And still they strap bombs to themselves and walk into crowds. That is what needs to be focussed on not our reaction to it. No matter how small the number of islamist do it are. while they do it that is what you should be talking about.

BTW when the christains were protesting about "piss christ" a few years ago I don't recall any of them calling for death.

Junaid,
You suggest a rethink but offer no solutions.
Do you think we should appease the protestors and introduce Sharia law?

You neglect to say that there have been 20,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 and you also neglect to acknowledge that nearly all the deaths in Iraq occured after saddam was toppled and were caused by muslims blowing each other up. Muslims are violent people who wish to impose their way on us by threats and violence.

I have a couple of suggestions regarding Australia.

1. Get tougher about violent protests and arrest more. Hasher laws for that behavior.

2. Stop further immigration or those groups that will not integrate and hold our society in contempt.

This article is a considerable improvement on the usual special pleading from Moslem commentators. Junaid Cheema presents a reasoned argument demonstrating non-Moslems' double standards and prejudices, except where he tries to conflate religion and race, for the umpteenth time, Moslems are not a "race".

The fact the majority of terrorist acts are not committed by Moslems is probably irrelevant to many Australians whose recent memory is of the Bali bombings and don't really care what's happening in some other country.

No matter how much effort is put into "reconciliation" and "inclusion", all parties have to acknowledge that much of the Islamic ideology is morally repugnant to Western sensibilities and inimical to liberal democratic values. Islamic outrage over non-existent 'provocations' only reinforces the sense of alienation.

I strongly agree with Banjo's suggestion to "Get tougher about violent protests and arrest more. Hasher laws for that behaviour", yes put all Greenpeace activists behind bars, the whole lot of em! How dare they question and critique cultural norms. They must "integrate".

@Kenny
On your comparison between the benign Christian protests and violent Muslim tendencies, I got three words for you "Anders Behring Breivik", now his conduct justifies the persecution and vilification of Christian minorities the world over, its only logical, right?

@mac
Forget reconciliation and inclusion, just a tiny amount of empathy will go a long way in building the bridges. What is a "non-existent provocation" to you could be the most offensive thing imaginable for a Muslim. The mode and manner of protest can be questioned and condemned but simply rubbishing aside the source of it all as "non-existent" isn't very liberal now, is it?

I suggest you all have a long look at this site created by Architects and engineers with over 1700 professionals in this field and 15,000 other supporters all asking for a thorough investigation into 911.

http://www.ae911truth.org/ The absolute scientific irrefutable evidence is there.All these buildings came down at nearly freefall speeds.The proof of controlled demolition proven beyond any doubt.

Muslims are not the only ones who are the terrorists.The financial terrorists kill more people with their austerity and wars of imperialism than any Muslim could ever dream of.

@Hadi,

"...simply rubbishing aside the source of it all as "non-existent" isn't very liberal now, is it?".

Actually it's the essence of liberal democracy, people might be angry and outraged at the exercise of free speech but that's their problem, not mine. I have some empathy as to the way Moslems might feel when their religion is ridiculed, however my advice would be "You live in a democracy, not a theocracy." Apart from the loonier multiculturalists, there's no prospect of compromise.

That a particular comment or practice is the "most offensive thing imaginable for a Muslim", is not relevant. How should non-Moslems behave if Moslems are offended?

mac if you are not scientifically literate then perhaps this site may be of help; http://patriotsquestion911.com/ Here you will see thousands of professionals,ex-CIA/FBI ,Govt Officials,entertainers,Doctors,Professors,academics,engineers, scientists,ex-Prime Ministers/Presidents from all around the planet questioning the official story of 911.

The truth needs to come out now,since the Western Oligarchs want escape via a Nuclear war with Russia and China.

@Kenny - you say:
"And still they strap bombs to themselves and walk into crowds. That is what needs to be focussed on not our reaction to it. No matter how small the number of islamist do it are. while they do it that is what you should be talking about. "

What we should really focus on is the reason behind them doing it. I'm not condoning it, but you should look at the reasons. For example, in Palestine, which they used to own the entire what is now Israel / Palestine we see that in their own country they've been subjugated to almost less than 3rd world treatment. Can't even pass by within there own land @ a checkpoint without being checked etc. Israel building houses within the West Bank etc. Blocking supplies to Gaza, And using unprecendented amount of weapons against the innocent. But if any retaliation whether it's a suicide bomber, as you would know they have hardly any sophisticated weopons like Israel, as US supplies it to them, then we look at them and say oh they're the terrorists? It's subjective media attention and not the truth that we should be looking out. Media can easily make the oppressed look like terrorists.
The amount of UN sanctions that Israel have violated is beyond ridiculous.

Also in Iraq, where Netanyahu said "FOR SURE" Iraq had weopons of massed destruction. Where are they? Where's the condemnation for invading and bombing the country? No lets look at those that defend there country as terrorist? That's insane.

Also 9/11 was clearly an inside job. There was instruction for Building 7 (Next to the twin tours) to be "pull it down"; a term used for detonating. How could that instruction possibly be put out there when it takes months to prepare such a demolition? Also Steel structure could based on science ever melt @ those temperatures they claimed. Where's the thorough investigation? No they just go directly and invade other countries.

@Banjo i'll answer you under each section.

@Banjo: Saying offering no suggestions
PeacefulPeace: He did, he said to stop "Sensationalizing" and look at the facts. What's news for one and said about one incident should be given the same attention to another. Seems like you missed a plain and big point..

@Banjo: Do you think we should appease the protestors and introduce Sharia law?

PeacefulPeace: Cheap shot it seems. What's introducing Sharia law have to do with the article? Br. Junaid didn't say he agreed with violent protesting either and i think his points were pretty obvious to understand. Seems like you need to re-read the article.

@banjo: Mentioning 9/11 and terrorism. Muslims are violent people who wish to impose their way on us by threats and violence.

PeacefulPeace - another very stereotypical and generalised statement. What is a terrorist attack? Define Terrorism? Was Americas invasion of Afghanistan an act of Terrorism. Was Americas invasion of Iraq an act of terrorism? Where's the unsubstanttiated evidence that Saddam had weapons of massed destruction? As far as i'm aware they havn't found any. Wasn't that the reason for attacking in the first place? Muslims are not violent people but if you attack anyone within there own country what do you think is going to happen? Similarly in England if we look at the riots which occurred recently, do we take that and say England are violent people? Or priests molesting kids, do we say all priests molest there kids? And who was involved in WW1, WW2 Muslims? killing how many? Also many other terrorist attacks too many to go through here.

@Banjo: I have a couple of suggestions regarding Australia.

1. Get tougher about violent protests and arrest more. Hasher laws for that behavior.

As long as there's no special treatment to non-muslims that's OK.

@Banjo: 2. Stop further immigration or those groups that will not integrate and hold our society in contempt.

How would you define/measure someones integration potential? Holding society in contempt referring to who?

Great article. Unfortunately, throughout history it has always been easy to control people by making them afraid of some enemy. The more the 'enemy' appears to be the other and different the easier it is.

The Catholic Irish were lucky that they are not different enough from the British to have suffered a similar fate as do Muslims now. Anybody who lived in the UK in the 80's at the height of terrorist attacks in the UK would remember the real and constant fear of a bomb attack. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR1VePIeWbE is just a reminder of the seriousness of the threat.

To research the history of terrorism in recent history is interesting. Just start with the terrorist attacks by the supporters of creating a state of Israel. Here's a recent reflection from an Israeli paper on the bombing of the King David Hotel.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-spirit-of-the-king-david-hotel-1.193571

It is always a challenge for a society how to deal with terrorism. Brushing every single person with the same belief or race with the same brush and assigning them the part of 'the enemy' is a sure fire way to failure.

Another excellent site if you want to know the truth and reality is ;
http://globalresearch.ca/

@mac
"People might be angry and outraged at the exercise of free speech but that's their problem"
Then why the outrage at a bunch of bearded Australians expressing their democratic right to protest and exercising their right to free speech?

"How should non-Moslems behave if Moslems are offended" perhaps a more pertinent question to ask for the enlightened minds in a liberal democracy would be "How should a human behave if other humans are offended"

Junaid,

>"Lets extend the debate from overseas preachers of hate affecting Muslim youth, to the local preachers that publicly ask for hate against the Muslim youth. Perhaps .. we might get a different result, rather than just more insanity"<

I would suggest the Aus reaction to the rather mild local Islamic protests was rather muted and quite respectful overall, irrespective of the media feeding frenzy and beat-up. (And, I'm afraid the mother's ignorance of English after two years in Oz is a pretty lame excuse - hopefully not typical?)

Let us face facts. There has been no concerted cry for 'hate against Muslim youth'. That is a complete beat-up, and highly disrespectful to all reasonable and responsible Australian non-Muslim adults - who, I would add, are far and away in the majority. The reaction of the leaders of our Oz Islamic communities to these events also reflects and shows respect for the generally reasonable nature of the Oz community at large.

As for comparisons with tree-hugger environmentalists, etc, this is not Tienanmen Square or Tibet, West Papua or Sri Lanka, etc. Please let us compare horses with horses. In various parts Sunnis murder Shia, and vice versa, with regular monotony. We just don't want any of that here! Fortunately some sanity prevails, so no more red herrings, please.

We all know the world is in a mess, and that the US, with some helpers, has been the source of much of the prevailing ill-will in many Islamic quarters. But, how to overcome and resolve? By accepting cries to 'behead the Infidel', ad infinitum? Or by endeavouring to resolve differences, reach understanding and establish appropriate reparation? Not so easy though. But, one thing is sure, the non-Muslim world will never, nor should ever be expected to accept any doctrine which says one is superior to another, and all non-believers or non-subscribers must be annihilated.

We are thus left with compromise, on all sides, and no exceptions. All else is hopeless.

Arjay, I bet you also regard the moon landings as a hoax. Best of luck.

@Hadi,

So some people are outraged by other people's outrage, so what? It's not a requirement of liberal democracy that citizens should accept other's opinions without complaint. As long as the complainants obey the law and don't attempt to murder or otherwise intimidate the "offenders" they're entitled to be outraged.

"How should a human behave if other humans are offended"" That is sophistry, you still haven't answered the question. People may choose to apologise for a perceived "offence" or they may not.

If some Moslems expect deference from the Kuffars they are going to be very, very disappointed, in this country Islam is just another religion. BTW, despite the usual misguided rhetoric, liberal democracies set limits to religious freedom.

Peacefulpeace,
How do you stop 'sensationizing' the attrocities of muslims when they continue terrorists acts against others with whom they disagree? There have been 20,000 terrorists acts since 9/11, all in the name of Allah. Do you expect our free press to ignore that in the hope it will simply go away?

It is well documented that the muslim objective is to take over other nations by threats and fear. Europe is experiencing this now, as predicted by a former president of Nigeria. The more muslims , the more they insist on their way. Sharia is being introduce into UK now.
Our protestors here want to kill those that insult Allah, that is Sharia.

Tougher laws and enforcment for all violent protests including Greenpeace, unionists, political and muslims. Whoever is violent.

There are groups here that are identifiable, including muslims, that after 2-3 generations have not integrated and in fact hold our laws and social standards in contempt. They are given lots of information about us beforecoming here, so they know what to expect. In the interests of cohesiveness we should stop allowing those that have demonstrated they will not/cannot integrate.

We need a selective immigration programme, based on cultural adaptability.

@Kenny
Your are correct – Bolivian miners still strap themselves and blow up members of congress and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam conducted the greatest number of suicide attacks in history up-to the year 2000. So you are right 'they do'. Seems the Islamist really claimed the spotlight later, especially after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, where people like you were 'focusing' on WMDs that did not exist and caused a war that should never have been. So lets focus, but lets focus on the truth.

@Banjo
20,000 Islamist terrorist attacks after 911? Are you adding 750 on the fly to the already mythical 19,250 figure appearing on US billboards – which even CNN discredited as unsubstantiated, (See A right to hate: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/25/opinion/kahn-troster-anti-islam-hate-ads/index.html) or is this your own research? Regarding 'your' suggestions (1&2) they are awfully similar to Bolt's suggestions which are a step back nearly half a century whilst the rest of the world has moved forward. I'm no genius but I think the point the author is trying to make is a solution will only come forth if we open our minds and stop suffocating the truth.


