons than they are Jews.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism:

Antisemitism may be manifested in many ways, ranging from individual expressions of hatred and discrimination against individual Jews to organized violent attacks by mobs or even state, police or military attacks on entire Jewish communities. Extreme instances of persecution include the First Crusade of 1096, the expulsion from England in 1290, the Spanish Inquisition, the expulsion from Spain in 1492, the expulsion from Portugal in 1497, various pogroms, the Dreyfus Affair, and perhaps the most infamous, the Holocaust under Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany. While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, the term was coined in the late 19th century in Germany as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred"),[2] and that has been its normal use since then.[3][4]

Antisemitism and Islamophobia are both contemptible forms of hatred.

Both should be rejected by all decent people.

<<grateful.

I think we should end our dicussion we're not making any progress because of our different attitudes to religion.

Some links-

http://www.jihadwatch.org/

http://www.australianislamistmonitor.org/

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Posted by mac, Sunday, 19 September 2010 9:40:41 AM>>

But wait up, Mac earlier you said:

<<I rely on books as references, rather than the Net. Most references on the Net are superficial.>>

These are WEBSITES run by extreme Zionist or fundamentalist Christians.

For a detailed response to Robert Spenser go to Danios at Loonwatch. Unfortunately some hackers have been able rig it so that you get a “security alert” when you log on to their website. It just shows you the sort of campaign that is being waged and the lengths people will go to prevent the basic facts from being known.

That’s why I say Muslims are special. Muslims have always been prepared to debate and discuss their religion, based on the facts.


Mac you claimed to have read so much on the topic, but cannot come forward with one, just ONE, scholarly source to support his statement that the Qur’aan is <<as a collection of contradictory nonsense, a record of the depradations of a desert bandit and his followers and of course, vicious anti-semitism>>.

So what was the motive for your statements? It certainly wasn't a desire for the truth.

That’s IslamoPHOBIA. A fear of telling the truth about Islam.

David f

Re your post on “Islamphobia”:

With which of these statements do you DISAGREE?

The right of free expression is central to a democracy.

Free expression includes the right to subject ANY belief system or ideology to critique, analysis, satire and scorn (CASS)

The fact that a belief system is labeled a religion does not exempt it from CASS.

A partial list of belief systems / ideologies that are LEGITIMATE targets of CASS include agnosticism, atheism, Buddhism, Christianity, capitalism, conservatism, Fascism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, liberalism, Marxism, Nazism, Scientology, Zionism and Zoroastrianism.

(If any of these should be exempted explain which and why)

The critic is under no obligation to abide by anyone’s feelings about “fairness” or “informed comment”.

The critic is under no obligation to take regard of people’s feelings. Free speech specifically includes the right to say and do things that others may regard as hurtful.

While many pundits disguise their racism by attacking a belief system subjecting a belief system to CASS is NOT racism and should not be conflated with racism.

Actual incitement to violence, narrowly defined, may legitimately be prohibited. However incitement must be narrowly defined because otherwise ANY attack on a belief system could be construed as incitement. The example I usually give is:

Judaism is a stinky, rotten religion – allowed

Kill the Jews – not allowed.

Attacks on Jews because of their ethnicity is a form of racism. Attacks on Judaism is NOT racism. Only the former should be regarded as anti-Semitism.

It is important to respect the right of people to practise and evangelise for their religion. We are not called upon to respect the belief system itself.

It is legitimate to fear a belief system or ideology and to argue against its tenets being incorporated into the law of the land.

If you agree with these statements would you like to reconsider your definition of “Islamophobia” and its conflation with “anti-Semitism”.

In this regard bear in mind that many “Jews in the Nazis concentration camps were not Jews, their parents had converted to Christianity before they were born.

stevenlmeyer,

Unfortunately, the magic words 'religion and race',especially if these can be equated, can be used to intimidate otherwise sensible critics of totalitarian ideologies.

Oh dear, Peri,

You sure can spin and amplify trifles.

Sorry, didn't read the novel. What a paltry and contrived attempt you made there. Like comparing Ghandi to John Smith. Unlike your user name - mine is only nominal - ie. have no delusion to any self - aggrandizement.

Again you seem to have trouble reading, and I am not going to bother reiterating any I've already said. You're getting boring.

