Perhaps the Sheik is performing an important function for non muslims.

He is providing us with an insight into the thinking and opinions of large numbers of Muslims.

This is important.

Also we dont try to displace the Pope, and he talks a lot of silly, but dangerous, nonsense too.

Manny while I don't want to it to be said I'm defending this chap, but are you not being a bit silly here. I'm mean this guy is not elected by the general public he is not answerable to the general public. I don't get a say who is the religious leader of the Muslims, Jews or any of the Christian sects. A Jew calling for the dumping of a Muslim religious leader from a religious positions has as much credibility as a Muslim doing the same to a Jewish leader. How many of us are happy with the way the Christian sects have handled the religious leaders fiddling kiddies? Yet do we get a say in who runs these orgs. So get off the band wagon. If truth be told then I've got a problem with all religious leaders you all spew forth hate and intolerance in some form or another.

It is not up to non muslims to decide if he is rediculous.

The purge should rightfully come from muslims who do not want to be represented in this manner.

Unfortunately, I have heard no outcrys though from Muslims. Just like I have heard of very few dobbing in the Jihadists who are prevelant and who many muslims know of but keep silent.

I dont mind what they do it is not my religion, but if i were a muslim i would not want my leader to detract from my faith, rather add to its esteem and in this case he is loosing the plot out of desperation as he feels misunderstood.

When muslims decide to rid themselves of his leadership, great, until then its none of our business realy

Not too long ago a pack of islamics (I call them pagans)took a Victorian Christian Church to court because the Pastor read some of the 'nasty' bits to do with violence from the koran to his members. Now we have this loud mouthed, ignorant, arrogant, insane clown of an imam always being misrepresented in what he says. He has backed terrorists, said that the long prison sentence handed down to cowardly islamic rapists was ONLY because they were moslem,has consistently rubbished Australia and it's democratic values, allegedly misused donations by giving money to terrorist organisations. ALL THIS and the authorities do bugger all.
Then we have a pack of irresponsible dim-wits who pass for viewing by children a video lauding terrorism - moslem of course, well is there any other? Not only praising terrorism but also abusing Australian Jews AND ONCE AGAIN the authorities do bugger-all. What in blue blazes is going on in this once fair land of ours? Regards, numbat

If there is any correct form of government in Australia, it should not be in the hands of Muslims, whether Hilali stays or goes.
The government should study if this person is an asset or a danger to Australia and Australians and if he is the latter,he should be stripped of citizenship and deported . No appeals.
Hilali has insulted and offended every thinking Australian, he has encouraged gang rape,insulted all Australian women and the pioneers of this country.
He has offered nothing,gained this country nothing,has only been a drain on the tax payer and is an offense to most Australians.
Gt rid of him.

Don't just get rid of the dribbling insane loud mouthed hilali there's another bloke who works for the tax department who should go as well. Hang on why not fill a ship with these clowns sort of like a 'job-lot'and send them all to one of the paradisaical free democratic pagan islamic nations but get the parasites out of Oz. Regards, numbat

Hilaly must go. But we can't leave it up to the Govt to do this. After all, this is the same government that is prepared to bend the rules for the likes of Alan Jones and others.

I'm not aware of anything Hilaly saying causing a riot of the same proportion as Cronulla in December 2005. That doesn't justify anything he says. It just means that those who condemn Hilaly should be consistent and condemn Jones as well.

I look forward to reading Manny Waks' next article calling on Jones to be stood down. or must we wait until Jones calls on bikey gangs to attack "Jewish thugs" at Cronulla Railway Station?

Hilali is a bigoted, offensive, stupid fundamentalist ideologue who supports terrorists, but he’s an Australian citizen and entitled to the same rights and protections as other Australians, including other bigoted, offensive, stupid ideologues who supports terrorists. I’ve argued with a few of Irish decent who supported the IRA or UDA in my time, as well as fans of Mugabe (before his murderous nature became too obvious to ignore) and a pro-ETA Basque separatist.

However repulsive and offensive Hilali’s views, he’s entitled to air them. He’s subject to all the rights, responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. Stripping people of citizenship when their views are not acceptable to the government is behaviour characteristic of the worst tyrannies and dictatorships.

That doesn’t mean, however, that the rest of us have no right to say exactly how offensive and repulsive he is, nor to offer opinions on how the Muslim community should deal with him. Christians, Jews, atheists and everyone else are entitled to comment on him and his behaviour, just as he is entitled to comment on us and ours.

However, the actual decision about whether Hilali should retain his position as Mufti rests with the community that appointed him. Their weak response has indeed been extremely disappointing. Their equivocation is read as tacit agreement with his views, especially by those who suspect that Hilali’s opinions are much more widespread in the Muslim community than they actually are. For as long as he is centre of attention - and he deserves to be, this is no media beat-up - the many voices of moderate Islam will be eclipsed.

For as long as this living caricature of smug fundamentalist intolerance is presented as the leading public face of Australian Islam, the cause of Multiculturalism in Australia will suffer.

Rhian, multiculturalism is not the solution to our problem, it is the problem. Hilali was originally imported by Keating to service a non-Western cultural minority cultivated by multiculturalism. We are now living with the consequences.

Personally, I wouldn't mind stripping both Hilali and Keating of their citizenship. Hilali back to his beloved Lebanon and Keating to his beloved Asia (although Asian nations usually base their immigration intake on ethnicity, he might be eligible for "honourary Asian" status).

Oligarch, Hilaly is Egyptian.

No he is a grub as are those who support him, that shock jock has in no way acted as bad as this fella.
Before the extremely regrettable riot assaults and shameful insults did take place every weekend on that beach, no less shameful than the riot.
No knives appear to have been used in the riot however use in the follow up shames those who used them
No saints on either side but this bloke is a danger to my country and his own people.
It may even be true that he has donated cash to terrorists a crime against this country.
It is time for moderate Muslims to get rid of both him and his blind supporters.
I am reminded in their support of this man of the truly held views of far more Australia's than some wish and ask is it wise to continue to import trouble?

Oligarch, you’ve chosen your name well. My preferred model of government is one where the authority of those in power is derived and legitimised from those they govern. My status as a citizen is not at the government’s disposal, though I may forfeit some of the rights of citizenship if I fail to fulfil its obligations – I could go to jail or be fined if I steal or fail to pay my taxes, for example.

People’s attitude to multiculturalism depends to an extent on how they define it. I’m a supporter of multiculturalism, which I see as comprising acceptance of the equal rights and responsibilities of people from different races, religions and birthplaces; celebration of cultural diversity and the benefits it brings; and tolerance of differences, including differences of opinion and faith. It need not preclude acceptance of a set of common core values (though we’ll find it hard to agree what those values are).

However, I’m not a great fan of political correctness or identify politics, both of which have tended to get tangled up with multiculturalism in recent years. So in my posts I have been quite rude about Hilali at the same time as I defended his right to say what he thinks

Manny. You have every right to make comment, but really, your status does not give your comment substance.

What I want to know is why are Australians so averse to finding out what Muslims here really think?

In Britain, polling organisations have done survey after survey among Muslims to find out how radical they actually are. Such surveys have turned up a frighteningly high level of radicalism and support for terrorism, particularly among the young.

Nothing like that has gone on here. Instead we mouth platitudes like "It's only a tiny minority", yet somehow Hilaly remains in his post no matter how disgusting his hate-speech.

I strongly suspect that if we actually did these surveys it would no longer be a mystery why Hilaly survives.

You don't think that John Howard is going to relinquish Sheik Hilaly that easily.That smelly old rag created by Paul keating against all the advice of his public service is now a political football and has an inordinate negative influence on our society.He is still here because of a lot of support in the Muslim community.

Irfan apparently sees the evil Anglo racist people of Cronulla as the sole protagonists in that conflict.Irfan you are losing more credibility at every comment.The people of Cronulla have tolerated this anti-social behaviour by Muslims for decades.After the assault of the life savers and the attack on a pregnant woman,they had had enough.Irfan makes no mention of the revenge attacks whereby an innocent man was almost knifed to death.Irfan makes no mention of the revenge attacks that had no media graphic footage of of a convoy of over 200 Muslims destroying private and public property in an orgy of destruction.Irfan makes no mention of the many of verbal and physical attacks on the innocent people both at Cronulla and around the Suburbs of Sydney.I have seen these thugs in action myself and the hate and distain they have for our culture is unbelievable.

Why are we not talking about the Buddhists,Jews or Hindus in the same vain? Muslims have a serious facist attitude problem and have to learn that they are just one of the many belief systems on this planet that isn't necessarily correct.

We have 3% of our population giving us an inordinate amount of grief.It seems to be the same pattern all around the planet.

Obviously, the boofheaded Hilali must go. But that decision must somehow be made by the Australian Muslim community - although it seems to me to be far from clear what structures and processes are available to Australian Muslims for them to make such collective decisions.

However, I fail to see how a B'nai B'rith apparatchik like Manny Waks can assist in this process by making stridently hollow demands as he does in this article. I suppose to his credit he has the virtue of not pretending to be unbiased.

Rhian said: "I’m a supporter of multiculturalism, which I see as comprising acceptance of the equal rights and responsibilities of people from different races, religions and birthplaces; celebration of cultural diversity and the benefits it brings; and tolerance of differences, including differences of opinion and faith."

How heart-warming! Sadly, cultural relativism is a Western invention, and thus self-invalidating. Non-Western cultures do not extend such noble egalitarian values to other cultures or even necessarily other ethnicities. Rather, most other cultures are built around self-preservation and solidarity. Almost all espouse conformity and their own supremacy. Understandly, they thrive as a minority within a Western urban environment where a subservient "dhimmi" majority is too embarrassed, or simply too captivated with airyfairy "diversity", to promote its own culture and traditions at the risk of offending migrant minorities. If we don't respect and embrace our own culture, then why should minorities?

Multiculturalism equips non-Western minority groups with disproportionate power relative to their ethnic representation. Rather than promote integration and the adoption of not only the values but the culture of mainstream society, MC acts as a disincentive to integration. In the long-term, a nation cannot survive such internal ethnic disunity unless there is sense of community underpinned by shared cultural identity.

Diversity
1. the state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness.

Votes were the reason Keating gave Hilaly citizenship, and it appears votes are the reason Howard is happy to have him around:

"Labor-aligned commentator Christine Wallace, the wife of Beazley's former chief of staff Michael Costello, made the extraordinary claim that the Howard Government was behind the reports of the Sheik's disgusting remarks.

"I think there's a level of political activity, involvement and interest in this story that does point to it possibly being the new Tampa in terms of the 2007 election, with the Government trying to use this as the latest kind of ethnic wedge against Labor, with Labor, in contrast, really focussing on economic issues," she told the ABC."

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/opinion/story/0,22049,20670730-5001031,00.html

Keating is from Bankstown, so we should deport him back there.

Any one see the debate about soldiers in Germany or some such in training ?
Using that dreadful term some in America use inferring sexual activity with ones own mother?
Some in America screamed that it was dreadful to say that, but no one denied the term s used in an every day manner by some sections .
Muslims in this country and the world are using the same blindness to hide the truth in truly held concerns some of us hold.
How can people who came here for a better life so badly threaten ours?
Who within the Muslim community stood against the raciest taunts that lead to the riot?
Why in this country are knifes are carried and used against un armed people?
I need more evidence that hatred of Australians is not excepted in this community ,the removal of this idiot and those who support him would be a start.

He is indeed a boofhead, but he speaks important things :) he shows us exactly how "Islam" regards others. Sure, he may not be expressing the cherished views of even most Muslims or a sizable proportion of them for whom the religion happens to be the one they were born with and raised with, and for whom it is as much culture as anything else, but for those who make serious enquiry into that faith, Hilali speaks for many of them. (i.e. the moderates ! if he spoke for the extremists his rhetoric would be on turbo compared to now)

I would rather someone declare the true nature of Islam so that we can all see it's colors nailed to the mast, than some Waleed Ali type character who gives it another sugar coat each day to make it more palatable to naive and unthinking Australians.

So, to the Sheikh... KEEP IT UP... at least we don't have to pay you for doing our work

irfan: Comparing Jones with hilaly is comparing apples with oranges as you, if you have half a brain, would know well. Jones is an egomaniac with a large mouth and a correspondingly small brain. Whereas your lunatic imam is a hate filled lying, extremely arrogant trouble maker. Jones has never called for the death of moslems. Jones has never referred to pagan moslems as pigs and monkeys. Jones has never rubbished Australia and Australians when overseas then lied about just exactly he did say. Jones is a benign ego-centric fool your loud mouthed, lying, ALWAYS misrepresented pagan priest is a dangerous fool and if you irfan had half a brain would know this to be true. Regards, numbat

"What I want to know is why are Australians so averse to finding out what Muslims here really think?"

grn you really are a naïve individual,
if you really want to know what the Muslim community thinks, why don't you attend a community event such as those held by the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia and simply ask them.. whats the matter? u afraid your expectations are going to fall short? or are your suspicions simply to great? try it mate its called being pragmatic

Hillali hasn't said anything the average Muslim does not agree with. Hence the deafening silence of the Muslim majority. They can’t fault the man.

Islam follows a parallel system to any host country.

They only respond to the voice of their Qur'an which tells them that women are deficient in intelligence, morals and religion. They are worth half the value of men in all their legal (Shari'a) rulings.

The Qur'an states that Jews are Pigs and Apes.

The Qur'an also mentions that ALL non-muslim nations must be obliterated or converted to Islam.

The Qur’an states that Jihad (holy war) is the duty of every capable Muslim – those who can’t blow themselves up should support those who would.

The Qur’an also tells Muslim believers to not respect or befriend any non-Muslim unless that helps them in furthering Islam in that nation.

The Qur’an instils supremacist beliefs in the mind of their believers. (All the earth belongs to their god Allah – therefore all non-Muslims are not welcomed).

So for my money Hillali hasn’t said or done anything his holy book doesn’t certify as “gospel”.

Why get rid of the messenger – I say get rid of the religion.

It's coach's comment that worries me - I mean, the possible truth of it. Can you provide references for your quotations? Hilaly doesn't worry me, but the silence and apparent inaction of Australian Muslims does, esp if coach is right. If they don't get rid of him, their credibility will remain at nil - not that that concerns me at all. Meanwhile, I'm going to do something like what peachy has suggested - ie get inquisitive. Bagging at a distance is too easy. As for multiculturalism, aren't we stuck with it (whatever we think of it)? Anyway, I would love to see it work even though I agree it's inherently very risky, and I don't think we've really given it a go yet - with Muslims, I mean.

Welcome to OLO goodthief. I wouldn't worry too much about coach's rants - if you read back through his prolific contributions to the forum you'll find that he's every bit as silly as Hilali, albeit from a Christian perspective.

The sheer preposterousness of his call to ban Islam is an indication of his credibility.

Well if we cannot ban the Quran and many of it's vile teachings,we cannot ban facism,nazism,paedophilia,ethnic cleansing or those who want to partipicate in total anarchy.

Muslims have failed to confront most of their serious shortcomings and it does mean social conflict of enormous proportions for future generations.Just study what has happened in Malaysia.If you are not Muslim there,you are a second class citizen and have no rights.

The West is confronting a conflict of basic tenants with Islam and Islam will win if we continue to treat their demands as being equal to ours.What is the price is freedom?Perhaps we should ask the ANZACs.