@Saltpetre
Yes the Aus reaction was mild, the point is it was overcooked
Sorry you feel that extending the debate is "highly disrespectfull" but don't speak on behalf of all responsible Australian adults, because responsible adults invite a good debate. Suggest you talk to some of the families who have been victims of hate crimes after the recent over cooking.

@mac
"As long as the complainants obey the law and don't attempt to murder or otherwise intimidate the "offenders" they're entitled to be outraged", heres some more sophistry.... Does your definition of intimidation include illegal wiretapping, racial profiling, rendition flights and illegal wars and occupation?

Hadi,
Thanks for informing me about the posters in NY. I did not know about them and it is good to see that someone is making an effort to bring the publics attention to the fact of 20,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11. No, my info did not come from there, but from a website that keeps track of the attacks and documents them, which is also good to see. To date the figure is 19742 attacks and I did round it off but with 202 attacks in Sept, it would now be fairly close.

When you say my suggestions are close to Bolts, do you mean Andrew Bolt? A link please. My solutions are entirely my own as i have noticed that some groups get away with anti social conduct because of the flawed odeology of multiculturalism. The Croats and Serbs still hate and fight each other even after 3 generations so there is not much hope of them respecting our standards. Same with the groups that practice FGM, which is on the increase. Other groups still carry out cockfights and others forced marriages. No, far better for us not to admitt these groups. Funny that we have no problems with non muslim Lebanese, but the muslim Lebs get on with no one. I have never heard of Buddists causing anti social problems. Selective immigration is certainly worth a try.

You said,"a solution will only come forth if we open our minds and stop suffocating the truth".

I agree with that. It is farcical that the smh and the Age newspapers do not disclose ethnicity of wanted criminals or those in anti social conduct. This morning the smh had a story about gang rape in Paris, but did not disclose that the alleged rapists were muslim. That needs to change and the truth made known.

Saltpetre,
All very well to talk about compromise, which we do in a democracy, but can you state an instance where muslims have compromised their beliefs and culture in effort to get along with others. All muslims believe what is written in the Koran and will not budge from that. Therin lies the problem, compromise is not possible.

Despite the Muslim leaders fervent insistence that Islam is a peace loving religion, the opposite appears to be the actual situation.

The ongoing conflict in Palestine, with killings and suicide bombings, the slaughter at the Munich Olympics and numberous other “incidents” suggests that nearly all conflicts, seems to involve Muslims and somebody else. They seem to kill a few of their own too. Do they still not have a death threat against a British author and was it not Muslims burning, raping and killing Chinese people in Indonesia.
Add to that the shootings, gang violence and pack rapes in Sydney by Muslim gangs and the atrocities of 9/11 fails to convince most that Islam promotes kindness and peace. In some Muslim countries they still stone people to death, have public beheadings, mutilate and totally suppress women, which hardly seems benevolent to me. The protests and clenched fists in Pakistan seem to indicate more than just a few radicals.

Islam needs to purge their own of radicals and fanatics and excommunicate them for their own benefit and to show they are indeed tolerant of others.

Until that occurs we should stop further Muslim immigration to Australia and forget the pipe dream of multiculturalism.

I think muslims see themselves as pioneers for Islam and that the following is their ultimate agenda.

Algerian president Houari Boumedienne "One day millions of men will leave Arabia to go to Europe. And they will not go there as friends. They will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory."

This is now taking place in Europe. I understand that there are now fifty four million muslims in Europe

@Bango - you're still dodging the most important question before saying there were 20000 terrorist acts. Define what Terrorism is. How can you label something as a Terrorist act without a definition. For me America invading a whole country Iraq, Afghanistan etc bombing the smithereens out of places is beyond any thousand of small acts of defending themselves. Ofcourse they're going to fight back, they're at war.
Also you dodged the September 11 facts. If there's no 100% evidence that there was weapons of mass destruction and who's responsible for september 11, then how can you condone the war against Iraq?
In Afghanistan:
There are almost no figures for Afghanistan casualties, but Human Rights Watch recorded 1,000 civilian deaths in 2006 and the UN estimates 12,000 deaths since 2007. There are no statistics for the first five years of the war.

Let us not omit the secret wars in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Considering the drone programme is covert the numbers are almost certainly low. We do know however, that in Yemen drones have killed up to 1,026 men, women and children (at least 34) since 2002. Somalia is not on most Americans’ radar-screens but it is on the drones’: since 2007, 170 Somalis are dead from these Unmanned Aerial Vehicle strikes. In Pakistan drones have killed a reported 3,341 (at least 176 children) and wounded a minimum of 1,366 people. The ratio of wounded-to-killed indicates how deadly drone are, in part confirming their 'precision'. They are surgically precise in that they do not wound: they intentionally tear to pieces anyone nearby.

I think the number of Terrorist attacks post september 11 by US would be too much to count? Again selective reporting.

Also the fact you say lebanese muslim get along with noone shows that you havn't really been living properly. I'm lebanese muslim and get along with heaps of non-muslims, working and paying my taxes. I know many similar cases. You seem to like to generalise based on very limited sources and information.

@ bango you say:

All very well to talk about compromise, which we do in a democracy, but can you state an instance where muslims have compromised their beliefs and culture in effort to get along with others. All muslims believe what is written in the Koran and will not budge from that. Therin lies the problem, compromise is not possible.

You talk as if you know so much about Islam, but your ignorance is clear through your writings. I'll give you one instance - the fact that we're living under a man-made law is enough of a compromise as the only law acceptable by God is His law. Do you see a fight for power in Australia for this to occur? Or the fact that there are pubs all over the place. Do you see them getting attacked? And heaps of other compromise to get along with others. Ofcourse we have our beliefs what's your point? Same as a Jew he won't budge from Torah and there law. Does that mean we don't integrate, ofcourse not.

You mention Palestine "The ongoing conflict in Palestine, with killings and suicide bombings" as if it's one sided. Go have a look at the amount of sanctions that Israel have violated by the international community, the illegal settlements, the attacks against palestinians. Around At least 6,617 Palestinians and 1,097 Israelis
have been killed since September 29, 2000. So who's killing more? The numbers also do not include the sizable number of Palestinians who died as a result of inability to reach medical care due to Israeli road closures, curfews, the Israeli closure of border crossing from Gaza, etc. The Palestine Red Crescent Society, internationally respected for its statistical rigor, reports significantly higher numbers of Palestinian deaths.

Again more selective biased and blind reporting.

Hi PeacefulPeace,

With regard to the following comments:

<< All muslims believe what is written in the Koran and will not budge from that. Therin lies the problem, compromise is not possible>>

<< the fact that we're living under a man-made law is enough of a compromise as the only law acceptable by God is His law. Do you see a fight for power in Australia for this to occur? Or the fact that there are pubs all over the place. Do you see them getting attacked? And heaps of other compromise to get along with others. Ofcourse we have our beliefs what's your point?>>

I have two questions, if I may, just to clarify things for me:

1) You say that Muslims WILL NOT budge from what is commanded in the Koran, but in the next breath you tell us, that you (a Muslim) have compromised. You have acquiesced to live under a system of man made laws that YOU KNOW are NOT ACCEPTABLE to God – so how do you, in good conscience, reconcile this conflict?

In particular, I am interested to know whether you see such a "compromise" as a long term solution/approach –or is it merely a short term (tactical) approach--to be revoked at a later date?

2) When Australian Immigration officials were interviewing you (prior to accepting you into Australia) –and processing you through their thorough and exacting procedures -- did you take the opportunity to tell them about your foundational belief that <<All muslims believe what is written in the Koran and will not budge from that. Therin lies the problem, compromise is not possible>>?

1) so how do you, in good conscience, reconcile this conflict

As a Muslim, to talk in terms of countries is not that relevent. We are one body. Under a Khilafah system were Islam is under one banner then it's incumbant upon the leader to implement the law according to Gods law for all Muslims. We reconcile with this conflict to try to create awareness of Shariah and working towards it, not necessarily in this country as you're well aware we are a very tiny minority. In general though we should be propogating the truth and what is correct according to what God has conveyed to His messengers Muhammad, Moses, Jesus, David and thousands of other Messengers of God, to worship God and God Alone.

Just like the west keeps propagating their message of so called Democracy and their double standards of freedom and to want to be in power and direct their influence on the rest of the world, Muslims should be free to propagate their ideology. Doesn't necessarily have to mean we're owners though.

2) I was almost born in Australia, so didn't need to. I grew up as an Aussie and am Australian. So who are they to ask me those questions? I know many others that were born here too who are practicing Muslims. Also you ask questions in a seemingly fear mongering way. In terms of what Islam propagates is far from how you portray. You should read up sincerely trying to find the truth. Islam commands us to be Just, Righteous, look after the neighbor, pay charity to the poor, pray and worship God alone, not to commit adultery, fornication etc The things Bango mentioned a lot were punishments when someone did something wrong. There are many preventative precautions before these though. Still concentrating on them alone doesn't show sincerity. As for oppressing woman, West Sexually exploits woman heaps and rapes occurring every minute is not an oppression against woman? Different payment rates etc.
Have a look here for pamphlet "Women's rights in Islam"
http://www.iisna.com/pamphlets/

PeacefulPeace,

I'll ask the same question as SPQR, I'm also concerned by your remarks.

"In particular, I am interested to know whether you see such a "compromise" as a long term solution/approach –or is it merely a short term (tactical) approach--to be revoked at a later date?"
In other words, are Moslems practising "takkiya" when they 'compromise'?

That said, I generally agree with your comments in regard to the Israel-Palestinian conflict and certainly the USA has been the world's greatest international terrorist for the past 70 years.

"Muslims should be free to propagate their ideology. Doesn't necessarily have to mean we're owners though."

What are the chances of Christians "propagating their ideology"in Moslem nations? How many churches or synagogues in Mecca?
Essentially Moslems have decided that the primitive customs of nomadic tribes in the ME are some sort of universal moral imperative, they're not. If the nonsense in the qur'an is such a marvellous revelation why are Moslem countries such as they are?
You know very well that societies can only be compared in relative terms, no body's perfect, we don't murder women because they want an education here in the West for example.

Those of us who take an interest in history know that Islam has been destructive and far from peaceful from its inception. Moslem invasions destroyed Greco-Roman civilisation in the ME and North Africa and Moslem attacks on Western Europe were devastating. If Moslem armies had captured Western Europe there would have been no Renaissance, no science, no Enlightenment, no Industrial Revolution and no democracy.

As long as Moslems obey the laws of secular society and don't try to impose their superstitions on the rest of us we should live together amicably.

Hi PeacefulPeace,

1) You still haven’t resolved this paradox . i)You say that a Muslims cannot compromise on what the Koran commands , yet
ii) You are willing to acquiesce with lesser, man-made laws (at least for the time being) which run contrary to Gods laws.
Is there some ruling or precedent in the Koran or history that allows that?

2) When you say: <<We reconcile with this conflict to try to create awareness of Shariah and working towards it>>

Does that include <<working towards>> aspects of Sharia which propose death for apostates and blasphemers ?

3) << As a Muslim, to talk in terms of countries is not that relevent. We are one body.>>
So when the Sunnis kill Ahmadis , Ajlafs, Arzals , Alawites, Mutazilites & Shi'a -- –is that a form of leukemia (in that one body)
-- or, are some “Muslims” not really Muslims at all?

4) <<I was almost born in Australia, so didn't need to. I grew up as an Aussie and am Australian. So who are they to ask me those questions? I know many others that were born here too who are practicing Muslims. Also you ask questions in a seemingly fear mongering way>>

You initially described yourself as : <<I'm lebanese muslim>>
Why the need to attach “lebanese” – and particularly so since you later say << As a Muslim, to talk in terms of countries is not that relevant>>

SOQR,
A correction. It was me that made the comment. That muslims believe in the Koran and will not budge from that. They will not compromise and therin lie the problem.

I said that in post directed to Saltpetre on page 3.

@mac: In other words, are Moslems practising "takkiya" when they 'compromise'?

I think i've explained this quiet clearly. Muslims should work towards conveying the true message of Islam here.
We should also be under one leadership. At the moment that's not the case. It's pretty straight forward.