Now, what is your problem with the term, Londonistan? Why on earth do you so weirdly react to this term? Are you paranoid or something? Didn't you know that London is the Islamists hub of Europe?

grateful,

I really should have known better than to argue with a believer,

To explain the context of my comments, I rely on books for historical analysis,those news sites I referenced might be pro-Zionist, however they report on atrocities by Moslems against non-Moslems in Moslem majority nations. The information is drawn from local news services. Do you deny that Christians are persecuted in Egypt and Pakistan for example,I don't deny Christian atrocities or the Zionist oppression of the Palestinians.I have never,repeat never, discussed Islamic-infidel relations where a Moslem has ever taken any stance other than 'misunderstood victim'.

"That's why I say Muslims are special"-this is a ridiculous chauvinistic statement and rather disappointing,but unfortunately indicative of an apparent widespread attitude amongst Moslems. Moslems are not special.This is definitely my final comment on this topic.

Pax vobiscum.

Dear stevenlmeyer,

My definitions of Islamophobia and antisemitism did not involve criticism of belief systems. It involved hating people because they were Jews or Muslims. The people in the concentration camps regardless of their belief systems or religious identification were regarded as Jews by the Nazis.

Your list of statements included statements that had nothing with my definitions.

It may make you uncomfortable to see Islamophobia as analogous to antisemitism, but that's the way I see it. They are both despicable.

LOL David f

If I let every bit of taurine fertiliser I encounter make me "uncomfortable" I'd be in a permanent state of agony there's so much of it about.

"Islamophobia" is word that was coined in order to draw parallels with anti-Semitism. It is an attempt to intimidate critics of Islam by equating such criticism with a form of racism.

But "Islamophobia" and anti-Semitism are, objectively, entirely different. Anti-Semitism is a form of racism. It is hating Jews because of their ethnic origin.

"Islamophobia" is a loathing for the religion of Islam. It is no more "racist" than a loathing for Christianity, Judaism or, for that matter, Zionism. The parallels for Islamophobia would be "Christianophobia", "Judeophobia" or, for that matter, "Scientology-phobia".

I do not wish to deprive Muslims of their civil liberties. I respect the right of Muslims to believe what they want and to do "dawa" - ie evangelise - for Islam. But I loathe and despise the belief system called Islam. I have nothing but scorn and contempt for people who attempt to appease such a vicious ideology.

BTW why should Islam have its own phobia and not Christianity? Why should Islamophobia be despicable but not "Christian-o-phobia" or "Hindu-phobia"?

Do you want to bring back blasphemy laws that outlaw criticism of religion?

Are you saying that someone who, for his own good reasons, despises a belief system, is somehow morally defective? Or is it only people who detest Islam who have some sort of character defect?

Do you see how absurd it is to equate anti-Semitism and "Islamophobia"? (Probably you don't)

The last questions are not meant to be rhetorical. I look forward to seeing your attempts at an explanation.

Dear stevenlmeyer,

What you are doing is setting up a strawman. You asked, "Do you want to bring back blasphemy laws that outlaw criticism of religion?" Since I made it plain I was not talking about belief systems that is a stupid and irrelevant question. I don't think you are stupid. I think you know what you are doing.

Yes, all prejudice against a person because that person is a member of a particular ethnic or religious group is essentially alike. islamophobia and antisemitism are essentially alike.

There is no word in our society for hatred of Christians because we live in Christian dominated societies. In Roman times before Christianity became the official religion Christians were called atheists because they did not believe in or worship the Roman gods.

I look forward to your attempt at an explanation for your attempt to convert objections to prejudice against individuals because of their religious identification to objection to criticism of their belief systems.

As far as I am concerned Islam, Judaism and Christianity are basically nonsense. There is no big daddy in the sky.

However, prejudice and discrimination against Jews, Muslims and Christians because they are Jews, Muslims and Christians stink.

I think you answered your own question, Constance.

>>Now, what is your problem with the term, Londonistan? Why on earth do you so weirdly react to this term? Are you paranoid or something? Didn't you know that London is the Islamists hub of Europe?<<

It's all about the power of the slogan, on which topic you commented:

>>Slogans not reality. Oh is that what it is? And they are not true - oh how deep!<<

Somehow, you have picked up on a slogan - "Londonistan" - which confirms and amplifies all your existing prejudices. This, of course, being the reason that Melanie Phillips wrote her book with that title in the first place.