I don't think banning Islam is an option in a secular, multicultural setting. Nor would it do any good: whatever practical steps were taken to bring about the ban would be inflammatory and cause even more trouble than we've seen. For example, the Muslim hotheads and imperialists(X%) would get right into it, and the moderate Muslims (100-X%) would shift towards the heat. What I'm struggling with is getting a handle on just how dangerous Muslims are in Australia (eg the value of X). The various conflicting posts I've read today all seem to contain some truth. Anyway, that's why I'm going to concentrate on getting informed: I don't want to get killed or to live under Sharia Law or even to be a soft fool, but I don't want to become a hater either.

'I'm not aware of anything Hilaly saying causing a riot of the same proportion as Cronulla in December 2005. That doesn't justify anything he says. It just means that those who condemn Hilaly should be consistent and condemn Jones as well.'

Irfan, the difference between Alan Jones and the Sheik is that Alan Jones doesn't claim to represent Allah (swt). Neither does Alan Jones claim to be a spiritual leader or religious example to the ummah.

By drawing a comparison between Alan Jones and a leader of the Islamic faith you belittle your faith by claiming that its standards are on a par with commercial radio and its Shock-Jocks.

In short, we have a right to expect higher standards from our religious leaders because anything less than proper behaviour is blatant hypocracy and an insult to the God they serve.

Lets face reality, the words of a Sheik carry far more weight than any radio announcer. For example, when the 'Danish Cartoon' crisis exploded due to some ill timed comments by the Islamic alama we had riots on a global scale which ended with a number of corpses.

Rabbis, Popes and Sheiks should learn to hold their tongue - they are more than mere public announcers.

Irfan: “I’m not aware of Hilali saying anything causing a riot of the same proportion as Cronulla”

No; but it was the teachings of men like Hilali who made the muslim men who continuously went down to the Cronulla beach and groped the women because they weren’t wearing sheets think that that was okay. When the lifeguards asked them to stop they were belted up.

Hilali is scared silly that if ever muslim women take off the sheet and stop having so many children to send to the muslim schools he will no longer be able to continue his parasitic living off the fees paid by the parents to a particular muslim school. That is what his attack on Western values and their women is all about, His own self interest.

What would he do if the black sheet failed to protect his daughter? Send her to prison for being raped as he recently stated. Nuns throughout the world wearing the same black robes have been raped many times. How come the meat that was covered suffered the same fate?.

Does incest which occurs all over the world not occur in the muslim home? I doubt it. Not much protection from keeping the meat off the street there.

Coach:

Your quotes from the Quaran are actively inciting sedition. So is Hilali in his recent call for all muslims to actively support those who wage war on the West. It would seem the politicians dont have the intestional fortitude to inact the recent sedition laws they introduced

Peace at any cost is what the politicians want. Riots might sway voters against them in elections.

This bigoted idiot is one of many millions that think like this.
However its stretching it a bit to say any living leader of any other religion is as dangerous as some who lead Islam.
Even given the impending defeat, it can have no other name, of America in Iraq.
The world one day far too soon must confront radical Islam or become a horrible place to live.
Do not ever discount the lies that are currency in this community.
And if you think we can forever let bigotry in the name of a God not ours continue you are living in a fantasy world.

goodthief,

I deliberately did not quote the Qur’anic verses 1) for lack of space here – (there are hundreds) 2) there is always the odd ignorant defender of Islam that will say it's out of context. (Go figure)

So please keep researching, and read the Qur’an for yourself.

As for the threat of Islam to Australia – it is real, and it is now. Just think: we have 300,000 muslims today and already they are making waves in our society. Once they reach a million or two – in the next decade or so – it will be game over. Canberra will be ruled by Islamic governance.

Impossible some will say. Well Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey,… were once non-islamic countries.

CJ Morgan,

Instead of personal defamation why don’t you find one fault in my post and critique it.

_______________

The difficulty we are facing in banning Islam is that it is hiding behind a religion. And in Australia we allow freedom of religion.

We already know that it is a false religion. What is needed is an open book discussion on what the Qur’an really teaches its followers. Why is it that when someone becomes a student of the Qur’an Jihad is the natural result?

Muslims do not understand their own religion. For most it is just a cultural thing. They are rigorously discouraged to question their beliefs. This is the job of the Hillalis to brainwash them.

Islam is a package deal. There is no word in Arabic for “secular”. No separation of State and Religion. The State equals Islam. One is a Muslim or a kafir (disbeliever).

How can we allow such a political group to prosper in Australia is beyond me. It is clearly anti-democracy (Iraq) anti anything not Islamic.

Islam comes from the standpoint that they have the only political system for the world. All other systems are defective and – therefore all must fall under Allah’s rulings.

Jihad cannot stop until this is fulfilled.

sharkfin,

Sedition is designed to discourage people from discovering the real Islam. It doesn't work both ways.

Dear GoodThief, let me echo my good friend CJ Morgans welcome 2 you:)

You ask for references ? Try these few mate.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.030
Quran 9.30
SHAKIR: And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

GT..notice that little call for the DESTRUCTION of all Christians and Jews ? I confess, I feel a little bit uncomfortable knowing that a community is growing in Australia which has as its foundational doctrine the call for MY destruction because of my faith.

Hadith Muslim.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/001.smt.html
Book 001, Number 0030:
It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to FIGHT AGAINST PEOPLE AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT DECLARE THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah.

As Coach said, there are heaps of them mate.
Try this

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Terrorism_Timeline.Islam
Notice the posture of the Islamists ? Remind you of anything mate ?
Have a peek at this: http://www.prophetofdoom.net/

The virginia Uni massacre.. done by a Muslim? "Ismail X"

Boaz, this is typical of your instant rabble-rousing instincts.

>>The virginia Uni massacre.. done by a Muslim? "Ismail X"<<

It has been reported variously that "Ismael Ax" was found to be i) written in red ink on his arm, ii) tattooed on his arm and iii) the name with which he signed his suicide note.

How, with only this as evidence, do you deduce that this sad, lonely, deluded child was a Muslim?

The odds are against your "leap of faith".

According to the CIA factbook, the religious mix in S. Korea is "Christian 26%, Buddhist 26%, Confucianist 1%, no affiliation 46%, other 1%"

Instead of standing back and waiting for the facts to emerge, you leap into action at the slightest hint that Islam might be involved.

To what purpose? Presumably, for exactly the same reason that the blogs of the right-wing and Christian extremists are running hot on this topic around the world, to "blame" the event on Islam.

You seriously have no shame, do you?

Here's one of the more hysterical blogs in action:

"Ismael is the Arabic for Ishmael the father of the Arabs, the son of Abraham and the one that Muhammad the founder of Islam favored above Isaac the father of the Jews. This terror seems to have indeed been motivated by Islam... I hope the media gets the Islamic connection here. I am sure what they will find is a story of a convert to Islam who was convinced that his only salvation is go to Jihad.<<

And here is one of the more intelligent:

"in James Fennimore Cooper’s story “The Prairie,” the settler Ishmael Bush... sets out across the prairie with two key tools, a gun and an axe... The axe — which can either kill or provide shelter — stands for both creation and destruction. Given that the VT killer was an English major, might this be the likely meaning of the words on his arm?<<

Do you see the difference?

Re -the Virgina Uni massacre.Cho Seung Ho's Ming was probably very disturbed way before he discovered Islam.Islam was probably the catalyst that justified his hate spurred on by isolationism and feeling inferior.

Most people in his condition will simply end the pain by suicide,but he felt so envious of the all the "normal people",he wanted them to suffer his pain.Islam is definitely a catalyst for this type of thinking,since it does appeal to those who feel victimised.

Ah, its the paranoid christian club; reading your posts has restored my humor after a difficult day. I would imagine the anti christ Islamists will probably be laughing so much at your demented and paranoid reasoning that they will forget their plans for world domination. I don't know why you frustrated christian clowns don't put on a show, it seems that in these grim times that we all need a little bit of ridiculous humor and you lot have that in plenty.

Actually its a surprise this guy is still making headlines in the media. I think if all Australians (Muslims and non-muslims) ignore him he will eventually go away. There will still be the few thousands of the old generation who would still listen to him, but at least it will give a chance for new imams to appear, there are lots of good ones.

Nothing changes on OLO: smart posters and the 'nutty brotherhood of the ring' are still kicking.

Peace,

Netab,

Islam and world domination is no laughing matter. This religion has been misguided since its beginnings. The result we are all paying for today including the millions of poor souls who are following it.

Fellow_Human,

Welcome back to the land of the free - how was the o/s trip?

Hillali is the best thing that came of Islam since a long time. Without people like him we would not have public discussions on the horror of Islam in our land.

As for Ishmael AX – watching parts of his last video clip I noticed a lot of resemblance with the Jihadists videos EXCEPT he was obviously mentally disturbed.

The real Islamic terrorists are well instructed from their Qur’an and are eagerly committing the acts according to their religious beliefs with poise and dignity, listening and reciting passages of the Qur’an.

But hey let them in Australia and let them continue to read that holy book that instructs young people to perform Jihad.

Paranoia? I sincerely hope so...

Islam will never reform from within - new leaders or not - it will have to come from the rest of us. Muslims are too scared to question the status quo and too ignorant of their own religion to see it's real effect on society.

You see what happens when you fan the flames, Boaz?

>>Cho Seung Ho's Ming was probably very disturbed way before he discovered Islam.Islam was probably the catalyst that justified his hate spurred on by isolationism and feeling inferior<<

The assumption has already been made, on the flimsiest of "evidence", that the Virginia massacre is an Islam-driven atrocity.

How do you think this affects ordinary people, who do not think for themselves but allow Fox News and the Daily Telegraph to do it for them?

How much needless hatred have you unleashed, simply by propagating the "Ismael Ax = Muslim" furphy?

Hey, it may turn out that the guy was indeed a religious fanatic of some persuasion or other, as religion seems to be the sickness that causes the maximum of hatred between neighbours, doomsday cults etc. these days.

But in deference to the families who have lost loved ones it would be decent to wait a little for real evidence to emerge.

Boaz_David? David Koresh? Coincidence? I'll let you decide.

Hey Pericles,

Actually Boaz fell on his own sword with the last comment re Ishmael:

The biblical version of Ishmael talks about a 'lesser brother'suffering discrimnation, exile and wishing for revenge..
On the other hand, the Quranic version denies it stating that Abraham treated his sons equally and used to visit Ishmael and helped him to build the Holy house in Mecca..etc..

Now, if you expose an average person to the two versions of the story, which one promotes hate and envy? :):)

Coach,

I noticed you moved from anti-Islam monologue to a 'dialogue with yourself'. Keep away from the syrup and stick with the pills :):)

Thank you for your well wishes I had a good time.

Peace,

FH,

Your sense of humour is still intact. So is your art of evasion from the real issues at hand.

Like for example my last comment:” Islam will never reform from within - new leaders or not - it will have to come from the rest of us. Muslims are too scared to question the status quo and too ignorant of their own religion to see it's real effect on society.”

Also your comparison of scriptures is most interesting.

In your opinion and by sheer comparison I hear you say that the Qur’an is true, so the Bible must be false.

But the Qur’an clearly states that the Bible is to be respected as truth and even proof for the Qur’an.

What proof do you have about the Ka’aba?

How do you know it has been built by Abraham when clearly all historical, biblical, and archaeological accounts put Abraham and his tribes miles away from Mecca?

More to the point how do you know the Qur’an is the true revelation – when it contradicts most of the Bible?

Fellow_Human: Be fair dinkum - have you EVER! read the koran? And if you have do you really think it stacks up with the Bible or even stacks up with 'Goldilocks and the Three Bears' Have you read the koran's version of how the human body operates? Is the koran true when it says that the sun rises out of a swamp or that stars are peep holes that allow the jinns to spy on us from heaven and do blood thirsty psychopaths even if the cruelly and cowardly butcher fellow pagans whether they be male,female,children or babies do these totally stupid clowns really go to paradise where they live for ever in total debauchery having having eternal sex with both male and female perpetual virgins? - really H_M really. Regards, numbat

You know numbat,
Your tirade is very interesting from a number of perspectives. You are an angry man who has found a outlet for your frustraion in life through these attacks on any perspective that you find threatening. Your unhappiness is based on issues relating to your early years and whilst that may have been unfair; thats life. I won't go on but while your name evokes a mentlly dead bat hanging upside down, it is no where near as powerful as your dribblings!

Netab: You view of me has shattered me no sleep for me tonight!:-)
Read the flamin book which I call the hate filled terrorist hand book, GO ON READ IT! Then look at ANY moslem country and what do you see out of your pure eyes? Then go to any Western democratic free country where these hate filled death loving misogynistic people have settled go on just look at them and tell us all just what you really see. Regards, numbat PS. Your not one of them are you sport?

CJ Morgan, David Boaz and Coach: thank you very much for the welcome and the assistance.

Generally: I'm new to this kind of communication and find it rather tempestuous. What I've particularly noticed about the conflicting posts, apart from their colour and ferocity, is the common interest in knowing the facts. Everyone seems to know some (even a lot). If there were some way of pooling the facts (not just assertions, but properly sourced), we could all do each other a great favour. But, perhaps this is not plausible: I'm sure it's been attempted.

Globally speaking, I definitely associate Islam with trouble - ie with hatred of everything that is not "perfect" Islam. I'm not sure how to avoid making this connection (and I'm open to suggestions, provided they take into account the fairly gross facts everyone is aware of). In Australia, the issue is newer and smaller, and there is a fond hope that we won't go the way the globe has gone. If the Government and the general population do nothing, I suppose the situation will detiorate: why wouldn't it? But, I don't want the remedial action to be as ugly as what it's directed at. I think some serious ingenuity is required, to work out how to communicate with a subculture that hates, is hated, is feared and is very likely afraid.

Is there a general interest in solutions, or am I guilty of uttering Soft Folly?

Regards,

GoodThief

Numbat,

Yes I read the Quran since I was 10 and teach it to my kids.
And yes I read the Bible (new Van Dyck Bible 2002 published by the Bible society of Egypt). And yes, it stacks up even to MAD magazine and Archie.
I can see now who is only googling stuff.

Coach,

Thanks I can finally see the light.
Why didn't I think of that before: non-Muslims (ie you) should reform Islam for us!.
Keep it up maybe one day we will have twice as much holidays for Christmas and easter to celebrate the 2 sons of God!

I envy you, my sense of humour gets rusty everynow and then but you are a natural :)

You are a serious nasty piece of work because you are an arab speaker and you can read many sources on the internet about Islamic reforms.
Well, I guess dishonesty can become a religion sometimes.

Salam,

Ahhhhhhhh, did I hear the squeak of a numbat in the background? As a paid up member of the constipated christian clowns association on this forum, I was expecting a performance from you and I got one. Exhortations to the Koran, accompanied by hissing and spitting dialogue on the machinations of the Dark Vada Muslims. It conjurs up images of nightmare and apocolyptic conflict that will herald the end days; if thats not enough there is the machination of the UN to create a world government.

But numbat, it doesn't end there and so no wonder you need those little pills that your GP prescribes. Am I one of 'them' - yes, I am, I'm an Australian citizen and whether I'm Muslim, Mick, Prod or Buddhist is irrelevant to my citizenship

Fellow Human: I can see how non-Muslims reforming Islam would be awkward (if you will excuse the understatement). How, then, is Islam to be reformed? Might it happen soon? Do you agree it needs to be reformed?

Personally I am quite happy that Hilali be allowed to continue to comeout with his pronouncements. Each time he does he reminds me how ignorant, bigoted and chauvinist radical Islam actually is - not much different to Australian Rules Football really.