That said, I generally agree with your comments in regard to the Israel-Palestinian conflict and certainly the USA has been the world's greatest international terrorist for the past 70 years.

Yes and the West is where you're living under. The real questions should be based what's the alternatives apart from Islam.
For us belief in God is the cornerstone and to follow His way. What's the alternative? Do you believe in God? Who defines the law?

What are the chances of Christians "propagating their ideology"in Moslem nations?

They do. So Mecca is the only place? Have a look @ Indonesia the largest Muslims living there in the world. Have you heard of the Save Mariam project? Too many are apparently turning towards Christianity.
Not sure based on any logic. Also in Africa continues campaign for Christinity. Have a look at satellite TVs the amount of Free Christian channels is crazy. Hardly any free to air Muslim ones.
Also Islam unlike the Christian religious past of suppressing it, encourages science and to learn. There's plenty of Scientific facts that have been proven these days which are in The Qur'an.
Have a look @ that pamphlet for a brief look.

Also you splurt a lot of things out without reference or much analysis. There are scholars that deal with Law related issues if you're sincere with your issues.
Seems like you just want to mention beheading for the sake of it though. Where's all your references for this and scholarly islamic consensus? Coming up with ruling is not a simple thing and scholars take a lot of care for the rulings.
So splurting them out as if you know something shows your insencerity.
Concentrate on the main message that Islam tries to convey first. What do you believe?

@SPQR:
1) I've spoken quiet clearly about it so not sure why it's still a paradox.
As a Muslim we want Islam to lead. Pretty straight forward. You may want something else. I think you're wrong in wanting anything else to lead.

2) When you say: <<We reconcile with this conflict to try to create awareness of Shariah and working towards it>>

2) Sharia is Sharia. I'm not going to go through every single ruling. It's quiet comprehensive.
Why are you afraid of/mention death for apostates if I presume your not a muslim to begin with?

3)
There's different sects. Like in Christianity you get the following:
Catholics and Protestants have been vilifying, attacking, torturing and killing each other in a seemingly endless cycle which has only recently begun to show hopeful signs of finally ending.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_northernireland.htm

The reason behind the attacks etc God knows best exactly why. As explained Muslims aren't united, which causes issues.
To go into these is not a simple thing. When i say we are one body, what i mean is we're supposed to be one body.
As for the different sects God knows best which ones are on the true path.

4) My background is Lebanese, it's where i was born, however i came to Aus when i was few months old so am Aus. Still refuted the comment as to not getting along and questioning..The 2nd statement is when we're talking in terms of establishing the Khalifate. There should be no injustice based on race etc. 2 different points.

Also not sure this is the best medium to discuss so many different aspects, as can only post like 4 in 24 hours..

PeacefulPeace,

I'm definitely not insincere, in my sincere opinion Islam is a primitive superstition and I don't believe in any deity, "God" is human invention.

" Islam unlike the Christian religious past of suppressing it, encourages science and to learn. There's plenty of Scientific facts that have been proven these days which are in The Qur'an."

Is that the best you can do? The ancient Greeks had theories that were similar to modern science it's just a coincidence.

If Islam encourages science and learning why were Islamic countries 1000 years behind the West until they acquired Western technology.

You forgot to mention the attacks on Christians and Buddhists by Moslems in Indonesia, Nigeria ,Pakistan,Burma, the Sudan....

What are the inaccuracies in my history lesson?

You might be interested in this reference-

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/what-is-sharia.html

and this one-

http://www.faithfreedom.org

The universe by scientists (Edwin Hubble etc) have shown that it's expanding and that at one point it was a single point, which before that was nothing.
How do you explain the point from nothing to something without God? Nothing to something means it's Created.
Please explain.

How do you explain the fact that from a sperm drop and an egg we get a human being.

Examples of design, including our eyes are too superior to be compared to any camera etc and the information stored in DNA, have vitiated the theory of evolution which regards living things as the product of blind chance.

Insincerity shows with your sources. A lot of them are from extreme anti-Islam views and non-muslim sources about Islam.
When you want to show you're interested in the truth, go to the source. You can find something wrong with almost anything on the net. Doesn't mean it's the truth. Sincere people seek truth and not rubbish.

You quote attacks in Muslim countries, but research attacks by Buddhists against Muslims in myanmir, also in the same countries Christians attack Muslims. Goes both ways.
You mentioned certainly the USA has been the world's greatest international terrorist for the past 70 years. So why concentrate on the small spit fires, when they've pretty much waged war against countries.
You need to look at the reasons behind attacks and whether Islamically they're right. Just because they're Muslim doesn't mean they're right or Sharia condones it.
That's why i asked for evidence for your ruling regarding apostates and other things.
If a law says there's a severe punishment in place for blasphemous against sacred things like Qur'an etc then for someone to go against that should be punished by that punishment.
It really should never occur, but the most smallest of minority cases where it does occur you say that's why you're against sharia? Couldn't see it occurring if it's in place unless it's someone who's pure ignorant, stubborn and deserves that punishment. How many times did this occur at the prophets time under Sharia law?

As for science and Muslims:
Robert Briffault, in The Making of Humanity, asserts that the very existence of science, as it is understood in the modern sense, is rooted in the scientific thought and knowledge that emerged in Islamic civilizations during this time.

Development of algebra in order to solve the Islamic inheritance laws,[26] and developments in astronomy, geography, spherical geometry and spherical trigonometry in order to determine the direction of the Qibla, the times of Salah prayers, and the dates of the Islamic calendar.

The increased use of dissection in Islamic medicine during the 12th and 13th centuries was influenced by the writings of the Islamic theologian, Al-Ghazali, who encouraged the study of anatomy and use of dissections as a method of gaining knowledge of God's creation. In al-Bukhari's and Muslim's collection of sahih hadith it is said: "There is no disease that Allah has created, except that He also has created its treatment." (Bukhari 7-71:582). This culminated in the work of Ibn al-Nafis 1213–1288), who discovered the pulmonary circulation in 1242 and used his discovery as evidence for the orthodox Islamic doctrine of bodily resurrection.

Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (1149–1209), in dealing with his conception of physics and the physical world in his Matalib, discusses Islamic cosmology, criticizes the Aristotelian notion of the Earth's centrality within the universe, and "explores the notion of the existence of a multiverse in the context of his commentary," based on the Qur'anic verse, "All praise belongs to God, Lord of the Worlds." He raises the question of whether the term "worlds" in this verse refers to "multiple worlds within this single universe or cosmos, or to many other universes or a multiverse beyond this known universe." On the basis of this verse, he argues that God has created more than "a thousand thousand worlds (alfa alfi 'awalim) beyond this world ..."

Many others:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_science

But Science is not the be all end all. Fulfilling purpose as a human should be our focus.
Worshipping God the way He wants. You can be the best scientist, but without fulfilling your purpose what use is it.

PeacefulPeace,

"How do you explain the point from nothing to something without God? Nothing to something means it's Created.
Please explain."

That's just a play on words, I doubt if "nothing" means the same to a cosmologist as to philosopher or theologian. Who or what created God? if we assume that God is eternal, we could also assume that the universe is eternal and God is a redundant hypothesis. There's no evidence for any deity or indeed the supernatural. If you're really interested in thinking "outside the box" I recommend these books.

1. " A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence M Krauss.

2. "Why we believe in god/s" by J Anderson Thompson.

I didn't suggest that Moslems didn't make a contribution to science but that Moslems never produced a scientific industrialised culture, and on the balance, Islam has been destructive.

An equivalent list of Western scientists would continue page after page after page, even small Western countries have produced more Science Nobel Laureates than all the world's Moslems. You're grasping at straws.

I assumed that you would reject any criticism of Islam or the behaviour of Moslems. Of course the sites I referenced are anti-Moslem, the onus is on you to refute the arguments presented. Anyone who follows a sacred text really can't engage with reality, so It's rather pointless to continue this conversation. Since I reject the notion of a supernatural reality, the Qu'ran is simply the product of the human imagination and has absolutely no value to me. Sharia is not a legal system that would be acceptable in the West for the reasons outlined in the reference.

You and your co-religionists should ask yourselves these questions-

Why did you migrate to Australia? If It was for economic or political reasons-why did Australia offer superior living conditions to the Moslem country from which you emigrated?

I'll suggest the answer-because it's a secular liberal democracy.

@ PeacefulPeace,

You have put the case across that Islam is a very accommodating religion, I therefore have just a couple of hypothetical questions for you.

Would your life situation change if you declared you were now an atheist? I mean, as far as family, friends and close acquaintances go.

In which countries with a strong Islamic influence or even a weak one, would you wear a T-shirt with ATHEIST emblazoned across the front? Can you name them thanks?

Or, more mildly, which countries, not wearing such a T-shirt, would you openly declare you were an atheist?

I would prefer you didn’t go down the path of such actions would be blasphemy as they do not say anything about Islam.

And getting away from hypotheticals, can you name the atheist organisations in countries controlled by Islam?

Please remember, ducking away from hypotheticals is answering in itself.

I look forward to your response.

David

@mac
If you're so adamant that there's no God then tell me what started it all using science. and then tell me what was next.
And remember the scientific rule that energy is not created but transferred along.
Also the current scientific evidence supports the big bang theory so from a tiny spec then the universe began. Explain from the very beginning how this took place.
You can't assume that the universe is infinite as that's not science. Show me the evidence.

To ask who created God is not a valid question as God is the First and is Eternal by definition. These are His attributes.
For us what creates is not of the creation, God. That's the only thing that makes sense as The Creator, The First cannot be within the creation as then what created the creation.

Regarding science based on what Robert Briffault mentioned, it seems Islamic Civilization was the driver of modern science. But in any sense Islam doesn't go against science, that's my point.
As i said it doesn't really matter contribution too much. Is that our purpose to contribute to science? We would need to analyse the environment being put in place for science to flourish. The amount of money spent by the west on this would be 1 strong reason why it flourishes there.
Nothing to do with religion unless the religion suppresses; which as explained Islam doesn't have that history of suppression.

You ask "Why did you migrate to Australia? "
At a few months old you think i had a choice, also Israel war? If you were reading what i'm saying we don't have Sharia established currently with Caliphate.
The injustice in the so called Muslim countries is not good, bribary, corruption etc. These are unislamic and detested by God. And we see the suffering that's occurring in the Middle East etc.
Not saying it doesn't occur in the West, but seems there's justice given on average. Just because Islam orders for something doesn't necessarily mean it's being implemented.
The leaders there aren't exactly following Islam entirely. God knows best.

Good Article

@Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc

What exactly is your point?

Most countries with monarchies have Lese-majesty laws, would you say anything against the monarch? Would you put it on a T-shirt?

As shocking as it may seem, freedom of expression has and will always be restricted by societal and cultural norms.

This is the basis of society

chillingeffects23,

I thought my point was quite obvious. Islam is not compatible with democracy.

Because monarchical structures don’t recognise freedom of expression is the very fact that keeps them in the dark ages.

Fine, if they want to be oppressed by such a system (against their wills) in those countries but not fine if they even consider for an instant it will be accepted in a struggling democracy such as is Australia.

PeacefulPeace is telling us all the advantages and good point of Islam but not the regressive nature of that religion. Christianity is bad enough in the political scene in Australia and we do not need a more repressive religion gaining any kind of legislative power here.

The AFA treats all religion as superstition equally but some of them have greater detrimental effect more so than others.

Have you a television set?

David

@Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc

For someone with a television set you seem to hold democracy in curiously high esteem.

I am of one mind with Plato on the matter, having seen these democracies commit themselves to ruin with reckless abandon, due to the fickle sentiments of the masses and equally inept leaders.

A truly objective observer would see that aside from despotates all systems of government are equally oppressive.

Personally I find the bogeyman of Islamic influence isn’t nearly as terrifying as this descent into plutocracy we face.

Peacefulpeace,

"Once More Unto the Breach"

One of the common things I find about people like you Peacefulpeace is a woeful knowledge of history:
<<You quote attacks in Muslim countries, but research attacks by Buddhists against Muslims in myanmir, also in the same countries Christians attack Muslims. Goes both ways>>

Are you in all honesty trying to equate the present day conflict in Myanmar with the genocidal violence which armies under the banner of Islam inflicted on the local peoples during their conquest and occupation of the subcontinent ?