If it had been a sober, rational and carefully-reasoned analysis of Islam in the capital, no-one would have read it. So she gave it a catchy title, filled it with anti-Islamic polemic, and sold lots.

Good for her.

But that still doesn't mean that it reflects reality. It just means that she knows how to mass-market to the fearful and the simple-minded.

And that is why I try to put these things into context, for people who haven't been to London recently, and therefore cannot have the faintest clue how inaccurate it all is.

Oh, and just for the record.

>>Again you seem to have trouble reading, and I am not going to bother reiterating any I've already said. You're getting boring<<

But you haven't actually said anything, Constance, so there's nothing to reiterate. You're getting very defensive.

David f

See my comment on:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11002

LOL ;-)

Dear stevenlmeyer,

Prejudice and discrimination against Jews, Muslims and Christians because they are Jews, Muslims and Christians stink.

The above is true whether the prejudice is called antisemitism, islamophobia or something else.

Do you disagree with the above statements.

David F

My Concise Oxford Dictionary gives two definitions for “prejudice”.

1. Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience > unjust behavior formed on such a basis

2. Chiefly Law - harm or injury that results or may result from some action or judgment

With regard to the first my opinion of Islam, which is that it stinks, is based on reason and actual experience. It is therefore not prejudice.

You may disagree with my opinion. Presented with the same data you may come to a different conclusion. But you cannot accuse me of prejudice in the sense of having a preconceived idea.

You may accuse me of conducting my investigations into Islam in bad faith. If you do, so be it. There is obviously no way I can prove that I did not act in bad faith.

So far as the second meaning of prejudice is concerned, I have made it abundantly clear many times that people should NOT be prejudiced – ie sufer any harm or loss - because of their beliefs and opinions. This should apply BOTH to Muslims AND to people like me who believe that Islam is loathsome.

In that second sense of the word “prejudice” I agree with your statement that:

“Prejudice and discrimination against Jews, Muslims and Christians because they are Jews, Muslims and Christians stink.”

But with the following rider:

“Prejudice and discrimination against people who detest Judaism, Islam and / or Christianity because they detest Judaism, Islam and / or Christianity ALSO stinks.”

Now that I have answered your question perhaps you can do me the courtesy of answering mine in my post of Sunday, 19 September 2010 12:39:07 PM

Dear stevenlmeyer,

You asked:

1. ... Why should Islamophobia be despicable but not "Christian-o-phobia" or "Hindu-phobia"?

2. Do you want to bring back blasphemy laws...?

3. ... is it only people who detest Islam who have some sort of character defect?

Your first two questions are strawmen. I have not maintained that "Christian-o-phobia" or "Hindu-phobia" are not despicable, and I would like to eliminate all blasphemy laws.

I despise parts of all belief systems that I am familiar with. I think any kind of belief should be only held provisionally as long as no evidence contradicts it. If we are talking of belief systems, the belief that god is a real estate dealer who parcels certain areas of land to certain tribes and that virgins are impregnated by supernatural entities are as ridiculous as anything I know that is found in Islam. Admittedly if I knew more about Islam I would probably find more to despise there.

I also object to the belief system called Marxism and think the Marxist horrors are a direct result of the Marxist ideology.

All belief systems have something that compels the allegiance of their adherents. The compelling forces I would consider either bad or good depending on what they are.

However, it is one thing to despise a belief system and another to despise the human beings who hold that belief. I am not sure you make that distinction.

Although all the main religions have offensive elements I rank them from least offensive to most offensive as follows:

1. Buddhism
2. Judaism
3. Islam
4. Christianity
5. Hinduism

Buddhism seems to have more peaceful elements than the other religions. Judaism has a tradition of questioning. Islam and Christianity rank below Buddhism and Judaism because missionary religions are inherently more intolerant and controlling. I rank Christianity below Islam because of its belief in a humanoid god with magical powers who returned from the dead seems completely ridiculous. I rank Hinduism at the bottom because of the caste system which discriminates even among its own followers.

Why do you think Islam is worse than the others?

David f wrote:

“..it is one thing to despise a belief system and another to despise the human beings who hold that belief. I am not sure you make that distinction.”

As I have made abundantly clear many times including on this thread, people are entitled to hold whatever beliefs they wish and to evangelise for those beliefs.