Hello Goodthief,

I had many interactions re the need for reforms and there are many activities in this field including here in australia (DR Ibrahim A. Muhammed). There are a number of avenues in my view re reforms:

1. The way imams preach, should focus on positive constructive Islam that lead the world in innovation, science and medicine.

2. Spread the proper science of islamic education through al azhar and other credible bodies rather than leaving it to politically motivated organisations.

3. Not to preach salafi material except within a historical context. For example, pope urban II material is still taught today in churches even though the man incited violence against the muslim world. But its taught within a historical context of 'what not to do today'.

Peace,

Ur Welcome Goodthief, and even if /when you decide to 'rip into' my views, ur still welcome :)

Netab! wow.. ur sounding like a veteran already mate.. 50 posts:) well done.

F.H. The most interesting aspect of your last post, was that it is a 'view'. If all muslims shared your approach I'm sure there would never have been a 9/11 or the list of other atrocities perpetrated in the name of Allah by whacko's.

Glad you read the Bible to your children. Psalm 1 is a good read :)
Check out this site FH. http://www.australianislamistmonitor.org/
I'm sure they would value your comments there. Irf is already barking at the gates.

We need a Hilali to prove what most of us are saying.

Thank you David, I appreciate your input and politeness; its difficult to find in a free fire zone such as this forum. Having said that, I only have one complaint and that is the quality of christian lamb being served up for the pagan entertainment is dropping. Could you speak to the divine chef about it?

Cheers mate.

Boaz: Oops

Fellow Human: I assumed something of this kind was happening, but is it enough and soon enough? It's pretty urgent, as things are getting out of hand. More important, it needs to be pervasive and also visible.

Is the "positive constructive Islam" you speak of mainstream or eccentric and marginal? I sometimes wonder just how distorted the intel we get from the media is. My impression is that the media is telling the truth, but just the interesting negative truth.

My next question - whether for you, or anyone else in a position to illuminate - is how influential the positive contructive Muslims are over the others. After all, 90% nice is nice, but 10% armed to the teeth and furious is still pretty scary.

And the aspiration towards world leadership (even in matters of technology etc) is not very comforting: perhaps that could be put on the backburner. Peaceful world cohabitation would suffice in the medium term.

Goodthief,

The positive constructive Islam is what the majority teach and live by.
My concern from travelling is I don't see a coordinated plan in the first line of defence (the arab and muslim countries that is) to curb the mis-interpretations and radicalism. It seems to be a mix of volunteer or police work which can bring bad results.

Boaz,

I browsed the site you mentioned hoping for something new but turned up another 'me too'! Not sure what brought sep 11 into the conversation: are you suggesting radical islamist started on sep 11?
radical islam have been targeting other mulsims decades before sep 11 (assasination of president sadat in 81, the head of pariement mid 80's, etc..).

Boaz, I have been waiting for an apology, but as it looks as though one is not forthcoming voluntarily, I thought I'd prompt you a little.

In an earlier post, you made the snide aside:

>>The virginia Uni massacre.. done by a Muslim? "Ismail X"<<

As I noted, your insinuation had the desired effect, with one of your acolytes, Arjay, immediately assuming that the sad killer's religion was now a matter of fact:

"Cho Seung Ho's Ming was probably very disturbed way before he discovered Islam.Islam was probably the catalyst that justified his hate spurred on by isolationism and feeling inferior."

If you had waited only a short while before leaping to the offensive (in both senses of the word) conclusion that this was an act of Islamic terrorism, you would have been able to read the sad twisted soul's own words, from his suicide note:

"You have vandalised my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience. You thought it was one pathetic boy's life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenceless people."

Does that sound in any way Islamic to you?

The problem with rabble-rousing is that it becomes second nature. A knee-jerk reaction.

Some trouble in the world? Blame it on [the Jews/Muslims/USA/Howard government]. Someone does something evil? Must be a [Jew/Muslim/American/Howard supporter].

I have said it before and I'll say it again. In fact, I'll keep saying it until you either mend your rabble-rousing ways or leave the forum with your tail between your legs.

Be aware of the hatred you generate with your words, thoughts and deeds. Yours is easily as great a contribution to religion-based antagonism as that of the topic of this thread, Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali.

So, do we get an apology, as your first step along the road to redemption?

Have a great day.

Fellow Human: Thanks. I'm keeping my eyes open for opportunities to participate in constructive interaction between Muslims and the general population - "interfaith" discussions, whatever - in Melbourne. Any pointers appreciated. I've tried the Islamic Council of Victoria, but no sign of life yet. This is not a positive interest in Islam itself, but just a contribution to a less fractious rapport between Aus Muslims and the rest, including Aus Xians like me.

Pax,

Quite so, Pericles. I'm afraid our old mate Boazy has quite definitely overstepped the mark here - even by his usual lamentable standards:

Boazy: 'The virginia Uni massacre.. done by a Muslim? "Ismail X"'

For such shameful dog-whistling a retraction and apology is surely in order. As for those who so readily respond to the dog-whistle, I'm not all that sure they have the intelligence to comprehend just how ridiculous they are.

Any one reading my books might just think that Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali is a saint, at least those of the Muslim-phobia brigade. All right I am not a Muslim, or for that matter an Arab, but what Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali is about is to me just the tip of the iceberg so to say of what really is wrong, but those blinded by their own tunnel vision or simply to ignorant to realise it can do no better but to pursue this man.
Leave the man alone and you might just find less disturbing issues.
Concentrate on what is really wrong in our society.
Forget about religion, as it is whatever you may belief in but do not force it down the throat of others.
If religion was so good, why is G. W. Bush claiming GOD told him to invade Iraq? Is his GOD so evil wanting to have so many innocent people not just harmed but even killed? We would all be better of if religious zealot keep their religion for themselves and do not pursue some war in all kind of manners.
History tell us the numerous religious atrocities committed. And yet, we seem not to have learned.
As I explained to my wife, she has her religion (and she support selectively the death penalty) and I do not practice religion (and oppose any death penalty) and we keep it for ourselves.
Just keep in mind that if you dislike Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali then you are only doing it to yourself as more then likely the man could not care less about it.
Next topic please.

Something is argued about the damage Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali is to Australia, well I invite anyone to check out my My blog at http://au.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH. and my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com and become aware what politicians and judges have done to our constitution and civil rights.
They managed to substitute out constitution in 1986 and who argues about this?
The rob Australians of their rights to enter in a contract they desire and constitutionally entitled upon, to pursue WorkChoices.
Lets make clear religion doesn’t belong in politics and the Framers of the Constitution specifically make this an issue. Remember the song “Shut up your face”? Well that is what all those religious zealots should do. Everyone can have their own religion in privacy as long as they do not shove it down our throats.
John Howard and his cohorts should also stop using religion for political purposes as it conflicts with Section 116 of the Constitution.
We should be more tolerant to others, and if anyone goes out of bounds in their own good belief then lets be tolerant and not condemn the person as if we are all better. We all have our errors and many others might be too pleased to point them out if it wasn’t for that they may not wish to upset us.
Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali doesn’t cause me any problems and he doesn’t worry me. I am more concerned about the darn politicians robbing our “civil rights” bit by bit and stirring up religious conflicts such as that the Muslims should vote Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali out of his position.
Even to contemplate to strip a person of his nationality shows the sheer ignorance to what the Constitution stands for and only can be pursued by those ignorant to the rights of others. During WWII it were the communist and if we had to accept the then government reasoning then there was a communist under every bed. Now it are the Muslims and who will be next?
I can notice those “sheep”, learn to think for yourself! You might just find it a worthwhile experience.

Fellow_Human,

You read the Bible (so you say) but you are teaching your children the Qur’an. I find that hypocritical – why do you deprive your children of the source of God's revelation and truth on which your Qur’an is supposedly based on?

Islam reform will not happen simply because it can’t happen. Muslims and their scholars truly believe what is written in their Qur’an was the actual replica of the original Qur’an written in Allah' land (7th heaven) – dictated to their prophet Mohammad.

Therefore any change to the reconstituted earthly text is an insult to the divine words of Allah.

So it is NOT a matter of interpretation or misguidance that constitutes the problem for Muslims – but the text itself. What is written is written - thet are stuck with it. Allah knows best.

The only way Islam could reform is by questioning the source of their text and the reliability of their prophet. And this FH is what I was suggesting before that only people like outside Islam could do this for Islam. You don’t qualify: a Muslim cannot question their religion - you don't have the guts or the rights to speak up.

Unless of course you continue to publicly admit that there are no problems with Islam and secretly close your eyes to it all.

But it seems to us that you want to ascribe to a better teachings of Islam and duck all the bad teachings. That requires dishonesty and wishful thinking on your part.

And if you succeed in creating an imaginery new Islam, what about the other 1.2 billion suckers who still absorb and apply the Qur'anic teachings without questioning?

So what hope does the rest of the free world has if Islam cannot and will not reform?

Terrorism is just a means to an end. Islam‘s systematic global assault, the total Islamisation of all places and people on earth is a noble goal of Allah’s Islam.

Deny this and you’re not a Muslim.

Coach,

You quoted:
"You read the Bible (so you say) but you are teaching your children the Qur’an. I find that hypocritical – why do you deprive your children of the source of God's revelation and truth on which your Qur’an is supposedly based on?"

The simple answer is the Qu'ran accepts Jesus as a prophet (as well as the israelites prophets and the Torah)and his followers as a faith and they do have rights of good neighbouring and good treatement. According to the Bible all those who don't accept Jesus (Jews, Muslims, Miscellaneous) are pagans and will rot in hell.

Please refer me to where in the Bible where it says that Jews and Muslims are 'people of the book'and Mohammed is a prophet.

Until then, au revoir,

Fellow Human, I'm sure you know the Bible doesn't use that language. But, it does require every Xian to "love their neighbour" etc. No exceptions, whether they're of the Book or not. This is not an inferior ethic.

Hi Goodthief,

I know the bible says love your neighbour as you love yourself.
My comment to coach was comparing a 'likes to likes'that the Quran for us muslims is the word of God and it says çlearly that Jesus is a miracle prophet and that his followers have rights.

there is no 'clear statement' like that in the bible.
If you ask Coachy, he will tell you only Christians can go to heaven.

Anyway, I believe religions only mirrors what people have on the inside. You seem to be inherently a good person and its great chating with reasonable people.

Fellow Human: Thank you. Ditto. Now back to the fray.

If I continue to misunderstand your exchange with coach, I'm sorry and will back away. Meanwhile, I still think the love commandment is as clear a statement as you could want. It operates comprehensively and at every level - momentary, long-term, personal, cultural, governmental - so I don't think it is necessary that anyone receives a special mention. If you're human, you qualify. This is why part of the Xian view of Islam is bemusement: according to us, the Arab people were already included in the deal, so no further correspondence was necessary.

I'm not as unlike coach as you might think. I'm a completely dogmatic Xian - "no way to heaven except via Jesus" etc. But, while I believe the Xian Church is under instructions to convert the unconverted (for their sake, not as a hobby), I also believe that evangelism has to be consistent with love - eg the exercise should not be contaminated by other agendas and there should be respect for the person you address as an individual and not a type, even respect for their freedom to say No. I believe Jesus issued an invitation (a pressing invitation), not a summons.

What, still no apology Boaz?

>>The virginia Uni massacre.. done by a Muslim? "Ismail X"<<

Your purpose was unmistakable. To turn a personal family tragedy into an emblem of your own hatred of Islam, and to encourage others to think likewise.

You even succeeded, as evidenced by Arjay's response to your whistle:

>>Cho Seung Ho's Ming was probably very disturbed way before he discovered Islam.Islam was probably the catalyst that justified his hate spurred on by isolationism and feeling inferior<<

Given that in the week that has followed there has been not the slightest skerrick of evidence to back your insinuation, that has given you plenty of time to submit a correction.

Here's a template that you have my permission to use:

"I am genuinely sorry if I gave the impression that the Virginia massacre was the work of Islamic extremists. Unfortunately, I occasionally become overzealous in expressing my hatred and fear of Islam, and this was one of those occasions. Signed, Boaz_David"

F_H: Sorry sport, but all-that's ALL!- who have ever been born or will be born will make it this includes all present day pagans or every present day pagan. By the way there is NO! traditional ever burning torturous hell-fire nor is there any incredibly stupid pagan moslem paradise with eternal sex orgies for the men. Moslem women apparently will only get to watch the men with their boys and girls. I wonder if these third class moslems that's the women will have to wear a large black tent with a gauze window for eternity? One day you F_H will accept Christ and God the Father willingly.
By the way you say that pagan moslems see Christ as a Prophet - no mate He is the Son of God as the Scriptures PLAINLY say so you do not believe Christ of the Bible really do you? You do come across as a prize twit sometimes with your "Vast?" Biblical "knowledge?"
One day there will be NO 'big al' (he also will accept God the Father and His first born Jesus) NO allah (who is satan as I see it) NO moon god of mecca and no death loving lying untrustworthy pagan moslems (ALL of them like you will have willingly accepted God the Father and His Son Jesus). Regards, numbat

Ahhh, if it isn't my two favourite little neo right religious maniacs in the same place - God / Allah / Buddha be praised! Were to start. Lets start with the observation that numbat who I have effectionatly, designated as the brain dead bat; is my preferred neo religious fascist because he is so transparant and therefore easily ridiculed. His raving rants are almost a breath of fresh air to his odious little colleague goodthief, who slides through these forums announcing his wish for 'dialogue' with 'subcultures'.

In this country, you odious little creep, there is no such thing as subcultures; there are australian citizens of many denominations who are part of our multicultural nation. If you don't like it, then pack your bags and head to the US, where the evangelist scumbags are running the country. But in this country, if you want dialogue, then I suggest that you and your culturally / intellectually challenged christian bretheran learn some cultural manners.

I am a horrible, horrid old socialist fifth generation pagan but I can't help notice that on this forum, I have seen people of Islamic persuasion, attempting to engage the rest of their society on important issues with politeness and courtesy. I find it revolting, that patronising little intellectual wimps like you and your jackbooted brethran; hijack my fellow citizens with your infantile arguments.

It is places like this forum, that we are going to keep your infantile rubbish out our parliament - this is not Germany 1934 circa and Islam is not the Jewish culture.

coach - you say, "deny this and you're not a muslim"

Actually, I think muslims can believe what they want. If one decides on a different interpretation, that's their business.

It certainly isn't up to avowed christians to say who is and who isn't a muslim.

Well, if you have that right, try this on for size: I'm going to say you're not a christian. How's that sit with you?

So much is being argued in the Muslim-phobia against Muslims but what is totally overlooked is that the scenery created will in time to come perfectly fit Muslims.

Take for example John Howard providing about $9,000.00 per student to the Christian Brethern, despite this being unconstitutional. Peter Costello providing tax breaks for churches, such as 2/½ million for a Melbourne Catholic Church for restoration. And on and on it goes.
If I were a Muslim (I am not) I would applaud the government for doing this and as much other unconstitutional conduct to provide funding to Christians, then I would tell my flock to breed and breed like rabbits and so to slowly take over the country and its parliament and there you are, all the laws otherwise unconstitutional now with the bias High Court of Australia held to be constitutional valid will enable me to lawfully (albeit unconstitutionally) rob Consolidated Revenue blind by spending money like anything on praying facilities and other religious schools holding religious councils (as John Howard has introduced albeit unconstitutionally (See Section 116 of the Constitution) and the Islamic religion will flourish like anything and then do onto the Christian, the Jews, etc precisely back as to what they did onto Muslims when they were in power. Australia would be turned in a fundamentalist country and so not because Muslims caused this but because John Howard, Peter Costello, Tony Abbott and others so much abused their powers to create this opportunity to do so, which otherwise had been unthinkable to do.
As such, the message is clear, if you want to continue this Muslim-phobia just be careful what you are doing as rather going against them you might just create the very good conditions to turn Australia into an Islamic state!
That why the Framers of the Constitution created Section 116 of the Constitution to keep religion out of politics, and we better heed their warning!