I could point you to sources that would enlighten you about it. But you have already indicated (to Mac) your unwillingness to ingest anything critical of your side –so, it appears there's no way to cure your deficiency.

And to your lack of historical knowledge, I would add a woeful knowledge of current world affairs.Your following answer is a sidestep worthy of any politician:
<< What are the chances of Christians "propagating their ideology"in Moslem nations?
They do. So Mecca is the only place? Have a look @ Indonesia the largest Muslims living there in the world. Have you heard of the Save Mariam project?... Africa continues campaign for Christinity. Have a look at satellite TVs the amount of Free Christian channels is crazy...>>

Are you trying to tell us that non-Muslim religions have the same rights to build and preach in Saudi Arabia, or even Egypt, as you as a Muslin do in Australia –surely not?

But we have made progress on at one front, I see. We now have your tacit admission that you are in favor of the death penalty for blasphemy & apostasy:
<< If a law says there's a severe punishment in place for blasphemous against sacred things like Qur'an etc then for someone to go against that should be punished by that punishment.>>

I would like to see you *educate * the Australian public about that aspect of Sharia (perhaps you could advertise it on the sides of buses!) –or, weren’t you planning to make that announcement till you had the numbers?

chillingeffects23,

You have got to be joking. A 14 year old girl is near death, numbers of people have been blown up because of some very stupid and poorly made video and the examples of a similar nature, too many to enunciate here happen on a daily basis and you dare say, “the bogeyman of Islamic influence isn’t nearly as terrifying as this descent into plutocracy we face “.

We face democracy with all its warts and we try to cure the problems. Islamic ideology doesn’t allow for any cures. Wake up.

David

@Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc

=/
Are we seriously going down this path?

I dont have the energy, so farewell.

>>If you're so adamant that there's no God then tell me what started it all using science.<<

There isn't one clear answer but some theories may be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

My favorite is this one:

>>In M-theory our universe and others are created by collisions between p-branes in a space with 11 and 26 dimensions (the number of dimensions depends on the chirality of the observer); each universe takes the form of a D-brane. Objects in each universe are essentially confined to the D-brane of their universe, but may be able to interact with other universes via gravity, a force which is not restricted to D-branes. This is unlike the universes in the "quantum multiverse", but both concepts can operate at the same time.<<

I don't know what it means because I don't understand M-theory but it sounds cool. Of the theories I can get my head around I think Hugh Everett's many worlds interpretation can account for the creation of our universe.

>>and then tell me what was next.<<

After that we have the Big Bang:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

>>And remember the scientific rule that energy is not created but transferred along.<<

These theories don't violate conservation of energy.

>>Also the current scientific evidence supports the big bang theory so from a tiny spec then the universe began. Explain from the very beginning how this took place.<<

Just check out the links - they spell it out pretty clearly.

>>You can't assume that the universe is infinite as that's not science. Show me the evidence.<<

We can't tell if the universe is infinite or finite - we can only see so far.

to be continued

>>To ask who created God is not a valid question as God is the First and is Eternal by definition. These are His attributes.<<

Arguments from first cause aren't convincing: if the universe requires a cause why doesn't God? To conclude that God is the first cause by assuming It to be the first cause begs the question.

>>For us what creates is not of the creation, God. That's the only thing that makes sense as The Creator, The First cannot be within the creation as then what created the creation.<<

But then you have something greater than the Creator: the sum of the Creator and the Creation. Isn't another of God's attributes that nothing is greater than It?

Cheers,

Tony

@David:
We face democracy with all its warts and we try to cure the problems. Islamic ideology doesn’t allow for any cures.

Cure the problems? Why are there rapes every minute or so? Surely Raping is one of the biggest oppressions to Woman.
The rapist with a slap on the wrist comes out again and re-rapes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zaQBA6lcls
Where's the cure there?
Also the crime rates in the west (US, UK) are on top in the world:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes

Also The West going to war on not much evidence bombarding nations and staying there:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/cias-final-report-no-wmd-found-iraq/

Also gambling, Alcohol deaths, smoking etc if the government cares about the people more laws would be put in place to remove them.
Financial system collapsing based on Usuary/interest were the banks and the rich get richer and divide between rich and poor.
Agree with chillingeffects23 regarding his plutocracy link.
Unaccountability is massive, when people don't get there services. We see what happened in London Riots, when they don't believe they're accountable to God. Also Greece and probably going to increase. Also we see Depression increasing, see Ian Thorpe? Also if someone doesn't have a defined purpose suicide will come into play.

@David - Do have a TV set not sure why would matter.

One of the common things I find about people like you @SPQR is ignoring points and very insincere and unaccountable approach.
Also didn't admit anything. I asked some questions for you:
Couldn't see it occurring if it's in place unless it's someone who's pure ignorant, stubborn and deserves that punishment. How many times did this occur at the prophets time under Sharia law?

Perhaps based on your insistence you may infact be one of those most smallest of minority cases that's why you're afraid of that law? Unable to keep that tongue in check :P

Peacefulpeace,

<< [I] didn't admit anything>>

But you did –and you did again here:
<< [I] Couldn't see it occurring if it's in place unless it's someone who's pure ignorant, stubborn and deserves that punishment.>>

The number/percentage who might be subject to it is immaterial.

-- Was Salman Rushdie one of that <<most smallest of minority>> ?
-- How about the person/people who made the recent film: "Innocence of Muslims"
--Or, the Danish cartoonists?

http://www.theweek.co.uk/people-news/islam-film-row/49052/iran-reissues-fatwa-salman-rushdie-film-protests-spread

Tony you say:
"I don't know what it means because I don't understand M-theory but it sounds cool. "

Basing your belief in No God on sounding cool is ignorance. Also as you rightly mentioned these are theories.
To say God doesn't exist based on Theories is wrong. Theories are just that. Just like as they said in the past before the big bang theory that
universe is infinite so there's infinite amounts of possibilities. That AFIK has been invalidated as Universe had a beginning.

@Tony - These theories don't violate conservation of energy.

Yes as they assume there's a lot of things already there to begin with. You need to start with nothing and then begin with that.
Since then i would ask what started those other universes to begin with?
Also the amount of unknowns is beyond comprehension.
Have a look at what The Qur'an says:
http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-c.htm
Seems like science is catching up to reality.

You say:
We can't tell if the universe is infinite or finite - we can only see so far.

The Big Bang pretty much says that the universe was a single point at one stage. So not infinite.
We're talking about this universe. Not some made up sci fi universe.

if the universe requires a cause why doesn't God?
Because that's His attributes, Self-Sufficient, The First, Eternal, that's what He tells us.
Like saying If a square requires 4 sides, why doesn't a circle? The attributes of the circle is that it doesn't contain 4 sides.
God is not from this world, so doesn't have the same limitations not limited by Our Space, Time etc. Beyond His creation.

Isn't another of God's attributes that nothing is greater than It?
God is Greater than anything else. Pretty straight forward. He creates that which no-one can create like Him.
Sum? Never heard that one :P. Greater in what suits Him.

<< [I] Couldn't see it occurring if it's in place unless it's someone who's pure ignorant, stubborn and deserves that punishment.>>

No i didn't, I said "IF it's in place" I didn't say "it is in place if we have Sharia".

-- Was Salman Rushdie one of that <<...minority>> ?
...

Yes they're the minority round it off to 0% of the worlds population. Also were they living under Sharia?
I asked at the Prophet Muhammad's time.
Ofcourse numbers matter. It proves the fact that it barely ever happens, as the punnishment would be so great.
Simple to ignore the number of rapes occuring every minute than to tarnish Sharia based on a law that would rarely affect anyone is wrong.
Even then, They must be extremely silly to do it if under Sharia law. What's there to gain? Shows how evil they are that they can't control themsleves from insulting.
Are the actions they did good? You seem to like to defend freedom of speech at all costs.
What if someone openly comes out and says all Jews are ... Or Aboriginals are... in a movie of some sort. What reaction do you expect? A good reaction? I think not.

Also with Rapes, The West promotes promiscuity on so many levels that it's not funny, with woman dress code almost being naked. The preventative actions that The West takes is deplorable.
Islam has prevention as that is better than cure. For example it says to lower the gaze, dress modestly covering up, not mixing too much, so that Rape shouldn't be on the radar.
The West seems to do the opposite, promotes sex and outside marriage to big extents and immoral dress code can be seen almost everywhere. Then when someone does the crime jail.
Adultery occurring heaps, Fornication, Rapes. Where's the prevention? 7 years imprisonment? The West can be seen as one of the dirtiest, filthiest societies currently.
It's also not as safe with all the crime occurring. See Jill Meagher rape and murder? Another sad case. Not sure she was wearing much at all though. What's new?

Peacefulpeace "Also with Rapes, The West promotes promiscuity on so many levels that it's not funny, with woman dress code almost being naked. The preventative actions that The West takes is deplorable.
Islam has prevention as that is better than cure. For example it says to lower the gaze, dress modestly covering up, not mixing too much, so that Rape shouldn't be on the radar.
The West seems to do the opposite, promotes sex and outside marriage to big extents and immoral dress code can be seen almost everywhere. Then when someone does the crime jail.
Adultery occurring heaps, Fornication, Rapes. Where's the prevention? 7 years imprisonment? The West can be seen as one of the dirtiest, filthiest societies currently.
It's also not as safe with all the crime occurring. See Jill Meagher rape and murder? Another sad case. Not sure she was wearing much at all though. What's new?"

Isn't it fabulous, a Muslim lecturing Westerners on the treatment of women: They stone women to death for adultery (or force them to suicide), circumcise them, shoot them for wanting to be educated, tell them what to dress, how to act, how to think etc etc etc.

Liberal democracies are committed to equality, which gives women the right to be educated. Liberal democracies are also committed to negative freedom, which grants individuals a mass of freedoms from stringent authority. Nothing is more alien to the West than complete submission to a deity.

In the end, if Islam wants to remain in the West it must 'privatise' its religion, kind of like what Protestantism done for Christianity. They must learn to separate the public from the private and that religion is a 'personal relationship between the individual and God,' and that the public sphere is out of bounds. Not until this is 'internalized' by every Muslim will it be accepted in the West.

@PeacefulPeace,

I notice you left the hypothetical questions unanswered. As such, there is really no point communicating with you.

I agree that democracy has problems but Islam is not the answer. If it is, here’s another hypothetical for you. In which country under Islamic control would you rather live?

It is a common occurrence for the AFA to receive communication from atheists in Islamic countries begging us to help them escape. We are powerless to do anything. We take these matters very seriously even to the extent of destroying any identifying material we may have. One only needs to watch the recommended Geoffrey Robertson video mentioned at the bottom of this post to get an inkling of the gravity of the plight of some people.

By the way, I kind of agree with Winston Churchill about democratic systems. "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Australia is a great country, because most Australians don’t take religion very seriously. Those that do are a minority and let’s hope it remains that way. Their numbers are dropping rapidly so it probably will.

The best chance at having personal safety, equality and a chance at happiness is afforded by a secular state (no, not Stalinism; that was not a democracy). Secular state roughly means that government doesn’t interfere with or privilege any religion and religion doesn’t interfere in government. Even level headed religious folk can see the benefits in that.

Religion should be a private matter between consenting adults.

SPQR,

Or, Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Videos 8 & 18 on this Page http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7C0CA45F60FD44C7&feature=plcp

Geoffrey Robertson details a little about atheists in an Islamic country in video 16. Start at 36.10 if not wanting to view the whole speech.

David

PeacefulPeace,

"If the universe requires a cause why doesn't God?
Because that's His attributes, Self-Sufficient, The First, Eternal, that's what He tells us."

Why do you believe that? Where's the evidence? My god could be the universe as it has the same attributes as your god, and it speaks to scientists.

Your god is just the invention of primitive tribesmen as a method of social control that grew from the delusions of a 7th century psychopath. When has your god spoken to you, how do know that the qu'ran isn't nonsense? Did God knock on your front door and give you instructions? Christians, Jews, Hindus, Mormons all believe that their sacred texts express a universal truth, the reason that people are religious is usually the effect of constant propaganda. Whether or not you are insincere is difficult to determine, you're like most people who have adopted an irrational idea--blinkered. Your definition of "insincerity" is to use arguments or facts that are independent of the fantasies of the qu'ran.