See my post of Sunday, 19 September 2010 8:15:54 PM

“I do not wish to deprive Muslims of their civil liberties. I respect the right of Muslims to believe what they want and to do "dawa" - ie evangelise - for Islam. But I loathe and despise the belief system called Islam. I have nothing but scorn and contempt for people who attempt to appease such a vicious ideology.”

You question whether I make a distinction between beliefs and the people who hold them. In Christian terms, do I hate the “sin” and not the “sinner”? I have a twofold answer:

People’s rights do not depend on my – or your – opinion of them. Even if I despise an individual he or she still has a right to express his / her views and should suffer no “prejudices” or “discrimination” to use your words. So, in that sense, my making the distinction you suggest is irrelevant.

But, yes, there are some views and behaviors I consider so abhorrent that it leads me to despise the person holding them. When Cat Stevens declares on BBCTV that he wishes to see Salman Rushdie burned alive I hold him beneath contempt. When people who should know better – such as Foxy on OLO – make excuses for this VERMIN I am astonished.

Why do I consider Islam – I should say CONTEMPORARY Islam – to be the worst of the CONTEMPORARY religions?

Actually I don’t. But I focus on Islam because that’s the one people seek to appease. Nobody tries to appease the Catholics for example.

It is the appeasement that makes Islam so dangerous.

Dear stevenlmeyer,

I agree with your opinion of Cat Stevens. I feel the same way about contemporary Christians who make excuses for Calvin who had Servetus condemned to death. Servetus was burned at the stake. One of their excuses is that Calvin wanted Servetus run through with a sword rather than burned alive.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10725 contains my essay which includes that subject. The spirit of John Calvin is alive and well. The essay includes other Christian excuses. Christians who defend Calvin's atrocious behaviour are no better than Cat Stevens.

LOL David f

The ‘ol Islamic Defence Reflex or IDR. We dare not subject Islam or a Muslim to a bit of critique, analysis, satire and scorn (CASS) without also expending a bit of CASS on Christianity. To do otherwise would be to risk being labeled and “Islamophobe” or even a “racist”.

A CASS attack on Islam must be “balanced” with a CASS attack on Christianity. Dems de rules.

However in picking on Calvin you have chosen one of my pet aversions. I grew up in South Africa where the Calvinist Dutch Reformed Churches were using the bible to justify Apartheid. Calvin featured large in our history lessons though somehow they never got around to mentioning Servetus. They did a good job on the Spanish Inquisition though.

Back then I never thought about drawing cartoons of Calvin. Wonder what would have happened had I done so.

All this being said there are a few differences between ol’ Calvin and Cat Stevens.

Calvin has been dead over 400 years. Stevens is still very much alive.

There is no general APPEASEMENT of Calvinists.

Calvinists might defend Calvin but almost nobody else, certainly no self-proclaimed atheists, would. You won’t find CJ MORGAN using the word “Calvinophobia”. Foxy won’t be making excuses for him. Pericles won’t be equating Calvinophobia with racism.

There is no general APPEASEMENT of Calvinists.

Calvinists are no longer burning anybody. In South Africa they’ve even done a mea culpa on Apartheid.

There is no general APPEASEMENT of Calvinists.

If you write a disparaging biography of Calvin you will not need not walk around with 8 bodyguards after the manner of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

There is no general APPEASEMENT of Calvinists.

If a publisher declines to take on your biography it will likely be because he thinks nobody, not even Calvinists, will be interested. He won’t decline because he fears angry Calvinists

There is no general APPEASEMENT of Calvinists.

You get the picture David f.

BTW you did not have to go back to Servetus to find an example of Christian Schrekligkeit. The Catholics burned Bruno in 1600.

My sister, 32-year-old Marwa el-Sherbini did not have a body-guard to protect her from the hatred that Stevenmeyer (+Horus) promotes and Mac believes is deserving.

Marwa, a pharmacist who was four months' pregnant and wore the the hijab, was involved in a court case against her neighbour after he called her a terrorist (sound familiar, steve and Mac). She was due to testify when he stabbed her 18 times inside the courtroom in front of her three-year-old son.