It is interesting that you haven't told us how all these actions contravene Section 116, Mr Schorel-Hlavka.

In full, Section 116 reads:

"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth"

The examples in your post are:

>>John Howard providing about $9,000.00 per student to the Christian Brethern... Peter Costello providing tax breaks for churches, such as 2/½ million for a Melbourne Catholic Church for restoration... much other unconstitutional conduct to provide funding to Christians... spending money like anything on praying facilities and other religious schools holding religious councils... <<

Now it may be that you have a different Constitution in mind, but as far as I can tell, none of these acts is in contravention of Section 116.

Are they establishing a religion? No.

Are they imposing religious observance? No.

Are they prohibiting the free exercise of any religion? No.

Are they requiring a "religious test"? No.

It might be unwise of them to fund, favour or otherwise support one particular religion over another, but it most certainly is not unconstitutional.

Netab, I wasn’t informed that this Forum is your turf and that contributors are expected to win your admiration and affection.

Though you seem to disdain it, it seems to me that most people are here for ‘dialogue’. I was having a reasonable exchange with Fellow Human until you stuck your nose in. No-one but you has had any difficulty with the word "subculture". You’re correct about its meaning, but it’s small technical bikkies. Perhaps if you were yourself more careful with language, your criticism would have more bite. (For the same reason, I won’t take your comments about courtesy all that seriously.)

But, why offer the subculture criticism at all? Obviously to provide a teeny weeny hook for your proprietorial pretentions and your expression of hatred.

You seem to fancy yourself as a predator, astride the chest of your victim, dripping venom into their eyes and mouth so they’ll sicken and die. Yet, you are armed only with a keyboard: so much hatred, but only your finger-tips to express it with. The venom is real, but all you do is drool on your victim’s shoes, which is annoying but not fatal. You’re like a lion with ill-fitting dentures instead of natural fangs: so much saliva! The swaggering hunter-baron who is just an incontinent nuisance.

Don’t mistake this for the beginning of a course of correspondence. You’re welcome to respond and to have the last say. Next time I see your lips moisten, I’ll just move my shoe.

Numbat,

You said
"One day you F_H will accept Christ and God the Father willingly.
By the way you say that pagan moslems see Christ as a Prophet - no mate He is the Son of God as the Scriptures PLAINLY say"

Seems you know very little about both Islam and Christianity:

Muslim faith believes in Jesus son of Mary as a prophet of God and we believe that the 'father' as you call it is the only divine entity. The Trinity according to your own history came about the year 325AD (please re-read article by P. Sells on OLO). Older versions of the Bible (such as Gospel of Barnabos and others) were discredited and only those that were vague enough to allow a room for the Trinitarian philisophy remained. Islamic theology is identical to pre Trinity christians and today's christian unitarians.

I appreciate you like to contribute to the 'Islam bashing fest'but at least study the subject a little more before you start talking.

Pericles thank you for your comment.

The limited posting would not allow me to extensively set it out but consider for example the following;

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) (Chapter 33 of the CD)
Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this Constitution?
Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church could not receive the funds of the Commonwealth under either of them.

The USA has a simular prohibition as we have, and they have in fact extensive court judgments on records which also makes clear that funding for a religious school offends the prohibition of religion being established or otherwise free exercise, as the judges made clear that the funding of a religious school would in fact deny free exercise of non religious schools as there would be a religious discrimination, etc.
And, when I appealed my convictions for FAILING TO VOTE successfully on 19 July 2006 in the County Court of Victoria I relied upon extensive quotations of US judgments to set it all out. None of it was challenged by the lawyers for the Federal Government!

Tax deductions are in fact the same as spending money and where a taxation legislation provide for tax deduction then technically it is an Appropriation Bill. Just that this is ignored.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear while gradual taxation pending level of income would be permissible as long as all persons within the Commonwealth of Australia would pay the same taxation as any other person having the same income.
Now, when Peter Reith, the former telecommunication Minister has a huge superannuation payout as well as about $250.000.00 tax free income, as I understand it to be, being High Commissioner to London, then we the taxpayers are having to make up for what he fails to pay in taxes. The parliament has no constitutional powers to allow anyone to have a tax-free income unless it applies throughout the Commonwealth for all persons having the same level of income

Hi All,

Islam and Christianity are completely different faiths. We worship a different God.

Let me explain.

You see the point of separation is at the very beginning – back to Adam and Eve…

The two faiths view that episode differently. In Christianity we know that A&E disobeyed God therefore were justly punished by God – ending their intimate relationship in the Garden of Eden. Christians call that The Fall or Original Sin – meaning the separation of man from God.

So Sin entered the world with Adam who was once “sinless” when created by God – a necessary state for a relationship with God.

Because the God of The Bible is Holy; He detests “sin”. Sin and God cannot co-exist.

Not so with the God of Islam. Allah does not mind sin to co-exist with him. As a matter of fact the Qur’an states that Allah causes his subjects to sin; He is the source of sin.

In the Qur’an Muslims are told that they will enter paradise with their sins. (And we all know the depiction of paradise in the Qur’an).

In the Qur’an, the A&E episode has been conveniently and utterly transformed to do away with the concept of Original Sin and the need for a Redeemer, Jesus.

In the Qur’an A&E have been pardoned by Allah. (No need for Jesus)

Unlike the God of the Bible who guarantees salvation in His Son Jesus – Allah is uncommitted to save his people. No guarantee of salvation in Islam (or any other faith system).

No salvation outside Jesus.

Jesus is also dubbed the second Adam. As sin entered the world with the first Adam ; the way out is provided by the second Adam, Jesus. Even though Jesus was not created like Adam – being Himself God The Son – He was born without sin "Holy".

Christianity and Islam are two parallel faiths. One is true, the other must be false. They cannot both be true.

Even though Islam makes it look like they are both similar. The differences are enormous and vastly outweigh the similarities.

A very interesting insight into the development process that preceded the finalization of the Constitution Mr Schorel-Hlavka.

Presumably, despite Mr Barton's contention in this particular exchange, his position was not accepted. Otherwise, they would surely have inserted clauses into the final document that supported the point made during the 1898 debate.

In default of this, the comment remains an expression of intent only. After all, if we took every statement that politicians make on the floor of the House as having standing in law, there wouldn't need to be a written constitution at all. It would be anarchy.

Nevertheless, an interesting observation, if only to point out the value of precision in legal documents.

And coach, you do come out with some ridiculous claims.

>>Christianity and Islam are two parallel faiths. One is true, the other must be false. They cannot both be true<<

This is not supported by logic. It is like saying that Boeuf en Croute and Boeuf Bourguignon are parallel dishes, only one of which can be "true".

Even if you had the same dish prepared by different chefs (which would be an even closer analogy), there is no basis for describing one as true and the other false.

Christianity and Islam are two preparations of the same dish - monotheistic religion. The fact that you believe in one and not the other does not automatically make the other false.

In fact, since you are (I suspect) a mere mortal, you are as fallible as any other mortal in your judgement of what is "true" and "false".

Wouldn't you agree?

Pericles,

I value your response and it is true a lot is stated by members of parliament and they are overruled. Likewise by judges who are defeated in their decisions by a majority, however, what Edmund Barton was making clear was that even without Section 116 there was a total prohibition upon the parliament to make any kind of legislation in regard of religion. The reason Section 116 was inserted was because of the Preamble being amended then to insert a reference to the Almighty, and certain Delegates held this to be very dangerous as it might purport that the entire Constitution therefore was on a religious basis, hence Section 116 was inserted to make it abundantly clear that there was absolutely no power to legislate upon religious basis.
However, section 116 can be ignored altogether as without it the Parliament lacks the power to legislate as to religion as none of the powers existing in the Constitution permits it to do so.
Still, by hindsight it was better they did put in Section 116 as with the WorkChoices legislation it shows that the parliament will engineer any backdoor way to try to get legislative power where it has none.
The quotation that I provided merely was a direct king-hit, so to say, as in regard of religious funding, and as the USA courts made clear many Churches used the religious school funding for Churches and hence unconstitutional to provide such funding, but ample of other material is on records regarding it.
One of my books, INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation, due to be published in the next few days, sets out what the Framers of the Constitution stated about Industrial Relations but that the High Court of Australia kept out of its judgment as otherwise it would have defeated its judgment.
To me, if it aint constitutionally permissible then the People (by way of referendum) and not the Courts should have the final say if the Constitution should be amended!
My blog at http://au.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH. and my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com

Pericles,

To an atheist of course it’s all the same. Monotheism, Polytheism, belief in anything or anyone is fine – as long as they don't impose it on others. All religions lead to the same delusional end.

So what difference would it make if one ate at MacDonald’s tomorrow or had French cuisine? It’s all a beef feed ... is what I hear you say in your analogy.

Comparing Christianity with Islam is not like comparing same with same. It is more like trying to compare apples with stones (not oranges).

Only a belief in (the real) Jesus (Christianity) is guarantee of “salvation”. No other religion can claim to do the same.

The test of any religion is who they say Jesus is or is not.

Islam mentions Jesus but portrays him as a mere prophet, impotent of salvation. Islam denies Jesus’ saving power.

BTW Islam has a different concept of sin, God, prayer, humanity, freedom, gender equality, heaven, hell … From beginning to end it is different to Christianity.

But Islam presents itself as the last revelation from God, a better, more true, more precise. And that is the danger facing those who believe it.

To us believers, “knowing the truth” is literally a matter of life and death. Catching the right train (religion) to eternity is critical to get there.

Life beyond the grave is real. The Bible proves it. Jesus proves it. The martyrs who witnessed his resurrection proved it; preferring horrible death then renouncing what they knew was the truth. And they still do.

Back to my point. When (not if) one thing is true, any contrary notion must be not true, simply false, a counterfeit – not also true like you suggest.

Not believing or mocking both cannot make both true, or both untrue.

But don't worry my dear friend who is a sinner like the rest of us, in dire need of salvation – but fully denying it – enjoy the rest of your time on earth... like muslims that's all you will ever have.

Coach,

You Quote:
“In the Qur’an Muslims are told that they will enter paradise with their sins”
So obviously you don’t understand or ever studied Islam. Your statement is incorrect, a Muslim can’t go to heaven until he/ she genuinely repent all their sins (not keep redoing them and repent on weekends), their debt is cleared and any wrong doing against others are corrected. In our faith a believer can only enter heaven once he paid all his debts (frowning upon someone is a debt as per).

True and false statements apply to mathematics but not in the spiritual world. As Pericles said, its like saying apples and oranges each have its admirers.

You also quoted:
"Islam mentions Jesus as a mere prophet"

a. In Islam all prophets are 'mere mortals' including Mohamed pbuh.
Jesus is mentioned in the Quran 33 times while Mohamed (pbut) only 4 times. There is a wisdom there for us, Muslims, that all prophets are just 'messengers'no holiness to any of them.

b. If you actually read the Bible çarefully Jesus refers to himself as a prophet and all his followers and entourage treat him as such.
Jesus divinity is 4th century philosophised theology. This is why you have Christian unitarians: those who read the bible and didnot conclude that Jesus = God.

Peace,

Pericles,

<< This is not supported by logic >>

Perhaps only with your twisted sense of logic can anyone connects a comparison between two religions with two dishes. And then argue there is no such thing as a dish being "true" or "false".

You blankly assert Christianity and Islam are the same to begin with, then say that one cannot be "true" whilst the other "false".
What kind of circular logic is this?

Muhammad cleverly borrowed from Judaism and Christianity, to establish some CREDIBILITY, in order to LEGITIMIZE Islam.

Of course, Fellow_Human is more than happy to continue the legacy of his Muhammad, to jump in and support your view.

He is playing his part here, to give the impression Jesus is one of Islam's own. Does he care whether you have a warped sense of logic?

Part 1
“Life beyond the grave is real. The Bible proves it. Jesus proves it.”
Posted by coach, Friday, 27 April 2007 8:32:41 PM

OK some 30 odd years ago my father-in-law told me that he had seen many dead people during WWII and to him I was dead! (After an industrial accident)
Well, whatever happened I am still alive and I might have looked death but darn I could not resist to live real life a bit longer. More then the length I had lived then so far.

I didn’t see any pearly gates! I didn’t see any angles. So, while for others I appeared to be dead, to me I never saw anything.
To my father-in-law I had a resurrection but to me it was simply that I was kicking on and while the fat lady might have been singing it certainly was not my time, at least I held so.
If life beyond the grave is real, is that meaning that I was resurrected and have a life as such?
As to “The Bible proves it”, so far I known there were those people at the time, or some hundreds of years later who were basically playing bingo with scripts and decided what was in and what was out. Like anything that portrayed Judas to be les then the evil traitor seemed not suitable for inclusion. Now, that is like the unsworn affidavit of a witness that is withdrawn the moment any reliable evidence is presented that counteract what was alleged.
“Jesus proves it”, well I could not have been closer to death then I was, as otherwise it would have been a permanent departure, yet, I have neither seen Jesus in real life on earth or in the death I was about to face

A Malaysian Hindu, born of Muslim parents, was taken by force from her husband and her 15-month-old baby girl by the Islamic religious police. She has already been detained for 100 days after being charged with the apostasy of ‘deserting’ Islam. Recently, her detention has been extended by another 80 days.
http://forums.techarp.com/showthread.php?p=306333

The plight of the woman was highlighted by Al Jazeera, the Arabic News Satellite Channel. http://www.malaysiakini.tv/mkini/?vid=1058

It is unfortunate that there are many in OLO who think that Islam does not use force and violence to achieve its aims. Either they are Muslims or are totally ignorant of the havoc caused by Islam in the world.

ISLAM 101
The following website is a good place to learn about Islam from ex-Muslims who are very knowledgeable about the Koran and Islamic practices.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/

Philip Tang: If you're referring to Fellow Human, I don't think he believes Muslims don't [ever] use force etc. He's saying, I think, that the Qur'an doesn't require them to - or, at least, that the Qur'an also permits a more peaceful way of going about things. I am yet to read the Qur'an, so I don't know how much or how little of peace is to be found in it.

Fellow Human: You're not seriously trying to say that a belief in the divinity of Jesus is NOT at the core of Xianity, are you? This is a hopeless cause. The fact that the doctrine of the Trinity evolved or that unitarians have existed or exist now doesn't alter the fact that virtually all Xians alive today are full-blown Jesus enthusiasts and Trinitarians. We believe that Jesus claimed to be divine (I'll elaborate on the claims if you want me to) and demonstrated it at least to our satisfaction. I think belief in his resurrection was around at a very early stage: at the very least, Paul's letters are full of it, and it seems that he is reminding his readers of what they knew already.

Mind you, the belief in the Trinity would have been strange to people (the early Xians) who had been either monotheists or polytheists, so it's not surprising that it developed in a very untidy way that led to confusion, conflict and the need for doctrinal "settling".

My impression is that you're trying to remove obstacles that block Muslims and Xians from getting along better, is that right? (In that, we agree.) If so, then informing Xians about Xianity won't help any more than when we try to inform you about Islam. We'll need to get along better even though our concept of God is different. I think we have exchanged views already about reasons why Muslims might treat people of the Book well, and the love commandment at my end. This is enough, don't you think? And the modern wave of strident atheism gives us a common adversary.