Your ideas are totalitarian and as such inimical, to liberal democracy and are extremely concerning if they are widely held in the Islamic community. I've long been rather sceptical in regard to the claim that the majority of Moslems are 'moderate', if they were indeed moderate, Moslem majority nations wouldn't be the chaotic, corrupt and oppressive societies that they are.

Aristocrat,

Agreed.

"Privatising" Islam isn't going to be easy, as many commentators on Islam maintain that there's no concept of "Church and State" in the ideology.

>>Basing your belief in No God on sounding cool is ignorance.<<

I don't believe in no God: I just don't believe in your God. And I don't base my belief in It on M-theory because I don't understand M-theory and because scientific theories are scientific and don't address metaphysical questions like the existence of God. Physics is great but it isn't metaphysics.

>>To say God doesn't exist based on Theories is wrong. Theories are just that. Just like as they said in the past before the big bang theory that universe is infinite so there's infinite amounts of possibilities. That AFIK has been invalidated as Universe had a beginning.<<

Well of course: science is mute on the subject of God. See my above point.

>>The Big Bang pretty much says that the universe was a single point at one stage. So not infinite.
We're talking about this universe. Not some made up sci fi universe.<<

In this universe the theory of general relativity applies. A consequence of general relativity is that it's uncertain whether the size - not the age - of the universe is finite or infinite.

>>Because that's His attributes, Self-Sufficient, The First, Eternal, that's what He tells us.<<

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

And begging the question doesn't address the problem with the argument from first cause: there is no need to invent the idea of God to explain the creation of the cosmos because if anything can be uncaused it may as well be the cosmos as God. I see no philosophical reason to prefer the idea that God is uncaused over the idea that the cosmos is.

Cheers,

Tony

Regarding your woman in Islam Misconceptions:
Adultery punnishment is for every adulteress and not just for woman.
Adultery is an abhorrent act ruining families and has an extreme ill affect on society.
What's the west putting in place to prevent this? How many mistresses do the non-islamic men have?
Is this fair on woman? Is there even a law against adultery in the west?

Woman circumcision is not obligatory:
http://islamqa.info/en/ref/427
Medical benefits:
http://islamqa.info/en/ref/45528

- shoot them for wanting to be educated?
Woman are allowed to study and at times is a communcal obligation:
http://islamqa.info/en/ref/169979/woman%20studying

- tell them what to dress
Woman are ordered by God to dress modestly. The West doesn't tell woman how to dress?
Look at the music videos and what they portray, even the ads on TV half naked woman. Dressing Sexy and provocativally looks to be the norm.

- how to act, how to think
Not really sure what you mean. Qur'an has guidelines for both men and woman how to behave. Modestly, righteously, have good character etc.

@David:
With the hypothetical i said i agreed with chillingeffects23. I don't think you would be allowed to wear such a Tshirt. Not sure what would be the consequences.

Anyway i've spent far too much time on this. In the end everyones going to be accountable for their actions and if you don't accept Islam it's your loss. Hard medium to discuss issues with the word limit limitation and number of posts.

@PeacefulPeace,

You seem to enjoy agreeing with chillingeffects23 even though he says very little under that name. Maybe we could have a discussion about Taqiyya.

The one thing I thank you for and it was obviously unintentional on your behalf, is exposing what is behind Islamic thought. It is summed up very nicely in this sentence and is common to fundamentalist Christianity also.

“In the end everyones going to be accountable for their actions and if you don't accept Islam it's your loss.”

The fear of hell implanted in children, who really believe in such a thing, and ubiquitously reinforced by culture is known to have an effect for life. To ease the pain of this mental torment in this life, ‘clever’ religions promise a blissful eternal afterlife. It’s a great formula and very sadly, it works. But fear does not make any statement true.

Hiding from hypothetical questions demonstrates a lack of critical thinking skills so I’ll ask a last one embedded firmly in reality.

As a general statistic, those brought up in various religious cultures take on the mantle of the religion indoctrinated into them. Why is that so?

Please don’t bother with an answer that includes, people swap, the devil is at work in other religions, others are ignorant of the truth, they all follow the same god differently etc.

PeacefulPeace, do yourself a favour and work out there is none, zilch, nada credible evidence for anything supernatural and there is plenty of evidence the whole religious shebang is a product of genetic propensity and wild human imagination. It’s fine to hold thoughts of gods and demons if that mindset does not affect others. After all, it is your life and my hope is that one day you will work out it’s the only one you are ever going to have.

David

Actually it is not the way women dress but the lack of self control
that moslem men feel that they have.
We have had that forcibly demonstrated in Sydney.
[Deleted. Abuse.]

Peaceful makes some good points, worthy of more reasonable consideration in the interest of mutually beneficial discussion.

David, your approach is almost as rigid as a religious zealot. Why not open your mind? Heaven/Hell offer a narrow path towards righteousness, in all the small things as well as the large - of conscience. Your doctrine relies only on compliance with Man's Law - which is demonstrably heavily flawed. Where do you derive guidance? Who/what are your exemplars, and what drives you to seek and follow their guidance?

Bazz, morally we do have a very 'loose' and decadent society, rife with disrespect, inequality, intolerance and wrongdoing. Should we not hope or work for something better?

Peaceful, your tenacity is legend. I followed your posted link, and did some more searching, and have a few thoughts for consideration - though I admit my understanding of Islam is very limited.

There seems a lot of thought that Islam/Judaism/Christianity are poles apart, but I noted in 'Wikipedia', regarding Islam, that the Qur'an predicts in due course (at the "Day of Resurrection"), that 'Isa al-Masih, Son of Maryam' (Jesus, a Jew) will be resurrected and that He in company with 'al-Mahdi' (the resurrected Prophet Muhammad) will act in concert to defeat 'Masih al-Dajjal' (Satan) and herald in a time of what amounts to a universal brotherhood of Humankind - though apparently short-lived before the ending of the world.

Can it be possible to work towards such a brotherhood now, through understanding, moderation and tolerance, rather than through conflict and rigid interpretation of the recorded words of Allah, God, as revealed by all the true prophets? Could this possibly be Allah's actual intention? (Islam recognises Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad as true prophets, and possibly others.)

Acceptance of reasonable differences makes for unity, peace and harmony. Rigidity only breeds contempt, derision and division.

Woman is the right hand of Man, and the womb of life, and deserves appropriate reverence and respect, always and in all things.

Saltpetre,

You say:

“David, your approach is almost as rigid as a religious zealot. Why not open your mind? Heaven/Hell offer a narrow path towards righteousness, in all the small things as well as the large - of conscience. Your doctrine relies only on compliance with Man's Law - which is demonstrably heavily flawed. Where do you derive guidance? Who/what are your exemplars, and what drives you to seek and follow their guidance?”

I’m really not sure and it escapes me how you get ‘rigid’ from there being no evidence for a god or gods. Sounds like self-protection for your own notions to me. How many times do I have to say atheists don’t care if people think there is a god or gods? Just keep it out of politics and the minds of children when there is no empirical evidence supporting such ideas.

All I am saying about heaven and hell is that is a big motivator in religion, along with, of course, the fear of annihilation.

Atheists get their ‘guidance’ from innate human nature and from our minds which can reason which allowed us to develop in cooperation to this stage. The likes of Jesus and Muhammad are new kids on the block compared to human evolution. You are kidding yourself if you think they had anything to do with inventing new morals. Ethical behaviour is an ever expanding process.

Atheists and the religious are alike in this. Religion cherry picks from so-called holy books and dons the acceptable (to them) and disregards the rest. The difference for atheists is they disregard that which is against reason and common-sense.

Or, are you telling me that without a god you would consider it reasonable and common-sense to murder, rape and steal etc.? I hope not.

David

@Tony >>The Big Bang ...

I'm saying based on this universe start with a single point and continue. A Big Bang is exactly that. An explosion would never create something like that of a cosmos, which means that the planets aren't crashing together, order, not chaos. A Big Bang if random would create chaos and nothing useful without an Intelligent Creator.

Even just an Enzyme:
A typical bacterium, which is the simplest of cells, is made up of 2,000 enzymes. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe took the probability of randomly assembling one enzyme and multiplied that number by itself 2,000 times to calculate the odds of a single bacterium randomly coming together. Those odds are 1 in 10^40,000. Hoyle said the likelihood of this happening is comparable to the chance that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

What about eventually the Human Being? The amount of coincidences that would have to occur would be impossible without a creator.
The signs of God are everywhere.

As for Who to worship, most religions put God in the creation or say there are many gods which is plain wrong:
With putting God in the creation then who created that?
As for many gods:
God says in The Qur'an: Had there been within the heavens and earth gods besides Allah, they both would have been ruined..

This is logical. Also The Qur'an explains a lot of things regarding our creation which makes sense to me and doesn't oppose logic. Also keeps intact history and previous messengers messages Jesus, Moses, Noah etc. I read the Qur'an and I believe that it is the word of God with surety.

There's no doubt based on reason that for me it's impossible that the amount of coincidences could occur to eventually produce human.
Even if i put a sperm and egg in a beaker to make it easy, even if i waited a zillion years it would never produce a human without Gods intervention.

http://www.seekthetruth.org/be.html

@Bazz - bit of cheap shots there. Look at the statistics, it's stacked against the west.

Saltpetre,

I missed this this little gem. Why do you have to use the word ‘doctrine’ in regard to atheists or atheism? Atheists don’t have a ‘doctrine’ at all. Doctrine refers to a belief system such as that to which the religious adhere.

Accepting there is no evidence for a god or gods cannot be classed as a doctrine in any way, shape or form. This is your own insecurity at work in trying to align atheism with religion. It’s nonsense of course.

To clear this up, can you enunciate clearly without obfuscation, what is the ‘doctrine’ to which you refer thanks?

I'm waiting as these distractions from reality are annoying.

David

peacefulpeace
"Adultery punnishment is for every adulteress and not just for woman.
Adultery is an abhorrent act ruining families and has an extreme ill affect on society. What's the west putting in place to prevent this? How many mistresses do the non-islamic men have? Is this fair on woman? Is there even a law against adultery in the west?"

We have the concept of shame. Despite what you may think, adultery isn't exactly a virtue in the West. It carries with it the shame of broken vows and causing emotional havoc to all concerned.
The state does not need to intervene here, we have enough meddling in people's lives already by the state.

"Woman are ordered by God to dress modestly. The West doesn't tell woman how to dress? Look at the music videos and what they portray, even the ads on TV half naked woman. Dressing Sexy and provocativally looks to be the norm."

Women choose to dress that way. Whether they are influenced by tv or magazines is beside the point; they dress themselves. I don't see anything wrong with how they dress anyway.

The problem here is that Islam does not see the divide between the public and the private. I would suggest you read up on this to fully understand the West and why there is such a backlash against any Islamization of the West. You can start with "On Liberty" by John S. Mill. The West has spent considerable time trying to remove religious and government interference from people's lives. To go back to such a scenario would be to put the West back to the middle ages.

"In the end everyones going to be accountable for their actions and if you don't accept Islam it's your loss."

This attitude displays a deep-seated hatred for difference. To make people accountable is to, sneakily, make people pay for their behaviour. To want those who disbelieve to burn in hell for eternity is a strong hatred indeed. Once again, this is at odds with Western life that allows pluralism and a 'live and let live' attitude.

@Saltpetre:
Islam, Chrisitanity, Judaism stem from the same God, however there are differences. We believe that Jesus was the messiah to whom the Jews are still waiting for. That is a big difference as the Jews are still waiting for their "Messiah"
God sent Muhammad (Peace be upon him) to clarify things as there was misunderstandings when Jesus came. We don't believe Jesus was the son or part of any trinity, again God clarifies this as a Mercy to mankind in His final revelation Qur'an.
We believe that Moses was given the Torah and in all the prophet's of the past. The message was universal and simple, God is One, worship Him alone. The message as tends to happen gets changed along the way and God resend's prophets.
As for through understanding, moderation and tolerance, ofcourse we will have our differences and we are supposed to argue with the people of the book (Jews, Christians) using wisdom. The prophet was a perfect example of this who was named al-ameen (The trustworthy one) and had the best character.
God chooses the best people for prophethood.