<<On August 21, 2008, Marwa was with her then 2-year-old at a playground in the Dresden suburb of Johannstadt. She had arrived in Germany together with her son and husband, Ali, three years prior to the incident from Egypt. Ali holds a fellowship at the renowned Max-Planck-Institut

On the playground, an argument arose between Marwa and and the 27-year-old Alex, where he insulted her with words like “slut”, “Islamist”, and “Terrorist.” After an official complaint was filed, a local court fined the man 780 Euro. The prosecutors felt that the punishment was too soft, and the man proceeded to appeal the decision. As a result, the appeal was heard by the State Court in Dresden in July 2009.

During the proceedings on the morning of July 1st, in addition to the accused and his state-assigned counsel, both Marwa’s 3-year-old son and her husband were in attendance. The routine process was running without incident, when the situation radically changed in a matter of seconds. As Marwa wrapped up her statement to the court, the accused man lunged at her with a knife he had brought with him. In front of her child, Marwa was stabbed eighteen times in less than 30 seconds. Both the defense attorney and Marwa’s husband attempted to get between the man and Marwa, resulting in Ali being stabbed. Two police officers, who stormed the hall, took Ali for the attacker, shooting him in the leg. Only afterwards could the real attacker be identified and taken into custody.

Marwia died right there in the courtroom as a result of the stab wounds.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/07/433730.html
http://www.thelocal.de/national/20090703-20359.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/07/muslim-woman-shot-germany-court
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc_GdndOHzc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50f9QrrMAGg >>

It is people like stevenmyer who should not be appeased.

Their behaviour is selfish and callous and deserving of nothing but contempt.

Not once have i read anything except insults under the banner of the 'right to insult'. His behaviour is an insult to civilisation and decency.

Mac,

Your remarks were about the Qur’aan, the Prophet and his companions: all HISTORICAL. Let me remind you of what you said:
<<I'll leave the textual analysis of the Quran to the experts, many report it as a collection of contradictory nonsense,a record of the depradations of a desert bandit and his followers and of course, vicious anti-semitism>>

I asked you who are the “many” who make these reports (about the qur’aan, the Prophet and his companions) and you respond with websites, not books (let alone book of any serious scholarship). IF you’re trying to link criminal acts to the teachings of Islam, then please do so: but provide the scholarly evidence! I’m asking you to provide EVIDENCE that supports your statements about my religion.

Dear stevenlmeyer,

My article which I referred you to mentioned the burning at the stake of Bruno. I found a Christian website defending the burning of Servetus. I found none defending the burning of Bruno.

However, all the Muslim violence pales in consequence compared to the Nazi Holocaust carried out almost wholly by Christians and the possibly 100,000,000 people killed by various Marxist entities according to "The Black Book of Communism" published by Harvard University. Those murders happened in my lifetime. It is estimated that the US invasion of Iraq has caused the loss of an estimated 100,000 Iraqi lives far more than the casualties of 9/11.

Supposedly every life lost is a universe. There have been many universes. In 1987 a meeting of former CIA men in Switzerland estimated that 6,000,000 will killed by various death squads and other murderous entities under CIA guidance. Who knows how many CIA inspired murders since then?

The twentieth century was a most bloody century, and the twenty-first will probably be another.

Hey, don't drag me into this, stevenlmeyer.

>>Pericles won’t be equating Calvinophobia with racism<<

There are only two things wrong with that statement. One is that I have never experienced, or even heard of, Calvinophobia before. In fact, I am only peripherally aware of Calvin himself, and totally ignorant of his impact on religion.

I suspect that Calvinophobia is something you dreamed up in order to make fatuous comparisons with real life.

The other is that you have never heard me use the term "racism" in relation to any religion. Ever.

Apart from that, fine.

>>Back then I never thought about drawing cartoons of Calvin. Wonder what would have happened had I done so.<<

Something like this, perhaps?

http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2010/08/28/

Meanwhile, grateful is getting hot under the collar.

>> IF you’re trying to link criminal acts to the teachings of Islam, then please do so: but provide the scholarly evidence! I’m asking you to provide EVIDENCE that supports your statements about my religion.<<

Scholarly evidence, grateful? You cannot be serious. I doubt for one millisecond that a terrorist, blowing himself and everyone around him to smithereens, thought in terms of "scholarly evidence".

But I strongly suspect that his/her burning desire for martyrdom was at least influenced by someone's interpretation of religious teaching.