Your opinion is well known, coach.

>>Comparing Christianity with Islam is not like comparing same with same. It is more like trying to compare apples with stones (not oranges)<<

Unfortunately the only justification you can dredge up to support this is your own faith. Believing in something only makes it "true" for you, not for the rest of mankind.

Your arguments are entirely circular.

>>Only a belief in (the real) Jesus (Christianity) is guarantee of “salvation”<<
>>The test of any religion is who they say Jesus is or is not<<
>>Life beyond the grave is real. The Bible proves it. Jesus proves it<<

These statements only make sense to someone who already believes in them, so have absolutely no value or meaning to one who doesn't.

>>When (not if) one thing is true, any contrary notion must be not true, simply false, a counterfeit<<

It is true that I enjoy Boeuf en Croute. It is also true that my wife doesn't, being a vegetarian.

It is also true that I enjoy Boeuf Bourguignon. Strangely my wife doesn't.

She sees my statement that I can enjoy both dishes as nonsensical, but it doesn't make them any less true.

It is true (I assume) that you are a Christian. That also means that you are religious, in the same way that my wife is vegetarian.

I am not a Christian, nor am I religious. In the same way that I am carnivorous.

None of my arguments (beef is a natural source of iron etc.) makes any sense to you, in the same way that none of yours (killing animals for food is barbaric etc.) can get through to me.

To me, you are all arguing about something you believe in (Christianity, vegetarianism) which is fine. But to draw a distinction between two recipes on the basis of "true" or "false" does not fall into any category of logical argument that I am aware of.

My wife and I get along fine, because she never nags me about eating meat and I never tease her about being preternaturally fussy in restaurants.

Mr Gerrit,

Resuscitation by medical interventions is not “resurrection” – a re-constitution of the dead with a new eternal physical body.

Fellow_Human,

"Sin and Paradise".

The doctrines of Islam are different “by necessity”. Paradise is conveniently accessible as a reward only to Muslims.

Hell in Islam is reserved for non-Muslims. A theme repeated ad nauseum in the Qur’an.

According to the Qur’an ALL go to hell FIRST. Some will remain there for ever, but Muslims* will have their sojourn reduced according to many factors:–

*Note: Future Islamic terrorist, the following doesn't concern you. Jihad is your one-way ticket to paradise, blow yourself straight to paradise do not pass hell, do not pay your parking fines.

Much like the “Purgatory” invented by the Catholic Church centuries ago, Islam has a second-chance entry pass:

Repeating the shahada (I believe in Allah and his prophet) i.e. a last-minute-under-duress conversion.

Some will have angels usher them in (intercession).

Some will walk on a sharp wire above the fires of hell. Those who succeed win immunity for the big weigh-in: Allah's scale for goodness against badness.

If you pass all these (and other) hurdles, Allah can still change his capricious mind and drop you in hell.

So tell me Saint FH, according to your religion, who can have a 100% guarantee? Do you fell lucky (I won’t say 'punk')?

Not even your prophet could be sure. How ridiculous is that!

Islam's understanding of Sin and Paradise makes a mockery of God and Jesus.

One Example: In Christianity (and all modern societies) Polygamy is a Sin, it is called Adultery and Fornication. Inadmissible in heaven or on earth.

Not so in Islam.

Allah allows fornication, drunkenness, paedophilia, incest, and all debaucheries in his paradise (for men only mind you – women will still be slaves to men).

Admit it FH we are all sinners unworthy to meet God’s standards. Only the blood of Jesus can make us acceptable to God. Not laws and rituals.

Paradise cannot be God's heaven. Islam is a dead-end religion.

F_H: You are either totally ignorant, a fool, or you are practicing the deceitful moslem taqiyya which is called what it is in Christianity - lying. You/moslems may believe that Jesus is the son of Mary but do you see him as a descendant of King David of Israel? do you see Him as the very Son of God?
Heh! I agree with you that the trinity is false.
Older versions of the Bible? - a nonsensical term as there is only one version of the Christian Bible and the book of Barnabas is not included.
islamic pagan theology has NEVER been, NEVER will be nor can it be identical with pre-trinity or post trinity or no trinity Christianity. As well you do not believe nor worship who I termed 'The Father' you worship allah or hudna the moon god of mecca (err have a look at the islamic flag and what do you see - that's right a crescent moon - well done lad!)This hudna was/is the pagan or false god of a once obscure arabian tribe.
To finish pagan islam has nothing at all in common with Christianity although you moslems in your craving for acceptance will continue to believe the lie that it has- you are so insecure. regards, numbat

Goodthief,

You asked:
“You're not seriously trying to say that a belief in the divinity of Jesus is NOT at the core of Xianity”

What I am saying is that Jesus (pbuh) spiritual teachings is the core of Christianity not who he is. The character and divinity of Jesus has always been a debatable topic among Christians.
tacter the divinity of Jesus has always been a debatable philosophy among different sects of Christianity. What units all Christians is Jesus (pbuh) loving, tolerant and human teachings not what Jesus is.

Numbat,

“Jesus son of Mary but do you see him as a descendant of King David of Israel? do you see Him as the very Son of God?”
The position above is a conflict between the definition of the saviour in the OT and the NT and got nothing to with Islam. There is no place is Islamic theology for the concept of a saviour (neither the human prophet king as the OT, nor the spiritual Son of God as per the NT).

Btw, the point you raised is interesting because the OT describes the saviour as a desendant of King David and a human prophet king. For Jesus to match these descriptions you have to give up the virgin birth (since Mary was an Imron and not a descendant of King David). So do you see Jesus as per the NT or the OT?
PS: Allah is the name of God in the Arabic bible as well. Ask the disgruntled Arab Christian on this forum: coachy boy.

Coach,

I was wondering what is Coach reading that approves fornication, drunkenness, paedophilia, incest, etc..and it just dawned on me: the story of Lot in the bible.
PS: why is there 50,000 polygamy cases in one state alone in the US (South Dakota) where your christian brothers claim they can marry up to 12 women? Isn't it one bible as Numbat claims?

Salam/ Peace,

“Hilali should have been dismissed from his position a long time ago…” is a decision solely for the faithfuls of Islam to make.

The truth is that Halili is expounding the Islamic scriptures in everyday language. Halili has been true to the words of his prophet and the Imans that make up the council know that. So if the decision were made that Halili has to go (and go now), it implies that the Imans are admitting that Islam and secular democracy are mutually exclusive.

Further, it begs the question, “Can Muslims ever live in a secular democratic society where one has the right to choose one’s religion?” The answer is an emphatic NO, because Muslims are obligated to put to death anyone who leaves Islam. Therefore, it means that if Halili is not suitable for secular Australia, so are faithful Muslims not suitable. If Halili has to go, so must they.

Unless the Australian Muslims appoint Ibn Warraq as the chief mufti of Australia, it is difficult to see how Muslims are ever going to integrate into a modern, secular and democratic Australia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXGz7QVq4sA
http://www.secularislam.org/blog/SI_Blog.php

Fellow Human, There are many people in the West who are the kind of Xian you mean: they admire Jesus very much, the way he lived, and what he said - esp the Sermon on the Mount (esp the Beatitudes - "Blessed are the peacemakers etc"). But, they don't believe Jesus is divine, and many of them don't believe in God at all. And not many of them go to church. Yet, they call themselves Xians. These are not who I mean by "Xians".

Generally speaking, people who attend a Xian church (who do it from choice, I mean) believe in the divinity of Jesus, and believe that this fact is critical. If we didn't believe it, we would be a sect of Judaism. We believe Jesus claimed to be divine, that he demonstrated miraculous power, was resurrected etc. Our belief is reinforced by our ongoing personal experience of Jesus. I'm not asking you to accept that we're right - ie that Jesus is the Son of God - but just accept that this is, generally speaking, what we believe.

At 9.47 last night, you mentioned that Muslims must repent and clear the debt of sin before being admitted to heaven. Xians typically believe that we individuals are not competent to clear this debt: it is just too great. So, the pound of flesh is taken from Jesus who stands in our place at the moment of judgement. He can take it, we say, because he is the Son of God (and, of course, because he is ludicrously loving).

This leads me to a question: how to you, as a Muslim, clear the debt? I ask because I don't know.

Someone has to ask, goodthief, so it might as well be me.

What's with this "Xian" stuff?

I assume it has the same connotation as Xmas has to Christmas, but surely that makes it slightly off-colour? I thought at first it was your version of Kieran's "teddy", but it seems that it is just a verbal tic.

Just thought I'd let you know that I find it just a little too twee.

Philip Tang asks:

>>Further, it begs the question, “Can Muslims ever live in a secular democratic society where one has the right to choose one’s religion?”<<

A: Turkey

And as for you, coach, I notice that you have studiously ignored my previous post, where I pointed out to you that "truth" in the context of religion is a choice, not an absolute.

Of course, it is entirely up to you whether you choose to respond or pretend that you are deaf.

But it has to undermine your own position, if you respond only to the straw men of your own manufacture, and avoid taking on a straightforward challenge to your claim that there can be only one "true religion".

I notice also, coach, that you make a big issue over the existence, constitution and rules of engagement of hell/heaven/paradise/purgatory.

Tell us please, what are these? Do they exist, in the sense that we exist? Or are they perhaps metaphysical constructs, that we can imagine and change at will? Or perhaps they are simply metaphors, illustrating the benefits of a good life and the pitfalls of a bad one?

Answers on a postcard please.

Or feel free to ignore this also, if it disturbs you.

Part 2
Basically, I had the real experiences and didn’t like the darkness, not even any hell fire to light up the place, and so it was not attractive enough to me and I for one cannot make out how on earth anyone could have a life after death in such darkness, unless they happen to have a power strike or so on that it was so dark. Then again, perhaps they had a blackout deliberately to make it unattractive for me to stay over that side and so convinced me to better stay on the brighter side of life. So whatever any religion portrays in the after life, was all black to me and if the afterlife in continuation of my normal life then I better make now the best of it while I can.
How on earth “Jesus proves it”, when you can only imagine him, is also beyond me.

QUOTE
Mr Gerrit,

Resuscitation by medical interventions is not “resurrection” – a re-constitution of the dead with a new eternal physical body.
END QUOTE
Posted by coach, Saturday, 28 April 2007 11:13:52 AM

Well that would be true about resusitation if it wasn't for that I was told (afterwards) that I was lying there as a corps, no medical aid was provided as it was held I was dead, albeit an ambulance was called, but then before it (finally) arrived they discovered I had suddenly stood up got a taxi and went to a doctor, as such I was gone.
As such no medical intervention occurred! It certainly wasn’t a medical intervention but more that I, so to say, must have tossed a coin and got the living part on it. the workers since then used to joke that I had arisen from the dead.
I was happy enough to stick to the body I had been using for so long!

Pericles,
my wife and I have precisely the same understanding about religion and restaurants.
A trade off, she takes me to exclusive restaurants and I take her to McDonalds. And Churches versus walking along the creek!

Hi Goodthief,

Many followers of Christianity that I know attend churches and don't believe in his divinity. They call themselves Christians as well because they believe in Jesus teachings. I don't judge.

Answering your last question, to repent in Islamic faith a person have to:

1. Stop commiting that sin.
2. Truly regret it and have/show remorese.
3. Have a firm resolve never to repeat it again.
4. If it relates to the rights of another person, then to Return the rights or property one wrongly took.

Peace,

Oh... really?

All you dummies, here's the simple guide to entering paradise that you have been waiting for.

- - - - - - -

( A mountain of teachings not based on the truth, is nothing but futile )

MrGerrit,

So you were dead and then you got better. What’s the big deal?
Get over it. God isn't finished with you yet.

Pericles,

Sorry – didn’t mean to hang up on you.

You say:
>> These-statements-only-make-sense-to-someone-who-already-believes-in-them, so-have-absolutely-no-value-or-meaning-to-one-who-doesn't.<<

Absolutely – that’s why you can’t philosophy your way around “faith”.

Answer to some of your statements:

>>It-is-true-(I assume)-that-you-are-a-Christian.<< A:TRUE

>> That-also-means-that-you-are-religious,...<< A:FALSE

>> ...in-the-same-way-that-my-wife-is-vegetarian.<< A:huh?

>> To-me, you-are-all-arguing-about-something-you-believe-in<<

A:You’re right, meanwhile let’s exchange recipes.

>> My-wife-and-I-get-along-fine,-because-she-never-nags-me<<

A:I don’t blame her, I can see why...

As for:
>>Further, it-begs-the-question, “Can-Muslims-ever-live-in-a-secular-democratic-society-where-one-has-the-right-to-choose-one’s-religion?”<<

To which you come up with: >>A:Turkey<<

Have you been following the news lately re: killing of Christian in publishing house? It seems Iraq wants to follow suit and eliminate all Christians.

As for
>>… existence,-constitution-and-rules-of-engagement-of-hell/heaven/paradise/purgatory<<

Faith is at the base of my answer. I have no problem believing the author of the Bible because everything else in it is true why would I doubt some things over other things?

Except for purgatory and paradise (constructs of the Catholic and Islamic religions), Heaven and Hell are real places. The closest we can know about heaven is the terrestrial Eden which is today Iraq.

Interesting how humans make a mess of God’s creation...

Fellow_Human,

Shalom,

You said:

>>What-unites-all-Christians-is-Jesus-(pbuh)-loving,tolerant-and-human-teachings-not-what-Jesus-is.<<

According to this, Christians can also worship the Dalai Lama, Ghandi, or Buddha. Common man think before you write stuff like that.

>>There-is-no-place-is-Islamic-theology-for-the-concept-of-a-saviour(neither-the-human-prophet-king-as-the-OT,-nor-the-spiritual-Son-of-God-as-per-the-NT).<<

Amen – exactly what I was saying. Take Jesus "out" all you get is a man-made-religion - in mohammad's case; Islam.

Also…
>>the-OT-describes-the-saviour-as-a-desendant-of-King-David-and-a-human-prophet-king. For-Jesus-to-match-these-descriptions-you-have-to-give-up-the-virgin-birth<<

Bingo! A further proof that Jesus pre-existed Adam – being in everything God, He created all things, including King David. DNA tests would prove inconclusive. It’s a divine blood that was shed on the cross.

"Polygamy in Utah USA"

Sorry you miss again. Mormonism is a cult - not Christian. Please try again.

As for:

>>Allah-is-the-name-of-God-in-the-Arabic-bible<<

Only after Arabic became the official (Islamic) language of Arabia. Before Mohammad conquests Greek, and/or Hebrew were the official texts.

The issue is that I went as far as I could and all this talk about another life after death and a lot more they are teaching in churches, religious schools, etc, none of it was noticed by me.

So, let everyone have the right to have their kind of religion but to me let them not bother me with their kind of religion.

Let everyone practice their kind of religion but let them not bother to bother me with their religious practices.

Now, if anyone conducts themselves as such, then it doesn't make any difference to me what kind, if any, religion a person wants to belong to as after all they keep it for themselves.

It is when, so to say, they are trying to shove it down the throat of others that we have conflicts and serious problems arising from it.

To me, what a person's nationality, religion and/or colour of skin might be is not relevant, as they are human beings and have every right to be respected as such.
Fanatics and religious zealots can be found in any religion and we never should condemn a religion for those who are conducting themselves in such absurd manner.

To me, any person of any religion who takes a position to be better then a person of another religion has a mental problem, not recognising that religion is a mental state every person has a right upon if he/she so desires and not to be subjected to what another person of another religion may approve of. And if the religious practices of any person causes offences against the rule of law then we simply leave it up to the relevant Authorities to deal with it in the appropriate manner.