@Saltpetre - Acceptance ... harmony. Rigidity ... division.

Agreed. There is only one truth though in the end. And we have been given every ability to seek this out and when the truth comes to accept.

Woman is the right hand of Man, and the womb of life, and deserves appropriate reverence and respect, always and in all things.

Yes. Woman hold a significant place in Islam and honour.
The prophet (pbuh) said:
"The most perfect believers are the best in conduct and best of you are those who are best to their wives".

" Woman is fragile like glass, and men should therefore treat women with delicacy and
tenderness as they would handle an article made of glass."

about the Farewell Pilgrimage address:

“ O my people! You have certain rights over your wives and so have your wives over you -
They are the trust of Allah in your hands, so you must treat them with all kindness.”

God knows best the exact translation.

Peaceful,

Thank you, that's a good start to the search for and the sharing of wisdom - such as we may understand with our as yet limited intellect.

God willing, Humankind will advance in comprehension in due course, and in mutual respect.

(And, for David, Reason and Compassion willing.)

David,

>"Or, are you telling me that without a god you would consider it reasonable and common-sense to murder, rape and steal etc.?">

With due consideration of my previous posts, your proposition here is blatantly 'physhing' of the worst kind.

Your Atheist 'doctrine'? As per your own posting:

>"Atheists get their ‘guidance’ from innate human nature and from our minds which can reason which allowed us to develop in cooperation to this stage."<

Sorry, but you could have referred to icons of philosophical brilliance, education and wisdom, of our learning from history and science and the hard lessons of the past regarding the pursuit of civilisation, peaceful coexistence and societal harmony. But, 'innate human nature' and all the brilliant capability of our 'minds' without appropriate guidance is as a ship without a rudder, and is foundation-ally crude, self-centered and unreliable. History should prove that to you, as well as current world disorder. And, don't try to lay all the blame on religion and religious intolerance, for that is an escapist scapegoat argument at best.

If Atheism doesn't have a definable foundational doctrine, perhaps it's time to think about devising one - if it could really be useful in defining a better path for humankind, free of intolerance or subjugation of any kind - rather than simply avowing the hollow 'We don't believe in God' mantra. In simply disparaging everything, good as well as bad, derived from consideration of the possibility of God and hence of our potential worldly responsibilities and purpose, you may simply be relegating Hope of a better world to the 'too hard' basket.

The big bang theory has run into some trouble.
Doing the maths backwards towards the singularity it has been discovered
that the maths fails in last few seconds or so.
One suggestion is that it might all pass through into another collapsing universe.

Saltpetre,

What part of what previous post would make you think I am “physhing”? This is a strange word to use in the context of the discussion. Explain it?

I don’t feel like going through this but if you are saying you agree that atheists are no better or worse than religious folk, then why be religious and why try to adapt democracy to follow religious tenets?

And you have totally missed my point about innate knowledge and common-sense. Many humans have used their innate knowledge and common-sense to add to the pool of human ethical thinking. Others look at what has been said and written and use their innate knowledge and common-sense and try to work out if it is viable for the human situation.

Others look at the words in so-called holy books and cherry pick to suit their existing thoughts. Thoughts that are not necessarily their own but the result of early indoctrination.

Atheists do not follow any individual’s thoughts as a firm rule or guide unless that ties up with innate knowledge and common-sense.

Glad you admit that atheists don’t have a doctrine. It is a ridiculous step in ‘logic’ that from the one commonality of atheists, that is, they don’t accept a god or gods exist, to forming a doctrine about it. There is no basis for a doctrine. You are just parroting the thoughts of desperate religious leaders in suggesting otherwise.

Repeating myself is tiresome but it appears to be par for the course.

For the umpteenth time it is the bad parts of religion atheists rail against. Atheists and the religious have to follow religious precepts against their wishes even in a democracy. These have been enunciated many times on this forum and if I have to repeat them I’ll know you are not serious but merely supporting religious prejudice.

David

David,

>"Atheists do not follow any individual’s thoughts as a firm rule or guide unless that ties up with innate knowledge and common-sense."<

Sorry David, but the only 'Innate Knowledge' I am aware of is the limited and narrow operation of Instinct (from the Id) and Reflex (built into the autonomic nervous system) - with all else being accumulated from the interaction of our senses with the environment and environmental stimulation. If you have access to a scientific text which illuminates some other 'innate' human Intellect or Understanding I wish you would share it with us.

Or, could it possibly be a 'feeling' or 'sensing' to which you refer, perhaps even akin (without your recognition or acknowledgement) to the sensing common to humankind of the possibility of something more in the ethos than just blank space and heavenly bodies, something bigger than ourselves, something responsible, somehow, for our good fortune in existing at all, and surrounded by such myriad beauty, mystery and possibility?

I know of no innate 'sensing' of right and wrong, good and evil - but our emotions would indicate some sensing of compassion, of attraction/revulsion, and even of empathy? Nature/Nurture - the realm of possibility, of question, and of our kinship with the natural world and the universal cosmos. (Hate broccoli today, love it tomorrow; fear the unknown, yet embrace its possibilities.)

Humanity has reached a stage where it has the capacity, the impetus and the escalating imperative to address the future development of society on a global level. The resolution of philosophical and religious differences at a foundational level appears to be the key to an harmonious multicultural existence, and total abandonment of long held beliefs is not an option - at least at this time in human history. Are we up to the challenge?

FWIW - 'blasphemy' is a crude concept of a crude or corrupted intellect, and deserves no credence in an enlightened society.

Saltpetre,

You missed explaining “Physhing”.

You have also gone into a long diatribe which originates from a religious mind-set. I have no feelings, thoughts or emotions or indeed, evidence, leading me to think there is something “bigger than ourselves”. Yes, the universe is bigger than ourselves but that is not what you are proposing.

I agree, there is an ever so slight but negligible possibility there is something bigger than ourselves in the way you mean it but it has never evidentially interacted with humanity and therefore is irrelevant to us except on the personal level. Personal experience is not a good guide for all others. And that is what atheism is about. Not letting personal experience without evidence used as a rule for everyone. Humans are known to be deluded, liars, insane and genuine about supernatural matters. How to work out which is why we should discount it.

This is a very reasonable stance. Believe what you want about supernatural concepts just believe them yourself and don’t abuse children with them.

I would find it disappointing to ‘know’ there is a god as it would take away the wonder of the universe for me. It would destroy the awe of an unfolding cosmos if I had a goddidit attitude. Fortunately, that is unlikely to ever happen.

Higher species and even lower ones have an innate knowledge that has them cooperating otherwise evolution would not be possible. How far the innate moves into the conscious or slowly over time gravitates into the conscious is hard to determine but they include care of others, love and protection of offspring, fear of strangers and other groups etc. It varies in species. Humans have the ability to apply reason to these beneficial traits to the advantage of individuals and the species by using critical thinking skills and embracing advantageous mores and codifying important ones in written law.

It is the pipe dream of the religious that religions will all get along and the world will be a wonderful place. This doesn’t say that a world without religion would be utopia.

David

>>I'm saying based on this universe start with a single point and continue. A Big Bang is exactly that. An explosion would never create something like that of a cosmos, which means that the planets aren't crashing together, order, not chaos.<<

>>The big bang theory has run into some trouble.
Doing the maths backwards towards the singularity it has been discovered that the maths fails in last few seconds or so.<<

That particular trouble has been around for a while. And it’s not in the last few seconds – the breakdown occurs a fraction of a second so tiny you can’t really imagine it. But it does exist: our best physical theories break down when we try to look at singularities. A singularity is an infinitely dense point and our theories break down when we try to look at matter that is almost infinitely dense.

People have advanced a lot of interesting and plausible hypotheses but they’re largely speculative at this stage. That’s not a good reason to say ‘God must have done it then’ and stop looking for better theories that do explain the things we don’t understand yet.

The term big bang is a bit misleading – it’s not any explosion in any normal sense of the term. It refers to the rapid expansion of space itself: not some sort of cataclysmic detonation which occurs in space and flings the planets all over the place XD. The universe did most of it’s inflating when it was very young although it is still at it: at that time the place was just a hot soup of subatomic particles – it was a while before atoms formed let alone grouped themselves into planets.

to be continued

>>Hoyle said the likelihood of this happening is comparable to the chance that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

What about eventually the Human Being? The amount of coincidences that would have to occur would be impossible without a creator.<<

Hoyle’s fallacy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy

I’m already familiar with this particular bit of nonsense. You keep coming up with the same dodgy arguments that Christians do but they aren't any better when applied to Allah instead of Jehovah. Hoyle's fallacy is not a good argument – Richard Dawkins makes some very good points about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRQQmCpmuGc

>>The signs of God are everywhere.<<

I’ve seen those billboards too. They say things like: Jesus is the Answer! This is a lie: the answer is 42.

>>As for many gods:
God says in The Qur'an: Had there been within the heavens and earth gods besides Allah, they both would have been ruined..

This is logical. Also The Qur'an explains a lot of things regarding our creation which makes sense to me and doesn't oppose logic. Also keeps intact history and previous messengers messages Jesus, Moses, Noah etc. I read the Qur'an and I believe that it is the word of God with surety.<<

But the Hindus have a bunch of Gods. And Christians and Jews have their own God and holy books that keep intact history - sort of - and previous messengers Jesus, Abraham etc. People read the Bible and believe that it is the word of God with surety and their arguments for this being the case are the same as yours. What is there that allows you to select one as right and the other as wrong: they’re so similar that I would say that either both have to be right or they both have to be wrong. Wrong makes more sense.

Cheers,

Tony

Great work Junaid, enjoying the debate comprehensively.
Cheers
Roxy

@Tony
BigBang - "It refers to the rapid expansion of space itself"
Yes expansion, it's not some sort of intelligent entity which assembles thing in such a way that the billions of galaxies, trillions of stars swimming around harmoniously. Even the fine-tuning of the planets the way they are means any life is possible, anthropic principal.
oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere
if larger: life functions would proceed too quickly
if smaller: life functions would proceed too slowly
...
Even the axial tilt of the earth
if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great
if less: surface temperature differences would he too great
As i said the amount of coincidences for just a source of life, not even close yet to a human, based on chance is impossible beyond anything. There is absolutely know way that it could ever happen just like that. Intelligent design is everywhere we look. To say it's not intelligent then gather all the most intelligent humans and recreate just a fly using raw elements. They would never even be able to do that. As i said i'll make it simple, everything is all set for life already and get a sperm and an egg and put it in a beaker. Even if u waited a zillion years nothing useful will be there. Why? Because time and natural selection can't work if God doesn't help. You can't just start with a living being and say natural selection. Begin with the raw elements. Even then the pre-conditions as with the anthropic principal already needed to have a zillion coincidences to begin with. I say coincidences as there's nothing intelligent behind backing your proposed process. It's random. Randomness produces randomness, not something useful, let alone a zillion useful things. God did it in such a way that it's beyond any doubt so there would be no excuse. Yet we still have the tiny minority of atheists creating noise.

@Tony - the link for the concept of Anthropic principal many other of the other precise things that needed to occur for just life to occur:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/intelligent-design/

@Tony: What is there that allows you to select one as right and the other as wrong...:

As i mentioned earlier most religions put God in the creation which doesn't make sense as then what created the creation. Based on logic we now know that there are billions of galaxies with trillions of stars and planets, with earth being one of them. We are a spec in a spec in a spec, so to say God is a spec is as you could imagine to God insulting. God reiterates this point in The Qur'an. So for Christians to say Jesus is God, or Hindus to say God is everywhere in the tree etc, God is far removed from this. The Jews tried to kill the messenger (Jesus) when he came to them. God continues to send messengers (Muhammad being the last) as the people went astray yet again. God says every nation was sent a messenger:
http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=articles&id=134301
So the remnants are there, but the truth got distorted. God is One, far removed from His creation, nothing is like unto Him. Worship Him Alone. That is the common message that was propagated from the beginning.
Example, Christians now claim God is 3, trinity. This was never claimed ever before. Paul who was named Saul before this was a driver of this concept. So the people went astray. As a Mercy God sent Muhammad (pbuh) who was from the Ishmael generation to whom the Israelites were promised a prophet to come from that side. Abraham had 2 wives, Sarah and Hajar, to whom Hajar was the arab side.
Prophets are from one lineage all the way back to Adam.
Islam doesn't ignore history, like Pharaoh and Moses time where you see there remnants etc. It explains things clearly and logically as you would expect if it's from God.