Certainly, it features strongly in the media releases that follow such atrocities.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/09/201093111014874105.html

"Religious violence in Pakistan, mostly between Sunni and Shia groups, has killed more than 4,000 people in the past decade"

Are these acts a) sufficiently criminal and b) sufficiently linked to the teachings of Islam?

They may not be "scholarly". But they would nevertheless appear to be a somewhat compelling kind of evidence, wouldn't you agree?

Grateful

I had read about the murder of Marwa el-Sherbini but did not know she was your sister. I am sorry for your loss. Please accept my condolences.

David f

It’s OK, I understand the rules on the “progressive” (so-called) side of politics. You can only say unkind things about Islam if you say even more unkind things about Christianity / America / Israel whatever. I promise I won’t dob you in if you relax just this once.

Pericles,

Sorry, you’re right. It’s not you who have been conflating race and religion.

For the reasons I explained Calvin is one of my pet aversions.

We have Islam-ophobia and now Catholic-ophobia. See:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11002

Doesn't every religion deserve its own "ophobia"? And if not, why not?

Mac: << "That's why I say Muslims are special"-this is a ridiculous chauvinistic statement and rather disappointing, but unfortunately indicative of an apparent widespread attitude amongst Moslems. Moslems are not special.>>

This is not chauvinism. Its an opinion which i think can be supported by evidence. If Islam, and therefore the followers of Islam, were not special in the eyes of others then why would so many people be desperately trying to link criminal acts to the teachings of Islam, neglecting to mention that these criminals are targeting Muslims and their Mosques as well as Christians and their Churches. I would be regarded as a kafir (unbeliever) by the extremists.

Muslims are special only to the extent that they follow the Qur’aan, By this criteria all the Prophets were very special people. Their deeds mark them out from the rest of humanity. So those who choose to follow in their footsteps deserve our respect and are special people.

For another example consider how Muslims are able to respond to those who say the Qur'aan is “the ramblings of desert nomads” or as you have said “a collection of contradictory nonsense,a record of the depradations of a desert bandit and his followers and of course, vicious anti-semitism”. Muslims are able to respond with reason and a challenge to the accusers to present their proof. In doing so Muslims would be following guidance of the Qur’aan.

Mac, in my opinion, this feature is special among religions and so i disagree with your statement that Islam is no different from other religions. If you chose to disagree then provide your arguments and do not resort to inflammatory accusations or skadoodle whenever you are asked to account for your statements.

Dear grateful,

Please cite a religion whose followers do not think they are special. In maintaining Islam is special you are like all the other religionists and blind to the fact you are like all the other religionists. Like most other religionists you cherry pick what you want to present as typical of your religion.

Yes, you would be labeled as a Kafir by the extremists. That is also like the other religions. Fundamentalist Christians label those like Bishop Spong who question and try to follow reason as a heretic. The Haredim in Israel regard Jews who don't follow their practices in the same way. Your extremists and the extremists of other religions are interested in neither dialogue nor reason. Other religions have a broad spectrum of views including those who appeal to reason.

Maimonides, the great Jewish philosopher, fled Cordoba to escape the intolerant Muslim Almohads who gave the Jewish community the choice of conversion to Islam, death or exile. Maimonides's family, along with most other Jews chose exile. Eventually he settled in other Muslim domains. When asked how one could show love for God who cannot be physically embraced he recommended that a person should use his divine mind to ask questions. A questioning attitude and the appeal to reason are very much in the Jewish tradition.

In fact there was interaction between Muslim, Jewish and Christian thinkers. With the contemporary Muslim philosopher Averroes, he promoted and developed the philosophical tradition of Aristotle, which gave both men prominent and controversial influence in the West, where Aristotelian thought had not been known widely. Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas, the Christian theologian, were notable Western readers of Maimonides.

Dear stevenlmeyer,

I agree that Islam should not be appeased, and some of its practitioners are guilty of extreme violence. However, I cite the mass murders of the twentieth century because those with the mindset who committed them still exist and are still a danger. I am also a Jew and aware of those who have done the most damage to us. It is not Islam.

grateful, what's the story?

>>My sister, 32-year-old Marwa el-Sherbini...<<

You're a fibber, aren't you.

Tarek al-Sherbini, Marwa's only brother, was born and raised in Alexandria, to Ali El-Sherbini and Laila Shams.