If we all were to respect the rights of others, as we want them to respect our rights then we might all get better along and a lot of upheavel could be avoided.
Then again, all the posting about religion may then not likely have occurred either.

Pericles, Turkey is secular by its constitution but is fast becoming Islamic. The article “Less Europe, More Islam” speaks of how religious Muslims attack young girls who wear bikini and couples who drink beer in the park. (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,446163,00.html). So Turkey is secular in theory but being 99.9% Muslims, secular Muslims can’t pursue their life-style and Christians are periodically being killed.

About 2 million Christians were killed by the Muslims in Turkey at the turn of the early 20th century (1915 to 1918) before secularism was officially adopted.
http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=ft7n39p1dn&chunk.id=s1.4.4&toc.id=ch04&brand=eschol

In case one thinks that the conflict is between Muslims and Judeo-Christian, you are welcome to read a website dedicated to the slaughter of Hindus by Muslims including how 3 million were killed in Bangladesh by Muslims as recently as 1971.
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/index.html

It’s time to put a stop to world terrorism viz, Islam and all it stands for -- jihad and Shariah law

And how would you propose to do that, Philip?

Ban Islam? Declare war on it?

Get real.

CJ Morgan: No, but do you have some other plan that will work?

Pericles: Yes, it’s Xian as in Xmas. It isn’t off-colour that I know of, but just a convenient abbreviation. ‘X’ is the capitalised form of the first letter of the New Testament Greek word for Christ. You might have seen it, in Roman Catholic circles, combined with ‘P’, the second letter, into a composite symbol. Sorry it seems twee.

Boaz, I accept the private/public distinction, thank you. My hope is that the two are connected, so that progress (if any) in the private sphere, incl the interfaith discussions, will spread to the public. I’m pretty open-minded about the result – I mean, as ready for the worst (EG being suckered into the semblance of progress in one sphere, while wild public agendas are pursued elsewhere) as for the best (real peace, despite disagreement). We’ll see, eh?

Fellow Human, I’m aware that many Xians, and many Xian churches, esp those with a social justice emphasis, will focus attention on the way Jesus lived his life – his ethos. And they will say that Xianity has, in its exclusive focus on the death and resurrection, overlooked this incredibly important stuff. However, this is not to say they reject the resurrection, or Jesus’ divinity, they just don’t talk about it much.

The big Xian churches rely on the Nicene Creed as the basic formulation of their faith. It states that Jesus is God. No matter how we haggle here about the history of the development this doctrine, the doctrine exists and governs the majority of Xians. If you want to talk to so-called Xians who don’t believe in Jesus’ divinity, then you are talking to the margin. Perhaps they are fodder for Islam, but Xians generally are not. Jesus is a problem in any discussion of this kind.

But, not the kind of problem that has to kill the discussion dead. We can have peace without consensus. This isn't too secular for your taste, is it?

I don’t find your “debt clearing” very convincing. Repentance I understand and recognise, and clearing the debt may be possible when there is someone to whom to return property. However, what if you take a limb from someone, or a life? Or mess with their wife? Or lie? And what about wrongs that have no victim: Islam is as concerned about chastity as Christianity is and much of this is “private”, with no victim to repay. Who is the victim of one’s immodesty? Or of one’s malevolent thoughts? How is the debt cleared then? And what of the offence to God? Does repentance suffice for God? If so, then why do we owe humans even more, namely, the substantial clearing of the debt?

That's a handful, isn't it? Take your time.

CJM, a way to stop islamic extremism.

99% of Muslims are born into a Muslim family. 99.9% of these Muslims do not want to be accused by their fellow Muslims as being a bad Muslim. So they would conform irrationally to the bigoted teachings of the Koran rather than risk being accused by the Islamists as bad Muslims.

One can’t blame a Muslim to be in a state of denial of their predicament because from a very young age they have been brain-washed by the Islamic cleric and threatened with hell-fire.

We can only admire those Muslims who can think rationally and have the courage to live a secular life-style and speak out against the barbaric and superstitious practices of Islamic extremism.

The best people to stop Islamic extremism are the bold Muslims who have made a stand against the jihadist. The likes of who are Ali Sani, Ibn Warraq, Tawfik Hamid, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji,Walid Phares, Wafa Sultan, etc. They would understand Islam better than any non-Muslim.

(1) There is a need to address the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Give back to the Palestinians some of the land forcibly taken from them. Restore Palestinian dignity by the creation of a Palestinian state based on a secularist constitution.

(2) Leave ‘God’ out of politics. Stop the mixing of religion and politics. Movements such as Zionism, Christian Zionism and political Islam should be carefully examined and de-politicized, if possible. Otherwise they should be declared as political systems and not admitted as religions.

(3) Support all secular authoritarian systems in Muslim-majority countries in putting down the Islamist. e,g. support the Turkish military to uphold secularism in Turkey, or support the Pakistan military in closing down madrassas linked to Islamic extremism.

Philip Tang,

I have been following your posts with interest.

You said:

>>It’s time to put a stop to world terrorism viz, Islam and all it stands for -- jihad and Shariah law<<

How can anything change in Islam when we see ALL Muslims following the acts, sayings and deeds of their beloved prophet, without questioning them, for fear of reprisals and/or superstition?

A growing minority become fanatical about their Qur’an and decide to act out their faith: jihad.

But for the majority Islam is not much more than a cultural thing. That does not mean of course that the so called secular or moderate Muslims do not agree with anti-western sentiments and are proud to expose their kids to jihadist materials.

Then in the next post you make some noble suggestions which unfortunately are all “western” ideologis, dare I say very “Bush-like” naivety.

Give them a taste of secularism and they will change. Nope!

I’m afraid I have to concur with the infamous words of Darryl Kerrigan of The Castle: “Tell him he's dreaming”.

In your own words you say:” One can’t blame a Muslim to be in a state of denial of their predicament…”

It is that predicament that is unstoppable. Islam has always fought change and adaptation. Muslims are torn between seventh century nomadic culture and modern civilization.

As for your three points

1) Fixing the Palestinian/Israeli conflict
2) Leave God out of politics
3) Support secularism – fight Islamism

A good example is Egypt back in the 70’s. Sadat payed with his own life trying to achieve those goals. He even went as far as making peace with Israel.

The current Mubarak regime is still keeping fanatics at bay, and even though there is an open border between the two countries today, the sound of the rumbling Islamic volcano is still shacking the Egyptian establishment.

The brotherhood (origin of Al-kaida) is being eying governance since Islam lost it in 1924. Give them have half a chance to a “successful” coup d’etat and it's: out with modernism and in with full blown Islam.

Solutions anyone?

Goodthief,

I think the forum is not the right place. Happy for you to email me
on viewsexchange@gmail.com. Its my personal email address.

Coach, PhilipTang,

The solution to terrorism comes from the Muslim world as Coach correct analysis: that is for muslim countries and peaceful majority to eradicate the militant brand.
Similar to the british model with the IRA, they separated the movement from faith. So we need to think of how to separate Militants Islamist from Islam so Muslim communities start taking their responsibility as a first line of defense.
Thoughts?

coach, I'm pleased to see that you have stopped the online equivalent of frothing at the mouth (placing-a-hyphen-between-each-word-to-fool-the-word-count).

It was very annoying. And it makes your posts even more difficult to understand than they already are.

But I finally deciphered at least a part of it.

You, it appears, claim to be Christian, but not religious. Since Christianity is, by definition, a religion, I am mystified how you can justify this highly convenient separation.

I say convenient, because using this denial as a shield, you can escape the comparison with other life choices such as vegetarianism.

But this, on the topic of heaven and hell, explains a great deal about your entire approach:

>>I have no problem believing the author of the Bible because everything else in it is true why would I doubt some things over other things?<<

Again, a highly convenient but ultimately meaningless claim. It absolves you from the need to explain anything difficult for us mere mortals to grasp, such as "what, exactly, are heaven, and hell?"

As a creationist, it is only natural that you believe in them. But since you are unable to explain them, how come you are such an authority on who will be let in and who will be excluded?

As I asked before, and will try without a great deal of hope to ask again...

Tell us please, what are heaven and hell? Do they exist, in the sense that we exist? Or are they merely metaphysical constructs, that we can imagine and change at will? Or are they simply metaphors, illustrating the benefits of a good life and the pitfalls of a bad one?

It's OK, I won't be holding my breath.

Pericles,

<< What are heaven and hell? >>

I am not speaking on behalf of Coach.
It is not often that my posts deviate from being antagonistic towards Islam.
But I did comment once very briefly on my belief of the existence of supernatural (spirit/soul).

I think most people make the same mistakes you do, posing questions for the purpose of refuting the answers.

I believe truly open-minded logical approach is to first exhaust your own answers, and then ask someone to challenge the basis of your reasonings.

For example: First, state your disbelief in the existence of heaven ( & hell) due to reasons X, Y, and Z.

Then others can comment on the validity of X, Y & Z.

What a very strange piece of logic, GZ.

>>I believe truly open-minded logical approach is to first exhaust your own answers, and then ask someone to challenge the basis of your reasonings. For example: First, state your disbelief in the existence of heaven ( & hell) due to reasons X, Y, and Z.<<

You know perfectly well that this is impossible. How can I provide reasons for not believing in something that has no attributes?

Under these rules, I can talk about the fairies at the bottom of my garden as if they were real, and when you ask what these fairies look like, I simply say "first give me three reasons why you don't believe in them".

How can that be sensible?

Proving a negative has always been a severe challenge, and this is no different.

If, however, you explained to me what heaven and hell look like, who manages the entrance exam for each, what part of me actually goes there, and then answered some common questions like is there really a guy in a red suit with a tail and a pitchfork, do I get my own harp or do I just draw one from central stores every day, how come all angels look so young 'cos I just know my grandmother is one and she was in her seventies when she popped her clogs, then I would be better equipped to measure all that information against my "check-reality" gauge and come up with some actual reasons.

Such as “that makes no sense.”

But without a clear description to work from, you could at any time say “that's not what I was talking about”, and walk away.

The issue here is that you freely use the concepts of heaven and hell to frighten the bejeezus out of young children and gullible adults, but back away at a rate of knots when asked to actually describe them. You use the fear of the unknown, and threats of non-specific torture or pleasure, and then have the sheer gall to ask me to justify my disbelief.

Good Grief!

Pericles,

<< What a very strange piece of logic >>

Not at all. I said you need to first exhaust YOUR OWN answers.
I did not suggest you must be able to prove anything, or even know anything.
It is certainly not about proving a negative.

I am simply suggesting a process, whereby first step is to lay out what you know. Next, let others tell you what you may not know. Then adjust your boundary of knowledge, if necessary. Then repeat the sequence over and over until a full picture is clear.

<< How can I provide reasons for not believing in something that has no attributes? >>

Shouldn't a defensive question of this nature be modified?

You obviously exhausted your knowledge about the attributes of heaven (as you know of none), the next question is simply asking someone to provide a list of heaven's attributes, which then you can challenge.

Rather than being purely defensive.

So, GZ Tan - I'm still interested in the whole Virgin Birth and Resurrection thing vis a vis the Gabriel and Mohammed thing you demanded of Muslims in another thread.

In your terms, what I know is that each is a central mythological construct which has no actual empirical evidence beyond their sacred mythological texts. To put it crudely, they are all equally imaginary events that people invented a long time ago.

OK - your turn now. What does GZ Tan know that can add to my understanding of the universal human predisposition to create and believe myths, and why should the Virgin Birth and Resurrection myths have any more credibility than those involving Mohammed's purported conversations with Gabriel?

Since you've previously pronounced me a "fool", I am clearly in need of enlightenment.

Can I join this discussion? Pericles, isn't your rationale the same as CJM's: ie "lack of empirical evidence"? If so, then haven't we simply unearthed the God debate that Richard Dawkins and others are involved in against the theists?

Actually I was surprised, Pericles, that you started with heaven and hell, as usually the topic starts with God. It mattters because it's very hard to speak about heaven and hell without God already "on the table": then, heaven becomes "Where God is", and hell "Where God ain't" (or something to that effect). If you receive a clearer description, I'll be glad to read it and be illuminated.

CJM: "lack of empirical evidence" is only a problem if you are an empiricist. You are then limited to what can be proved. I see it as an arbitrary limitation, and I don't subscribe to it.

I don't mean I don't trust my eyes. I do: "seeing is believing". But, I also believe "there is more to this than meets the eyes".

Pax,

The British government set the stage for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism when the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was set forth, leading to the formation of the state of Israel in 1948. In the process, countless numbers of Palestinians were driven away from their homes in a wave of massacres and killings carried out by Zionists and also the Israeli army.

Aided by the Western countries and especially the US, the Zionists could easily defeat the Arabs in any type of warfare. Christian Zionists, and Zionists alike, look into their scriptures and misinterpreted that ‘God’ would set up a Kingdom on earth with Jerusalem being the capital city.(This is one of the silliest theology I have ever come across. Why would God want a globally-warmed, polluted and sick earth when he can easily create a new one since he is God Almighty?).

Unable to find a lasting solution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, the Palestinians took refuge in the politico-religious system of Islam. This explains the irrational behaviour of the suicide bombers and, using the Koran as a manual for warfare proved to be disastrous for the Palestinians because in modern warfare, science, technology and rational thinking is vital for ultimate victory. Myths, legends gleaned from a holy book and shouts of ‘Allahu akbar’ will get them no where. This situation has been capitalised by the jihadist in their terrorism against the non-Muslim world, and the West in particular.

Therefore any solution to stopping the extremism of Islamists has to address the wider issue of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Zionists lobbying the US government, Christian Zionists and well-meaning Christians being taught bad theology (Whose land? Palestinian-israeli confict http://valiantfortruth.tripod.com/id21.html) have made the peace process almost impossible to achieve.

Part 1
The teaching is that on “judgment day” the dead will arise from the sea and we will all be called upon.
OK, lets see, all those who so far died in the last 2000 years all still have to face judgment day. Besides it going to be darn crowded it means none so far have gone to “hell”, as if they did already then they would not have to wait for “judgment day”.
Considering all those who died at sea, we better have drying facilities available as they all will be soaking wet when coming onto land. Are they all going to be sorted as to when they died, by age of dead, gender, etc?
Those dead for so long, what will they have been doing between time of dead and judgment day? Did they get a preview of “hell” only to found to have been wrongly sentenced? Gosh, it’s like the Court system, where people are wrongly convicted. Surely, GOD would manage to do better and know who is guilty or innocent and so why would he let someone wait for some 2,000 odd years to face “judgment date”?
Now, once there has been a judgment day, then no matter where you will end up it will be darn crowded. Once you dead you do not need to have any meals to feed the earthly body and as such beats having to wait in line at the kitchen if all those waiting for “judgment day” had to be fed.
So “X” killed “Z” but he repented and so goes to heaven, “Z” is also going to haven and there they have to spend the rest of eternity together with “Z” always being faced with the fact that “X” had raped her, tortured her to death. Gosh, “Z” might really look forwards to that, or perhaps not?
Isn’t GOD really a revengeful GOD, as after all he punish the parents by having the child being born, if at all, suffering of all kinds of illnesses, etc.

Part 2
Yes, I was told during religious classes this was to punish the parents for their wrong doings. Gosh, I must have been a darn good person to have all my 8 children healthy born and being healthy adults, and to think that GOD rewards the people doing good.

Looks like with me not practicing a religion GOD might just look better after me then those praying the whole day and getting no where. So, I enjoy my life and GOD is looking after me, but those who believe and practice they will be punished for their bad deeds being a child to die or have illnesses. Now, isn’t that the incentive not to practice religion and end up having the good and not the bad? Not even having to pay into the collection in church either!