Afghan girl raped and murdered by US troops:
http://en.trend.az/regions/world/afghanistan/1811269.html

Interesting appalling statistic:
Statistics about civilian death tolls in Afghanistan are not available. However, it is estimated that between 14,000 and 34,000 Afghan civilians have lost their lives since the US-led war.

Where's the Media? Oh that's right selective reporting.

Tony Lavis,

I must congratulate you on persisting with PeacefulPeace. I personally wouldn’t bother but your efforts are appreciated.

Maybe you could ask him for the relevant studies in peer reviewed scientific journals supporting the claims of "intelligent design".

Or why he parrots from dubious websites instead of directing to those studies.

Or why he doesn’t grasp that elements made in stars coalesce into other stars, planets and other bodies and form all kinds of combinations.

And how does he make the quantum jump from nonsense about “intelligent design” into Allah did it when Allah is an invention of human minds unless he has empirical evidence that this is not so.

You could ask why a perfect being would want to be worshipped. If and when humans eventually invent a sentient robot, it would only be an ego-idiot wanting veneration from it.

You might point out the word ‘Pharaoh’ is a title and not the name of a fictitious Egyptian king. And on that subject you could point out the so named Moses and his clan of 3 million were never captive in Egypt. There is no evidence for that.

A further question could be why does this perfect being allow natural disaster, genetic aberration, disease etc. kill and maim untold numbers of people. And, of course, why a perfect being would allow the immensity of suffering of other animals, which is in its billions of billions.

A final question might be to enquire if he knows that humans can be fooled like this if the right buttons are pushed correctly and for long enough from an early age. It is common and examples abound.

Now, you may want to ask him all these things and more but it would be to no avail. PeacefulPeace has had his mind altered to suit the ideas of an ancient cult by methods known to work.

David

And golly gosh, I forgot this. “Yet we still have the tiny minority of atheists creating noise.”

I wouldn’t call over a billion godless a minority.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_in_the_world_are_non_religious

And those figures are most likely extremely understated as it can be dangerous to let it be known you are an atheist, especially in Muslim nations and even democratic ones.(think USA)

David

David,
One should be more careful with statements like “every person is defined by a religion so if you have no religion, you are defined as this (from your link) that seem to identify “nones” (unaffiliated or non religious) with atheists, at least in the USA:

A “new survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life … finds that many of the country’s 46 million unaffiliated adults are religious or spiritual in some way. Two-thirds of them say they believe in God (68%) … and one-in-five (21%) say they pray every day.” (www.pewforum.org/Unaffiliated/nones-on-the-rise.aspx)

George,

The particular article made that claim. It is generally accepted that there is somewhere around 15% of the world’s population that is non-religious. I admit the figure is flaky but because people are reticent to state this openly in many countries it’s likely to be higher.

The USA is a good example. Openly stating godlessness or atheism has severe social/occupational ramifications and it is the case of don’t ask don’t tell which is unsatisfactory for gaining accurate statistics.

Even in Australia where it is relatively safe to state one is an atheist although many can’t because of family and friends and work circumstance, the figures are not a true reflection of religiosity or not.

20% of the population in Australia are under the age of 14 years shows how the figures on religion are skewed here and elsewhere on the planet. This demographic is not comprised of little Christians, Muslims or Hindus etc. anymore than it is comprised of children from parents who are astronauts are themselves, astronauts.

Adults have enough trouble coming to grips with the concept of religion and children are merely parroting parent’s beliefs. You don’t often see a child with Muslim parents following the Christian tradition or vice versa.

In Australia the Census statistics on religion are not reliable as the question asked is a leading one. It states, “What is the person’s religion?” leaving it very open for the person writing the religion of baptism which we know happens by admission from those who have done it in the past.

There is the problem of parents filling out the Census form for other family members. Keeping the peace by lying would sometimes be chosen.

And going back to your original claim it works both ways. This take on Canada shows it very clearly.

- A majority (53%) of Canadians believe in God. What is of particular interest is that 28% of Protestants, 33% of Catholics, and 23% of those who attend weekly religious services do not.

- One quarter (23%) of those with no religious identity still believe in God."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

David

David,
I did not want to start a lengthy argument just to point out that one should not automatically identify those who claim to be “unaffiliated” (or “non religious”) with those who identify themselves as “atheists” in a survey. Or, any other two groups, as you rightfully point out. I think in these matters Pew Research Centre is the more reliable source.

Also, I think people (in the US) are well aware of (and trust) the anonymity of such a survey, so there is no reason for them not to “openly state” whatever they want to state. I also agree that the term “religion” in English can have a number of meanings (this fact being the source of many misunderstandings), and a question “What is your religion?” if asked in a survey is ambiguous or even silly.

When believers cite statistics that x% of those surveyed "believe in God" what god is it that they believe in? The god of the jihad, the god of the Taliban, the god of the Mormons, the deist god, the god of the gaps, the misogynist god? Does each believer have a slightly different notion of God?

As to a tiny minority of "atheists making noise", most of the noise comes from the religious who, in order to reinforce their own delusions, try to impose them on the rest of society. Doubt is the demon of all believers and for many, infidels are embodiments of that doubt, it's psychologically less confronting to suppress, convert or murder unbelievers than to examine thier own fantasies.

PeacefulPeace,

A few generations ago the great diversity of species was used as a "proof" of a "Creator", earlier generations believed that the weather was directed by some god or other. Science demolished those and many other superstitions, your theological/cosmological arguments arguments fall into the same category.

George,

I agree with most of that. However, if there is not over a billion people on the planet that do not have a god in their lives, I would be amazed, even beyond 'belief'.

Statistics on religion are bound to be flawed for all the reasons I stated and many more.

The good news for humanity, as a social phenomena, is that the numbers eschewing religion is on a steep climb whether that is looked at in a historical context or a contemporary one.

David

David,

Statistics about 'religiosity' don't address the reality that for billions of people some form of religious or quasi-religious observance constitutes an important formal or semi-formal component of their culture and cultural identity. The bulk of religious observance worldwide is also ritualised, bespeaks peace, harmony and tolerance, and is therefore almost totally innocuous. It is only the fundamentalist fanatics and their essentially 'political' leaders who 'misuse' religious belief as an 'excuse' to attack others and cause mayhem.

>"It is the pipe dream of the religious that religions will all get along and the world will be a wonderful place."<

I disagree. Religious tolerance is far and away the rule, rather than the exception, and it is largely socioeconomic disparities and inter-ethnic rivalries (and related political and tribal 'histories' - including past and current 'colonialisation' or subjugation issues) which constitute the basis of most of the conflict in the world today. Any honest appraisal would clearly recognise that attribution of the bulk of current conflict to religious differences is a furphy and a 'construct' promulgated for political purposes.

It is fully feasible that disavowal by all religious groups of extremist teachings at odds with the application of universal human rights would leave extremist elements 'out in the cold', and remove religious intolerance as an 'excuse' for conflict.

Allah could not be well pleased with all the inter-group conflict between His followers, or the murder and mayhem committed in His name, nor the God of Abraham pleased with Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. Human frailty is no excuse for inhumanity.

BTW: "Physhing" is my term for scurrilous or mischievous questions or propositions which fail any reasonable test of merit.

Critical analysis by Raza
The same questions, Einstein’s insanity test
At the outset, I adore the quality of the article under dissection written by Junaid. His expression is an implausible piece of literature. I have gone through the opinions of various opinion makers in the discussion thread and noted that the interactions is an enduring argument and counter argument style , hinging upon fallacy of half truths to the extent that some of the factual positions that have recently dominated international political stage are under distortion. It ruminates extraordinary inducement of international journalism and campaigns by controlled media, how pivotal these can be to effectually program a neutral judgment style and ideology of an ordinary individual. This article addresses and focuses on the misconceptions of a typical reader being overwhelmed by instinctively biased opinions.
There is a difference between theology and philanthropy. In the current discussion, both these notions have been submerged and counter flicked. Cultural integration philosophy has been sculpted to a mere campaign of conflict between ethnic groups of populations. Muslims have been targeted for terrorist’s acts and the counter argument to prohibit Muslims migration has been presented as a propitious way out. This speaks of utter ignorance and lack of insight to distinctive ideology about basic human rights and doctrine of freedom, not realizing that Australia is a country of Immigrants including those who’s slogan is “we were born here and they flew here”. It’s also noteworthy to recognize how naïve common readers are, and how easily an ordinary individual can be brainwashed with an impounded philosophy and encoded beliefs. An example is of an opinion maker who interprets and extends judgmental inferences from Koran , bible or Torah without having read those books

continued from last comments by Raza ........
I would confide with writer’s opinion that terrorism has opportunely been ascribed to all Muslims as a blanket policy. Point to ponder is; where this term of terrorism was coined and why? Not a soul labelled Irish republican army groups as terrorists? . Despite the fact that IRA attacked indiscriminately to kill their targets all over UK killing innocent people? I agree to the statement, “Define terrorism”. It appears that most of the contributors in discussion thread have fixated themselves and are defying coherent thinking outside the box. We need to delineate precincts to balance the equation of divergent ideologies. If denying holocaust calls for detention due to the reason that it hurts Jews , same principle needs to be applied to other religious and ethnic communities living in global village , we call it , “Planet Earth”
Having said so, let’s also not forget, there are state sponsored, extremist elements pervasive amongst Muslims ranks as well. Some of them are state sponsored by oil rich countries who’s polluted tyrannical so called ,”royal regimes” enjoy the support, and are close ally of western countries to suppress their own people. It’s worthwhile brooding over, why human rights groups and western countries do not raise their eyebrows towards such oppressors who are propagating extremist elements and funding militant groups covertly.
Those who use suicidal bombers and ruthlessly use children as weapons and human shields are subservient to their patrons and are proving to be instruments of specifically designed strategy to “change the world order”. They are not rendering any service to their religion. Rather , their deplorable actions and heinous crimes are directed to slander Islam as a region and thus providing an opportunity to the imperialist regimes to label all Muslims under one parasol of “terrorists”. . These radical groups strongly believe that no one has a right to live but those who agree and bow to their fallacious beliefs . Readers need to recognize this high powered game of interests. The solution is not that simple.

PeacefulPeace,

I certainly hope you haven’t disappeared as I have some more questions for you. I've lots in fact but these will suffice for now. To premise them, I expect ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers. To give you an example how easy this is; if you asked me should Muslims be put to death for being Muslims, my answer would be a definitive and an unambiguous, ‘no’.

Therefore, with that in mind, my questions are as follows. (And we can assume for the exercise, the below categories of people will not convert to or back to the Islamic religion even under the threat of death)

- Should atheists be put to death for being atheists?
- Should apostates from Islam be put to death?
- If Australia became a Muslim caliphate should ex-Muslims be put to death?
- If Australia became a Muslim caliphate should all people who are not Muslims be put to death?

Shall we see which side of the Pew poll, which has been praised by George, you are on? Here is a summation of a relevant poll.

“A 2010 poll by Pew Research Center showed that 86% of Muslims in Jordan, 30% in Indonesia, 76% in Pakistan, 6% in Lebanon and 51% of Nigerian Muslims agree with death penalty for leaving Islam”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Islamic_Republic_of_Iran

It certainly reinforces the fact that extremists in Islam are quite numerous. Agreeing with death for thought crimes is extremist. It is an exercise in futility to argue otherwise. Granted, not all those people would enact the death themselves but the very fact they agree to it gives power to others to kill.

This is very similar to Christians agreeing with their leaders about not having a system of voluntary euthanasia but wanting the right themselves as many polls show. There are numerous other examples how religion interferes in democracy by the same process. Basically, religious folk let their leaders, thus politicians; get away with outrageous non-democratic and harm causing behaviour in our parliaments.

But, anyway, if you could answer the questions ‘truthfully’, we might be on the way to understanding you.