You, on the other hand, were:

>>...born and bred Australian so please stop refering to me as some alien that is taking advantage of your hospitality.<<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3924#96564

So I think you owe stevenlmeyer an apology, at the very least, along with some kind of explanation.

It is a very poor show indeed, when he most politely offered his condolences, not to have pointed out that his sympathy was better directed elsewhere.

grateful "Muslims are able to respond with reason and a challenge to the accusers to present their proof."

Some do (http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/humberside/hi/people_and_places/religion_and_ethics/newsid_8989000/8989639.stm) just as many in other faiths (or non-faiths) react with reason to challenge or insult but there is a part of the story which you seem to be in denial about

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_re_as/quran_burning_reaction
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/04/muhammadcartoons.pressandpublishing

Where are the large street protests by muslims to voice their anger when your faith and the teachings of your faith are brought into disrepute by other muslims? Where were the massive demonstrations against the blowing up of the buddist statues? Where were the protests when women who have been raped are stoned to death by muslims? Where were the massive protests when tourists are fired on by muslims waging a campaign of terror?

If you are so special why don't we see standards which are significantly better than those in who are not part of your faith but who hold to some values system that goes beyond "me first"?

It's a delusion common to adherents of many faiths that those who belong to their faith are somehow better than others. The evidence is only their if you ignore what does not suit.

R0bert

Is what Pericles says correct? Marwa el-Sherbini was not your sister.

You realy are a piece of .... grateful.

aaaarrrh

Grateful,
Most people would look at Marwa’s case and say “What a horrible thing!”, a young woman had her life cut short.
Your, sympathy seems to stem from the fact that she’s a sister-in-faith.I look forward to you expressing similar, heartfelt sympathy for the tens of thousands of non-Muslim Indonesian , Malaysian , Sri Lankan , Thai, Nigerian , southern Sudanese women who’ve been raped and murdered by Muslims – crimes for which their assailants are yet to be arrested, let alone tried!

You and most of your brethren seem to share the mindset that you can spruik the misdeeds of others, but when others talk about your much, much less publicised/known misdeeds, it’s “promoting hatred”.

And a look at some of the comments to the Youtube link, shows how successful you’ve been at suppressing Islams darker side. A number of the comments carry the implication that Islam has a better record of dealing with non-whites.When the reality is, Islam oversaw the greatest slave trade in history.

You ask for “EVIDENCE” of “criminal acts” ?
How can one establish criminality on the part of your team when you –the sole arbiter-- believe your team has divine authority/purpose that trumps everything else! The best I can do for you Grateful is show that your teams track record violates standards you tell us you hold dear.

Exhibit1: Sahi Buchari Hadiths #143, page-700: Sulaiman Ibne Harb…Aannas Ibne Malek (ra) narrated, “in the war of Khayber after the inhabitants of Banu Nadir were surrendered, Allah’s apostle killed all the able/adult men, and he (prophet) took all women and children as captives (Ghani mateer maal).. Among the captives Safiyya Bint Huyy Akhtab was taken by Allah’s Apostle as booty whom He married after freeing her and her freedom was her Mahr.”
And please bear in mind that Mohammed is “’a beautiful exemplar’ …the model of righteousness, the perfect individual” not someone ruled by the beastly whims and ways of the time!
---- How was this not a genocidal, criminal act?”
[ How many Marwa’s do you suppose this action created ?]

Exhibit2: “Private recantation from Islam aggravated by disobedience to Islamic law or physical violence against Muslim lives and property always warrants the ‘extreme’ (hudood) punishments. Thus, for example, immediately after the death of the Prophet, the first Caliph took military action against certain tribes which had relapsed into their previous paganism. But the rebel tribes were not only committing apostasy; they were refusing to pay alms-tax due to the infant Islamic state…and the death penalty was accordingly evoked against the rebel tribes”
[Be Careful With Muhammad—Dr Shabbir Akhtar ( a member of the Bradford Council of Mosques )]
---Another genocidal, criminal act? The Americans have been demonised by many of your brethren for doing less in Iraq and Afghanistan!
[ How many Marwa’s do you suppose this action create?]