There was this very Christian like incident in 1992 where my sister and our uncle (85) came over from Europe to visit us. He died two days later, and the local minister was not available. My sister was to pieces, so to say, and so a minister had to be hired from 200 kilometres away to conduct the funeral. Later the minister made clear there was nothing wrong he had not bothered to show up. Well, my sister then would have appreciated some religious comfort but none to be from him. Since then, I never again bothered to step foot in that church. Now, for the sake of my wife I accompany her but without hearing aids on I use my hearing aids as earplugs and so it doesn’t worry me to be there for the sake of my wife.
Everyone can have their “religion” but as this is to be a mental state of “belief” then why do those with religions try to shove it down the throat of others, I wonder? It is not religion that is at fault but those practicing it at the detriment of others.

Philip Tang,

There is a lot truth to your last comment.

Fellow_Human,

You're misreading my thoughts:

>>The solution to terrorism comes from the Muslim world as Coach correct analysis: that is for muslim countries and peaceful majority to eradicate the militant brand.<<

Islam cannot solve its own problems let alone “the world's” because at the heart of Islam is the ambiguous teachings of theQur’an.

Muslims “Xerox” the prophet Mohammed’s life.

Jihad – Holy War – is imposed on ALL Muslims (those who can't MUST support those who do).

Killing of non-muslims is commanded by Allah and vividly ennacted by Mohammad.

The “peaceful muslim majority” is a myth and you know it.

The Qur'an is the root cause of today’s world’s problems – and NOT just militant Islam (a few terrorists) like you’re trying to sell us.

Pericles,

Sorry about hyphenating – I was doing my bit saving the planet.

For most, the word Christianity gives the connotation of organised and ritualistic institutions. It was never Jesus’ intention to start such a man-made movement. His Church is his followers.

I prefer to call myself a disciple of Jesus, intimately related to our Father in heaven through the Holy Spirit.

Your lack of belief is a result of your convenient denial of God (also noted by GZ Tan) and your choice to live outside God's plan.

Further more what difference would it make to you what/where Heaven and Hell are. It’s like saying I won’t invest in a Cézanne because the artist failed to mention the chemical composition of the paint he used.

My belief (and therefore ‘authority’) in creation is both scientific and rational: cause and effect. Some “thing” must have caused the universe to exist. The order and perfection of such a universe tell me that that “thing” must be immensely superior to our collective intellect.

God is that “thing”. All other theories require faith.

The Bible, which opening line is: “In the beginning God created …”, the progressive revelation of God is spelt out to humanity using words, people, events, history, geography, etc,… very much like pieces of a puzzle each complementing the other.

No other book comes close.

CJMorgan,

It's not that bad- FH's a fool too, albeit a very well-mannered one.

You missed my point. My suggesting to Pericles does NOT imply I'm obligated to answer any question.

Perhaps I'm the wrong person to ask about Virgin Birth and Resurrection because I'm not preaching.

But since you started, let me mention some reasons Muhammad's Islam is hoax.

(1)...Muhammad believed in deception. Even Allah might directly deceive "hypocrites". It's most likely Muhammad too would deceive others when it helped.

(2)...Muhammad had benefits of "hindsights". He could cherry-pick from Judaism and Christianity to establish credibility in his conversations (like pretentiously talked about virgin Mary).

(3)...Muhammad "revealed" the Quran over more than 20 years. Why not a single proof of his encounters with divinity over so long? None independent witness; no lightning, thunder or miracle.

(4)...It was plenty of time (even for an illiterate) to cough out a volume of nonsense.
Time aplenty to manipulatively exclude unfavourable teachings (like resurrection of Jesus), and to craft out a "logical" theology for simple-minded people (like one Allah means one God, not three)

(5)...Irreconcilable differences with the religions he borrowed from

(6)...Muhammad's claims are like - one day a total stranger turns up to claim he is your lost son.
There were no prior prediction, prophesy about Muhammad's handiwork.
Muhammad was outsider to Jews, Christians.

(7)...No Jewish prophet had set out to establish a new religion. It's odd Muhammad (an Arab), came to claim a "working-relationship" with Jews and Christians.
Muhammad might as well had established Islam as a completely new religion (making no reference to virgin Mary or Jesus). But then Islam would not have survived, would it?

Not to mention "Satanic Verses" and Muhammad's history of killings and pedophilia.

If not for Muhammad, it's palpable that another cunning Arab boy "Dammahum" would have found "Malsi". Then perhaps FH is a devout "Milsum" today, reading holy scripture "Naruq" to learn about godhead "Halla". Hee...hee...

Your turn now to expand your claim that Virgin Birth, Resurrection and Muhammad's angel encounters "are all EQUALLY IMAGINARY events".

I'll see if I can help.

Coach,

Your version of Islam sounds a lot like Armageddon scenario. Don't confuse your faith with mine.

GZ Tan,

One comment from CJ Morgan managed to drop the masque of 'loggic and intellect' you have been wearing. He is asking you to apply your own logic of physical proof that you are using on others and bang: you are just another Armageddonite in the fellowship of the ring.

Please answer the question and while at it, please prove the rapture.
Glad we now know your true colours.

Peace,

GZ, it goes like this:

You assert there is a heaven.

I ask, what is heaven, because I have no knowledge of it.

You then explain the concept and its salient features to me.

Is that too complicated?

goodthief asks:

>>Pericles, isn't your rationale the same as CJM's: ie "lack of empirical evidence"?<<

I don't know. There may be tons of empirical evidence, for all I know. Once someone cares to explain it, I'll be more aware of the presence or lack of evidence.

>>usually the topic starts with God. It matters because it's very hard to speak about heaven and hell without God already "on the table": then, heaven becomes "Where God is", and hell "Where God ain't"<<

Please understand that in asking these questions, I am not looking for any form of proof. I am simply trying to discover what people who do believe in heaven, think it consists of. Asking the question again:

Do you believe that heaven and hell exist, in the sense that we exist? Or are they merely metaphysical constructs, that we can imagine and change at will? Or are they simply metaphors, illustrating the benefits of a good life and the pitfalls of a bad one?

And coach, I'm afraid this is tautologous.

>>Your lack of belief is a result of your convenient denial of God<<

The fact that I am unconvinced of the existence of God, and the fact that I lack any belief in God, are the same. One does not lead to the other. They exist in parallel.

Incidentally, what is “convenient” about it?

>>Further more what difference would it make to you what/where Heaven and Hell are<<

I'm interested. It doesn't make a difference to me in any sense other than I am curious about what makes people tick. And in the ideas that people have about life, the universe and everything.

>>Some “thing” must have caused the universe to exist... God is that “thing”. All other theories require faith.<<

I'm puzzled that you think that believing in God doesn't require faith. How does that work?

Pericles, On heaven and hell, you will get different answers from different people. I can start the ball rolling.

Basically, I believe heaven is what God had in mind for us when he made us. It’s a beautiful “place”, with nothing wrong or dangerous in it, and God is there. In the Eden story, Adam and Eve (after just eating the forbidden fruit and feeling very uneasy about it) “heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze, and they hid themselves ….” (Genesis ch 3, v 8) The way this reads to me, the sound of God in the garden was not unusual.

As a consequence of the “falling out” that occurs between humanity and God, we find ourselves in a very different place: it’s intrinsically dangerous, we are at each other’s tender mercies, we have a use-by date and God is less evident and harder to grasp. Fortunately, this is a temporary state of affairs. God has been at pains (Xians believe this literally) to restore the original, intended situation: good, lush, safe, intimate with God and with a breeze of an evening.

According to this description, heaven is the world as God originally intended it. Others believe it is where God himself ordinarily “resides”: after all, as we believe that the Creator and creation are distinct, there must be such a “place”. In either case, heaven is regarded as real – probably MORE REAL than what we have experienced to date – eg we will probably have bodies in heaven. Some call death an awakening, as though we are just dreaming now. In heaven, each of us is perfect – as originally intended. Of course, it’s a highly recommended destination.

Hell, I see as the consequence of a fully-considered rejection of God. Finally, we are given what we choose. It’s a place or a state where God isn’t. Perhaps Hell is simply not-heaven – say, dying and not waking up. I don’t know. I doubt that there are many people there.

Pax,

Thank you for providing a thoughtful response goodthief.

>>On heaven and hell, you will get different answers from different people<<

OK, that helps. This tells me that an understanding of heaven and hell is pretty much a matter of personal taste. This would explain why the Southern Baptist preacher, for example, appears to hold a very different position to that of yourself.

On the topic of hell, at least.

But if this is acceptable - i.e., there is and can be no single definition of these two places that hold such a key role in Christianity - we are still left with the question, can they possibly be "real", in the sense of time and place that we as earth-dwellers are aware of?

From your answer, I suspect not.

Your description of heaven is a most beguiling one, that is certain. Though to hang it on the existence of Adam and Eve as real people, as opposed to an allegory for innocence and harmony, does seem a little of a stretch. It requires a literalist approach to the bible, which is not the easiest proposition for most people to accept.

Would I be unfair in eliminating the "tangible" option, and concentrate instead on the metaphysical or metaphorical angles?

Pericles,

My approach may be different.

Heaven & hell is not even remotely a logical starting point for consideration. Not unless heaven & hell can be proven.

Question is, have you exhausted your own answers on how life had come about, for instance?

If so, shouldn't you allow your answers be challenged rather than jumping to cast doubts on heaven & hell?

FH,

I need clarifications on the claim that Virgin Birth, Resurrection and Muhammad's angel encounters "are all EQUALLY IMAGINARY events".
Even supposing they are all imaginary, I do not see how they are EQUALLY imaginary.

In any case, if Virgin Birth is a proven fact, Muhammad's tales remain problematic.
But because Muhammad (pretended) to believe in virgin Mary, so if Virgin Birth is only imaginary, then your Islam is a fraud twice over.

Continue your faith in Muhammad's hoax. Who can blame you?

GZ Tan,

I guess the question is:
Why did you deny your true beliefs if you believed they were real?

Why you keep challenging others hiding behind a mask of being logical and agnostic? while answering pericles with the brainwashee answer:
'there must be a proof but I am not a preacher'! SO the truth is written right there but we need to give you enough time to get the right priest? Give us a break.

Peace and have a lovely weekend, think of me and pericles when you are in sunday school with open jaws and wide staring eyes.

Adios Mr Hoax,

GZ Tan: "...if Virgin Birth is a proven fact"

Which of course it isn't. You can't prove it and nor can anybody else.

All you can do is believe in it - which would be quite OK if you weren't so obnoxious to anybody who doesn't share your screwy ideas and/or loopy version of rationality.

GZ, your approach most certainly is different.

>>Heaven & hell is not even remotely a logical starting point for consideration. Not unless heaven & hell can be proven<<

As I said before, I'm supremely unconcerned whether they can be proven or not. I haven't the slightest interest in discussing or analyzing proofs, simply in the concepts. I am asking, what is in your mind when you use the words.

goodthief understands the question, and had the courtesy to respond with his impressions - I certainly don't intend to ask him to "prove" that they exist in this form.

If you don't have any idea, then just say so. However, it would be good manners, if you don't have a clue what they represent, to avoid using them to threaten or cajole.

The reason I asked the question in the first place is that so many religious people bandy the terms around as if it is self-evident what they are, but when questioned about them, back off at a million miles an hour.

Much as you do.

>>Question is, have you exhausted your own answers on how life had come about, for instance?<<

Since when was this the issue? What relevance are my answers to the question of your impressions of heaven and hell?

And even if I were able to reach the end, and had gained a full understanding of life, the universe and everything, how exactly would this change your answer?

>>If so, shouldn't you allow your answers be challenged rather than jumping to cast doubts on heaven & hell?<<

I am not, watch my lips, "casting doubts" on heaven and hell.

I personally don't believe in either, but I can certainly accept that they exist as images in people's minds.

And I am interested in understanding those images, in order to have a better understanding of the forces that create them, and the uses to which they are put.

What are you afraid of?

Pericles, Some oddments arising from your last post to me.

Yes, a Southern Baptist might imagine heaven to be heavily populated: is this what you mean?

However, the fact that there are different ways of describing heaven (eg some will say Jesus brought heaven here, when he said “Behold, the kingdom of God is at hand”) doesn’t mean there isn’t one. It just means all the different descriptions can’t be equally true. It means –
1 one of the versions is true (but it’s hard to tell which one)
2 some other unstated version is true
3 or, of course, there’s no heaven at all and I have beguiled myself into a stupor.

Anyhow, the buffet of descriptions will not excuse you from eliminating the tangible option. Sorry not be more obliging.

It’s the same, of course, with God. Either God exists (bearing some description or other), or not. And with Jesus. Either he is the Son of God, or he is not.

These are REAL alternatives. There is personal taste (or belief) involved, but the beliefs are either true or not, so it is not MERELY personal taste. Is this clear, or unclear or uninteresting?

Incidentally, I don’t read Genesis literally. I think the world is extremely old, not a reproduction antique, and that evolution is almost certainly true. But I do read Genesis for maximum value. Simply put, I believe that the world is, and people are, AS THOUGH the Genesis account were literally true. For example, I believe God made the world/universe, but I don't know how he went about it.

Similarly I believe we humans are made in God’s image (via evolution), and that this fact along with God’s love for us is what makes humans worth loving. If I were an atheist humanist, limited to evolution, I would struggle to find a basis for saying we should love, or respect, or act justly towards humans. I would see humans as essentially just the latest chimp-upgrade, and I would be so conscious of differences that I would have no reason to be an egalitarian. Any comment?

We have it proposed that perhaps people in “heaven” will have bodies back. Well, I hate to think about people who were cripple to be back in “heaven” with the same problems they had on earth. Likewise, the blind, etc.

Then we have that somehow a person who commits murder but seek his GOD for forgiveness can end up in Heaven, and a non-believer (for better wording missing) who never committed any crime and spent his/her whole life dedicated to help those in need somehow then ends up in “Hell”

Then we have the issue that somehow “GOD” having created Adam and Eve found they did not fulfill his desire by eating the apple and so banned out of the Garden of Eve. Well, that would place GOD as an almighty bools-up GOD, who could not even manage to have his first creations to do the right thing, and as a vindictive GOD in that he now pursues mankind to suffer for his first creations.

Perhaps the real truth is that as in a dream, you can make up anything you belief and you have every right to do so, regardless if it is related to reality or not. However, do not try to dictate others to accept this notion of a perception as being a REALITY.

Let see, if any of my children were to do a bad thing to me then am I then forever in the day hold it against his/her children and further descendant? At least, that seems the logic used in the view that GOD seek to punish mankind for the purported wrongs by Adam and Eve.

The fact that biblical text is based upon what towns may have existed does not mean that therefore the bible text further is correct.
When I wrote my first book it was a crime/comedy book;
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® and the Secret of the Empire
Personalized crime/comedy novel on CD edition

Later the same book was republished with a board game.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® and the Secret of the Empire, GAME EDITION
Crime/comedy novel on CD edition

part 2

Both however having extensive maps as to what the story relies upon.
Only, I created the map afterwards and then inserted the names into the story line.
Others could likewise have done so in creating the different text of the bible, as after all some parts were written hundreds of years later, and without then having sound recording, etc, a lot was how a story teller was passing it on to others. And, we all know that exaggeration takes place as a story is told and retold many times over.

Dead Sea scrolls have appeared that question the version of text in the current Bible, and as such a lot is there left to be desired as to what is true or not.