David

Saltpetre,

This part of the discussion started with a nonsensical statement by PeacefulPeace that atheists were insignificant in numbers. I have shown that is not so. You then blab on about how many billions of people have religious beliefs. So what, numbers do not make what is believed, to be true.

How about look at the problems caused by religion in a fine democracy like Australia and extrapolate that out to repressive theocratic nations and think about it.

Did your read my previous posts, do you keep up with what is going on in the world, did the Twin Towers atrocity happen for political reasons without the promise of religious enticement? You seem to be living in a daze of fantasy.

Whether you want to believe it or not, religion has always been and still is a disastrous system negatively affecting the lives of billions of people, mainly women. Religion is even implicated in the wiping out of elephants to make religious carvings from the tusks. Look it up. A huge proportion of the faithful don’t care about anything except salvation and the planet is going to wear the cost of this massive delusion.

Keep your religious beliefs that have been instilled into you and not chosen if you wish but please, do not promulgate the idea that it is a good thing for humanity or the world and that it is not hugely problematical to people and everything that exists.

The believed to be good parts of religion are totally dwarfed by its destructive irrational dogmatic stance on social, environmental, political and moral issues. Its main problem is that the faithful are blind to them.

I have nothing against you personally, or even PeacefulPeace, but I am totally opposed to the infantile and irresponsible thoughtless parts of religion, all religions.

Do you think for a moment you gave a satisfactory explanation for using the word, “physhing”? That word has an established definition and you may consider it ‘cute’ to have your own but people are not mind readers. Apart from that, the question I asked was valid.

David

<<Critical analysis by Raza ...yada yada yada ...Readers need to recognize this high powered game of interests. The solution is not that simple.>>

Markers comment:

Poor first effort.
Too many cliques.
Recommend wider reading/research before attempting next essay

Mark: 2/20

Footnote to Raza:
Cliques should read clichés (though cliques is applicable too)

David,

You have a fine set of blinkers. Atheism is vastly in the minority - miniscule in the broader context - and that is not about to change any time soon. Ever heard of Sisyphus? One can try to work with the majority, or just keep pushing a barren cart. Which is more likely to achieve success?

>"I am totally opposed to the infantile and irresponsible thoughtless parts of religion, all religions."<

Cherry-picking blinkers. There are no good bits of course, not in your view.

>"How about look at the problems caused by religion in a fine democracy like Australia"<

So, if we eliminate RE/RI in schools, approve euthanasia, marriage equality and full access to contraception and abortion on demand, will that suffice? Or must Oz 'push' these same ideals on the rest of the world to satisfy your ideology? (Not an 'ideology'? Think again.)

On the broader issue, pummeling Peaceful with loaded questions is scarcely profitable. What say Islam were to adopt a more tolerant stance in general - no more talk of killing or harsh penalties for apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, homosexuality or stealing, (or even criticism or critical observation on religious texts or religious postulations), tolerance of all religions, and full equal rights for women (with no genital interference, no child marriage, etc) - could that not be an Islam we could all live with in reasonable harmony? Or would you, like so many others, insist on holding grudges for past ills?

Can you be big enough to accept an 'inclusive' world? (In any moderate view, 'righteous' Atheists will be welcomed into 'Heaven', so no loss there.)

9/11, etc: Religious Fundamentalism (brainwashing), and/or politically motivated? Both, in my estimation, but how deep must we delve into the world of deception to seek cause for endless retribution? Better to focus on solutions.

PS. When a question is based on a patently false premise it deserves repudiation as 'physhing' in my view. (Like 'fishing', only with a self-serving and demonstrably mischievous intent.)

Saltpetre,

I have not said atheism is in the majority only that the numbers are appreciable. And I have never postulated that religion will die out on a planetary-scale but given enough time and education it probably will. In Australia within two generations it will be a spent force and you can quote me on that.

Religion, if chosen and not the result of well-honed indoctrination practices can be a comfort to some people. If that kind of religion doesn't influence politics in an unrepresented fashion, then it would have no grief from me.

Is it ideology that considers it is inappropriate that 30 billion dollars of non-taxed money goes annually to religion because of the belief in a magical-creature or that a particular religion has its brand of chaplains in state-schools? Is it ideology that the desire of the religious and the non-religious alike wish to have legal voluntary euthanasia but it is denied? I'm not going to supply the full list as it exists already. Don’t mix-up the concept of ideology with the actuality of rational thought.

I am asking PeaceFul what he believes. It is no longer acceptable that religions hide behind a special privileged idea that it should not be questioned. You seem to have missed that.

A bit on the silly side that you think I hold grudges about religious stupidity. I am just trying to stop its continuance. This straw grasping of yours is noticeable - I assume you know.

Atheists are all for inclusiveness but we are opposed to the special privileges afforded religion. If religions come to their senses and desist in demanding them, you will find we can be the best of friends.

Atheism is seeking solutions but religion doesn't want them. Take off the mind-numbing-blinkers and have a look at reality.

I'm not going to chase your physhing blunder but it is ridiculous to say it is mischievous to ask a person if their morality would change without a god. It is one of the main accusations against atheists and atheism. Do you know how to use Google search?

David

@David

Didn't really want to respond to you as you're clearly not searching to know about what islam represents but will:
Wikipedia:
According to one estimate, atheists make up about 2.3% of the world's population, while a further 11.9% are nonreligious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

That's a very small number. It is naturally abhorrent to be a disbeliever in God.
Just like we naturally feel killing innocent people is wrong, it's instilled within us to believe in God.
All throughout history we see that some god was worshipped. Why, since it's obvious there's a creator and The Creator has continuously sent messengers, which you ignore and don't account for.

@mac - the point is they believe in a god. Since it's natural for us to seek Him. He's created us like this. Whether they seek a different god, that's different story.
Diversity is a proof. If you're adament that we came about through some random selection process, then replicate it without using that thing. Eg create it from raw materials.
Just gather all the humans to create a fly. Remember it must have a brain of its own and must be replicated as is.
If I saw even something as simple as a table, i don't need to see the person or thing that created it to realise there is some intelligence behind it nor do i say it evolved from a chair or a tree.
What about the human being. Science making some wild claims without replicating is not science. As i said earlier put a sperm and an egg in a beaker. You believe it will evolve into a human if we waited zillion years?
If not why not?

@David
Does it matter whether it's from a journal. Truth is Truth.
Anthropic principal is well known, didn't think i needed to give you the journal regarding it.

Also your way of speaking is pretty rude:
I must congratulate you on persisting with PeacefulPeace.

And asking Tony questions to ask to me, when it's a forum as if you're ignoring me.

"Or why he doesn’t grasp that elements made in stars coalesce into other stars, planets and other bodies and form all kinds of combinations."

Just by themselves? As i said you need to replicate. If it's done without any intervention then surely someone as intelligent as you think you are can replicate such an event.

Pharoah being a title, i never said it wasn't.

Why do bad things happen?
Earth is a perfect testing ground for what God has made it for:
[He] who created death and life to test you [as to] which of you is best in deed - and He is the Exalted in Might, the Forgiving - Qur'an 67.2
If bad things didn't occur and everything was all good then everyone will get 100% and there wouldn't be any differentiation between those that did good and those that did bad,
those that had patience and those that lost the plot etc. A lot can go wrong as can be observed (even People not believing in their creator :P) but everyone will get justice in the end on The Day of Judgement.
If they were wronged, they will be compensated. Everyone will be made accountable for their actions and the result will be at the end of death.
Everyone dies, that is the way of God.

As for your rulings regarding death, seems the only thing that you're concerned about, I'm not sure of the rulings as i'm not a scholar.
As for your statistic I think this is for apostasy. Again not sure why you as a non-muslim would worry about that so much, to be asked so many different times.
Not sure there's too much point for me to post more. We'll see.

With so much concern of Death it's appropriate to remind you of the following:
RESULTS: Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation.
Suicide rates are lower in religious countries than in secular ones (1, 2).

In 2004, the American Journal of Psychiatry reported the following:
Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found
http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=177228

Just be careful around bridges.

PeacefulPeace,

In typical religious-style, you have not comprehended or did not want to comprehend anything I have written. It is all very simple stuff.

You haven’t answered any questions or made any pertinent comments regarding religion in general and Islam in particular. It is pointless conversing with you.

I have a greater understanding of Islam than most Muslim people and the biggest observation is that Islam, with its fear and reward factors believed on the cultural level does not allow for any critical examination. That is a recipe most ideologies aspire to because it entraps people in a mindset very difficult to escape from. Not only difficult, but dangerous to even think about.

You can’t even appreciate that non-belief in a god or gods is atheism no matter what a person with that description thinks.

You make out you have no concept that figures obtained in highly religious countries are bound to be hugely underestimated.

You fail to see that numbers of adherents means nothing about the truth of those beliefs.

You are arrogant in thinking you have the right god the same as everyone else who has the right god.

There is no innate ‘knowing’ that a god exists or that Santa or the Easter bunny does. That is produced by indoctrination. There is only an innate questioning ability. Children raised with a broad education with an overall picture of religions and who haven’t been browbeaten into one system of belief tend to end up being atheists. That is why only 7% of scientist at the National Academy of Science believe in a god. Nearly all of them accept the theory of evolution apart from a very small minority of fundamentalists.

Your understanding of science and the scientific method as opposed to the anecdotal nonsense you poor forth is negligible.

You are frightened and have deluded ideas about an afterlife and if I were you I would be very upset by those who manipulated your mind to think that way.

Broaden you knowledge base and good luck with life.

David

PS Religious fear of suicide does not prove ‘god’

What an egregious article; the author equates the muslim riot with other protests; those other protests were against particular issues; the issue with islam is that it wants to change the democratic system.

Enboldened spokesmen for islam like the character commenting in this thread are happy to admit islam's goal is to change Western democracy.

It is plain there is no middle ground with islam, you are either with it or against it; people who argue otherwise are either fools or quislings.

I'm sick of islamic spokespersons denigrating Western and Australian society from the viewpoint of islam; there is no comparison; Western society is the best type of society humanity has had; islam does not want to improve that society, it wants to eradicate it.

It's time the West took the same attitude towards islam as islam takes towards the West.

And where is the advocate for islam in respect of this:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_best_news_of_the_day/

Islam should be judged by such as this not the usual pontification about excerpts from their text.

@cohenite

Did you even read the article or perhaps your comprehension skills aren't up to scratch?

You say:
those other protests were against particular issues; the issue with islam is that it wants to change the democratic system.

Where does it say in this article that Islam wants to change the democratic system? Junaid, compared violent protests with another set of violent protests, and the little attention that the non-islamic ones received. Even, it was reported on ABC or SBS that the police instigated some attacks and chased down protesters trying to move away from the situation. Did mainstream media report that?

Ofcourse any muslim should want Islam to lead. It's very obvious. Any Hindu would want Hindu's to lead and other religion/faith or non-faith ideology like communism based ideology would want to lead. Those that think of the Dollar as the be all and end all may want this capitalistic society to lead. There's no middle ground with democracy either. If i wanted to say i want half sharia and half democracy will you accept? Or half communism, half secular. There's no middle ground there?

@cohenite: Western society is the best type of society humanity has had

Based on what measurement? The crime rate statistics don't show this. The amount of terrorist attacks, invading nations, the 20% of people using 80% of worlds resources, the rape every 30 or so seconds, the amount of suicides that occur and depression rates sky high. The financial crisis and bank system failures, with predicted much more to come. The drinking to forget the problems on the weekend and alcohol related deaths, the gambling issues, smoking deaths. Adultery sky high, divorces high. Capitalistic system, encouraging materialistic gains, discontentment, ingratitude, greed and power. Also for what purpose? To accumulate more wealth? Where's your measure?

And as for your posted article, i gave you scholarly discussion link regarding Woman and Education in Islam:
http://islamqa.info/en/ref/169979/woman%20studying
It's a shame what occurred there and taliban ofcourse don't represent all of islam just like the mormons don't represent all of christians.

I'm not interested in what islam wants nor what its proselytizers preach; Taqiyya and Kitman are the staples of islamic engagement with the West.

I inform myself about islam from Bruce Bawer, Mark Steyn, Robert Spencer, Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and other brave people.

Islam is a blight; it brings strife, oppression and misery everywhere it goes; and if you don't like the West, leave.