Exhibit3: Mac has already made you aware that the crusades were a response to earlier Islam jihadi actions in Europe –though you remain in denial about it.There were also similar jihadi actions as late as the 1890s in Asia.
“The Afghan ruler Abdur Rehman Khan, whom the British had christened the ‘Iron Amir’ …saw this as an opportunity to enlarge his domain…The campaign to pacify Kafiristan was short-lived but violent. Hundreds were killed while thousand crossed into the neighbouring Chitral region of modern Pakistan…When the jihad was over , sixty thousand infidels had embraced Islam and pledged their allegiance to the amir. With the valley subdued the amir dispatched an army of mullahs to instruct the converts in the ways of Islam. None other than my maternal great-grandfather, Jalilur Rahman Khan, led a troop of mullahs into the valley, with specially trained barbers circumcising men both young and old in accordance with Islamic tradition. My paternal great-grandfather, also involved in the campaign , took into marriage a young girl from the area. She was one of the many women who were taken as spoils of war from the region, which the warriors renamed Nooristan, or the land of light”
Confessions of a Mullah Warrior –Masood Farivar
(a primary source— you don’t need halal certified historians to interpret that for you!—though The Crisis of Islam –Bernard Lewis
(p 28) echo’s this testimony, and adds “During the same period jihads ..were conducted in Africa against non-m populations”

---- It makes your NO COMPULSION in religion principle look a bit suspect, eh?
----As it does the oft stated apologia that Jihadism & the Taliban are anomalies.
[ How many Marwa’s do you suppose this action created ?]

But I don’t expect any of this to make an iota of difference , and I don’t blame you, if I believed there were 14 Houris waiting for
me in the hereafter, I’d be Grateful too!

GRATEFUL!

I have never before been angry with anyone on OLO. This is a debate forum and my attitude has always been if you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

That was until today. It has taken me this long to calm down and compose a decent post.

Let me tell you something grateful. We lost a daughter in a road accident so I know what it is like suddenly to lose someone you love. I really felt for you. When you accused me of inciting violence I thought it was your grief speaking. I remember how angry at the world I was at the time.

What you did was unspeakable grateful. It was ROTTEN.

Aaarrrhhh !

Time is running out for an apology, grateful.

It is a particularly bad look, when you accompany the lie with:

>>It is people like stevenmyer who should not be appeased. Their behaviour is selfish and callous and deserving of nothing but contempt. Not once have i read anything except insults under the banner of the 'right to insult'. His behaviour is an insult to civilisation and decency<<

Time to swallow your pride, I think. Don't you?

And stevenlmeyer, you have my deepest sympathy. What an awful way in which to be reminded of your own tragic loss.

Thanks Pericles

I'm over it now. I should not have let myself get so emotional.

Dear stevenlmeyer,

You have my deepest sympathies also.

grateful is quiet effective in arguing against Islam.

Thanks David

It was actually a long time ago but sometimes I get flashbacks - especially when I hear about other people suffering that kind of loss.

<<GRATEFUL!

I have never before been angry with anyone on OLO. This is a debate forum and my attitude has always been if you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

That was until today. It has taken me this long to calm down and compose a decent post.

Let me tell you something grateful. We lost a daughter in a road accident so I know what it is like suddenly to lose someone you love. I really felt for you. When you accused me of inciting violence I thought it was your grief speaking. I remember how angry at the world I was at the time.

What you did was unspeakable grateful. It was ROTTEN.

Aaarrrhhh !>>

stevenlmeyer,

I have children, including daughters, and understand where you are coming from. The intention of my post was to personalise the impact that dehumanising a whole group of people can have. Marwa is a Muslim sister and the manner of her death did have an affect on myself and family because her death was for no other reason than she wore a hijab (so she could have been my wife or daughter). I obviously had no idea about your personal tragedy and without reservation apologise for the hurt that has been caused by refering to Marwa as my sister.

The intention was not to deceive as Pericles has suggested. This should be obvious because on several occassions i have said that i was not born into a Muslim family and i expected regulars like yourself to recognise that i was using the term sister in its islamic context. But on reflection i should have used "Muslim sister" (the norm among Muslims) so i apologise for not doing so.

salaams

PS The reason i did not post this on the "Einstein" post is because I have hit the post limit.

Stevenlmeyer,

Just to add, this is the first time i have returned to the post after been made aware of a "serious impact" on the "Einstein" post. I was angry at the time and justed wanted to express my anger and move on.