GOD exist in the mind of those who desire to “belief’ in GOD and does not exist in those who do not “belief” in this GOD. However, those who do not belief in this “GOD” may or may not “belief” in the existence of another SUPERNATURAL being. Now we might come down to UFO’s and whatever perhaps?

Everyone has the right to “belief” whatever they desire and again, as long as they keep it for themselves and do not try, so to say, shove it down the throat of others then they have my “blessing”.

FH,

Gosh...when did I deny my true belief??
I mentioned you may regard me a "logical Christian" (whatever this means to you)
If you think I'm religious, spiritual church-goer, pray and talk to priests then perhaps I ought to laugh. You can't read me, can you?
I don't expect a religious guy like you to understand.

I do conclude that Christianity is (much) more logical than Islam.

And who suggested to prove Virgin Birth and Resurrection? I've hinted to CJ not to waste his breath. Whilst I believe Muhammad's claims are definitely hoax, I do not conclude this way about Virgin Birth & Resurrection.

After listing some reasons against Muhammand's claims, I'm still waiting for CJ's reasons for suggesting Virgin Birth & Resurrection are hoax, EQUALLY IMAGINARY as Muhammand's angel claims.

Now CJ tells me it's quite okay to admit it's a matter of belief. This is not the point. What good if they are equally hoax?

Pericles,

I don't understand the approach of asking about heaven & hell when it is religions that mention them. If one has a reason to believe in a religion, then I assume one tends to believe in that religion's version of heaven & hell. Therefore shouldn't you question religions rather than heaven & hell?
But does one believe in a religion because one has a preconceived ideas about heaven & hell? I wonder...
What about science? Don't people question science (and exhausted their scientific answers) before coming to a religion?

The above underlines why I wrote my previous posts the way I did.

Sure, Goodthief courteously, sincerely respond with his impressions. But does it matter? You don't believe him, do you?

I think you are insistent that heaven & hell exist only in people's minds, and are used as a threat. All that you do is nothing more than gathering answers from others to reinforce this preconceived idea.

I think your position could be one of prejudice. That's why I suggest you state your own reasonings for others to comment/challenge.

I should be the one asking: What are you afraid of ?

Mr Schorel-Hlavka, Can I call you Gerrit, please?

Perhaps I have not been clear:-

1) I do not read the Genesis story literally. I don’t believe Adam and Eve ever existed. I believe that each human has, at the deepest level, betrayed God in the way Adam and Eve do in the story.

2) If we have bodies in heaven, they will be perfect. I omitted to say this above. Heaven (if it exists) is perfect.

3) I don’t believe non-Christians automatically go to hell. I don’t expect there are many people in hell. This is because, as I said, God is at pains to gather people to him, to live in a perfectly loving situation forever. He doesn’t want anyone left out, but he relies on the individual’s consent.

4) I’m not dictating about the existence of heaven, or God. My point was that these are issues of fact, not merely “internal” matters. If God and heaven exist, then I was right and the atheist was wrong. If not, then the atheist was right and I was wrong. The problem for me is that God does not make his existence obvious (eg to a scientist). Of course the atheist would say, “Well, I think there is a very good reason for that”! Anyway, I was not intending to impoe my belief on anyone.

God’s incompetence at managing Eden is simply explained in terms of the freedom he designed into people. They chose (ie we choose) to disobey.

Regarding God’s apparent vindictiveness at banishing us here, these few points might help (please excuse the list format):

a) There was actually no banishment, because Eden is just a story.
b) For the same reason, we are not being punished for the wrong of Adam and Eve.
c) We don’t deserve a world that is any better than this one.
d) Most that is wrong with the world is man-made.
e) We’re not here very long.
f) God feels as bad about our situation as we do.

Pax,

Goodthief,

Your comments are informative and logical. Thanks,

GZ Tan,

Pericles questions was simply about you applying the logic you use on others to your own faith. That is to prove that whatever you believe in can be factual without referring to the bible. You kept coming back to the 'biblical facts' and priests. Which is OK I guess as long as you accept the same for others.

PS: explain to me what you mean by 'logical christian'ie does it mean you believe in the Nicene creed (325 AD) or the Constantinople creed (381 AD)?

Peace,

FH,Pericles,CJMorgan,

Sorry, I'm simply not involved in matters of faith to even appreciate a creed/doctrine.
Perhaps it's a problem being too logically inclined.

I'm only here to kick Islam.

I am somewhere between a "scientific christian" and a "virtual christian". So I thought other than "pseudo-christian", the description "logical christian" is most appropriate for me.

Perhaps if God strikes me with a lightning then I will become more spiritually inclined.

As for Virgin Birth and Resurrection, I do not believe they are illogical. In fact it would be odd if God (son of God) is not capable of a Resurrection. So question is whether Jesus is indeed God (son of God), NOT whether Virgin Birth and Resurrection are possible.

Ask me any specific question then I will think about it (logically) and tell you whether I believe or not. But of course most questions should be directed at practising christians.

Lastly, I was only making suggestions to Pericles to get out of this quagmire of asking questions only to refute the answers. It does not mean I will contribute to answering him.

GZ Tan,

You quote:
"I am only here to kick Islam"

What a purpose in life for a 'logical christian'as you claim to be.

Then you followed it with:

"I am somewhere between a "scientific christian" and a "virtual christian". So I thought other than "pseudo-christian", the description "logical christian" is most appropriate for me. As for Virgin Birth and Resurrection, I do not believe they are illogical. In fact it would be odd if God (son of God) is not capable of a Resurrection. So question is whether Jesus is indeed God (son of God)"

What substance do you smoke to come up with this irrational, illogical 'logic'?
Anyway, as long its your backyard keep stockpiling it. You got no credibility or respect from me from now on.

Goodthief,

I perceive from your posting that you may view that I made an attack upon you, this I did not do.
My statements were not to address any particular posting per se rather was intended to be general.

We have all our views and are entitled to that and we all contribute in the way we post to the debate, regardless if we agree or disagree with certain postings. Hence, I respect your posting as much as that of others, regardless if I do or do not agree with some.

The spirit of posting is that we all contribute our own views and by this kind of communication we all may respect each other more, regardless if we agree or disagree with each other.

Had I intended to make a frontal attack upon any specific posting I would have mentioned the identity of the poster.

Actually, I was a bit surprised that you seemed to view I criticized you, as I do not recall having your posting in mind when I wrote what I posted.

Going back over postings of others, as well as myself, about the issue raised by the federal government (at the time of the Tampa incident) that terrorist were entering Australia between the refugees in those boats. Also, just after the invasion into Iraq, how posters were claiming on 9-4-2003 that the war was now over and peace would be restored in days, and how I then already pointed out –as was later made known- that the Iraqi troops for some extend had been ordered, so to say, to go underground and become a resistance group.
Perhaps unbeknown to many the late President Saddam Hussein was a military strategist and he would have known all along he was going to be defeated in a military showdown, but could inflict far more harm by sending troops to fight as resistant fighters.

In years from now we might also realize that this Muslim-phobia as like the communist-phobia of the 1940’s will be laughable afterwards, but not for those who suffered because of it.

Time will tell.

FH,

Gee... you never sounded like an open-minded person would.

Do I need your respect? I certainly do not highly regard someone whose deficient mind is steeped in false theology of Muhammad.
I think our debates since "day 1" have shown your deficiency in logical reasonings.

All that paradise and teachings are nothing, you know. Think about it when you next pray in you Mosque.
Perhaps you'd shake in your boots too.

Also, from time to time I caused you to drop your masque of friendliness and good-mannerism. What's really behind that smiley mask, I always wondered, but I suspect it ain't pretty.

That website again to save yourself: http://www.faithfreedom.org

Gerit
"in years from now we might also realize that this Muslim-phobia as like the communist-phobia of the 1940’s will be laughable afterwards, but not for those who suffered because of it"

Or we might be like the Copts (of Egypt) , out numbered, out voted , out caste...!

Or the Serbs of Kosovo -kicked out!
Or the Bahai of Iran -hounded out!
Or the Greeks of Cyrus -run out!
Or the Christians of Lebanon -bearly holding out!

Mr Gerit- Over & out

Gerrit, I didn't feel personally criticised, much less attacked, but just saw a need to clarify. Besides, there were the new issues you raised about managerial incompetence and vindictiveness which someone in my camp needed to respond to.

This is probably my last post on this string. Attention is shifting further up.

Pax,

GZ Tan,

No you don’t need my respect all you need is self respect. You applied double standards with Pericles and CJ Morgan and mislead everyone with the agnostic logical mask’ just to throw stones on everyone while hiding your little glasshouse.
As for your personal attack on my manners, and after seeing how you interact and resort to name calling to others, I couldn’t have expected anything else from you.

Horus,

I will comment on the Egypt case as I know it and lived there.
Egypt has inexistent anti-discrimination laws and human rights conditions. The government and the system discriminates against everyone indiscriminately’ including Muslims, atheists, feminists, etc..

As for Greece, please remember most Muslim countries have Greek orthodox populations and churches since the Orthodox Church appeared. In fact, Egypt has an official national public holiday for Orthodox Christians where Muslims and christians celebrate. Until today, Greece does not allow its Muslim minorities a single mosque in the whole country.

FH,

When did you self-appoint to be a spokesperson for Pericles, CJ Morgan and everyone else?

You talk like Pericles, CJ Morgan are your stooges. Tell me, are they just pretending to be non-Muslims?

As for glasshouse, double standards and misleading everyone - I have never, and no one has ever mentioned those, except you.
So unless and until you substantiate your allegations by quoting from ANYTHING I have written, I shall pronouce you a deceiver.

As for manners, call me rude if you'd like. But I am consistently forthright and I do not have the slightest pretense.

Whereas someone outwardly "friendly" and "well-mannered" likes you have something "positive" to sell. Shouldn't I comment on good manners of a dodgy salesperson?

Are you not continuing the legacy of Muhammad's hoax ?

I have already provided a few reasons why Muhammad should not be believed. So Next time, please provide one proof of Muhammad's encounters with angels before telling anyone what a "true" Islam means.

Fellow_Human,
LOL – I had a feeling that my comment about Egypt would bring you out.

Re Egypt:
You’ve lived in Egypt –but you’ve lived as a member of the dominant class –the unchangeable religion.

While no doubt you can point to Uncle Toms (Uncle Ali’s) who will say life for Copts is heavenly.And you will no doubt point to their material success .We should know from Jewish history that –minorities can be very well educated –relatively rich –but still very much abused.

The real test: Copts almost without exception –when far enough out of the reach of intimidation & the danger of retribution will testify that their lot in Egypt is very much second or worse class.

Re Greece:
The situation I was alluding to was Cyprus. Where in very recent history an Islamic nation ( albeit a moderate one) decided to invade & permanently occupy the northern part of the island, supposedly to ‘protect’ its kindred. Most of the non-kindred others , after being raped , robbed or roughed-up quickly got the message that if they knew what was good for them, they should leave for the south.

There seems to be an implication in your comment that as Greece has banned Islamic places of worship, it has no grounds to criticize Moslem aggression against its territory or people.[ tit for tat!]
Am I reading you correctly

GT Stripe: "You talk like Pericles, CJ Morgan are your stooges. Tell me, are they just pretending to be non-Muslims?"

I can't speak for Pericles, but you've demonstrated sufficiently to me that you're nothing more than an Islamophobic troll, and I've personally decided not to feed you any more. It only seems to encourage you.

CJMorgan, I have no problem with what you said about me. The rest of this post is for FH.

FH,

When responding to Horus, please also include your comments on kidnapping of young girls for conversion to Islam in Egypt.

Google search these words : muslim kidnap coptic christian

http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articles/life/Christian_Girls_Kidnapped_In_Egypt_And_Forced_To_Convert_To_Islam/22375/p1/

http://www.kidnappedchristiangirls.org/

( I have a feeling the Islamic Public Relation representative on OLO is working hard on some spins. )

GZ, you're a very sad case indeed.

Not many people would draw attention to their gullibility quite so proudly by providing a URL. Boaz does, of course, but that's hardly an excuse for you. And he prefers YouTube, where the production values are so much higher.

Did you actually read the "articles" in the site you pointed us to?

"Christian Girls Kidnapped" is riddled with innuendo and supposition, but the stories are so obviously manufactured for their credulously simple-minded audience that it would be embarrassing to a reasonably cluey ten-year-old.

"...feared kidnapped by a Muslim man, was found living with a Muslim family. Wearing the full veil, she told her brother that she had 'found the right path' - Islam<<

Note she was "feared" kidnapped. And made a statement to her own brother that she was happy. Hardly the stuff to convince a jury.

"...reportedly being held against her will by a Muslim couple... an alleged signed declaration of conversion to Islam... appeared in court dressed in an Islamic veil. Her family believe she was being given drugs"

Note "reportedly", "alleged", "believe". No facts, just biased supposition.

"...told her fiancé that a Muslim employee of his had kidnapped the young woman. Rumours spread that she had converted to Islam..."

More rumour.

"Heba had eloped with a Muslim man... a police source told Nabil Ghali that his daughter had converted to Islam... he acquired a copy of Heba's conversion certificate"

Sounds pretty voluntary to me.

This one was more convincing:

"Theresa's family insist that she was kidnapped, but some Christian girls romanced by young Muslim men voluntarily leave their families and convert to Islam to escape poverty and unhappy family situations"

But they just couldn't resist a footnote to it:

"The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those held by Cross Rhythms"

I didn't even have to pick and choose. These were the first articles on the site.

Horus,

You quoted:
There seems to be an implication in your comment that as Greece has banned Islamic places of worship, it has no grounds to criticize Moslem aggression against its territory or people.[ tit for tat!]
Am I reading you correctly"

Not at all, all I am saying is many comments seems to be looking at one side of the equation all the time without:
a) recogninsing the fact that many muslim countries work on improving minorities conditions.
b) that few European countries (ie the Greece example) are treating their Muslim minorities as inferior citizens (banning mosques for Muslims).

Integration, communication and co-existence is a 2 way street.

Take the recent article by Rev. Rod Benson:
He was gang-ho on Islamist threat yet, for some reason, the fact that a 96% recently converted to Christianity population like Rwanda, massacred 800,000 non-Christians over a decade ago. And yet, no one is questioning what kind of Christianity is being taught in Africa? The Neo-Con version or the Orthodox version?

All fundamentalism is bad, right now all I am seeing seem to be a glorified finger pointing excercise on Islam and Muslims.

GZ Tan,

An old African proverb says:
"if a man in my village says I look like a horse, I will call him ill mannered; but if all my village says I look like a horse, then I should go and buy myself a saddle".

I think everyone on OLO agrees on something.

While everyone is looking at self-glorification on OLO, Hillali is still in his office, laughing his heart out all the way to the Interlink office, passing all these gullible Australians – including the media.

The cross-section here on OLO is a reflection of that gullibility.

Muslims are trained in supremacy. They are told since a young age that their religion is the last and therefore the correct one.

The troubling point is that Islam does not have a separation of state and religion. All aspects of Islamic life (social, legal, sexual, culinary, dress code, etc…) are taken care by their Sharia law which is extracted from the Qur’an and Hadiths dating back to the tenth century AD.

These customs remain unchangeable because their sources are unchangeable.

Take “Tolerance” for non-muslims for example. That word has a different connotation in Islam then we understand it here in the west.

Dhimmitude is their concept of live and let live. Islam must be the supreme ideology of the country – all others are a lesser people. Like the Copts in Egypt.

I too lived there and know thousands of people who can attest to the contrary of your lies FH.

FH will let you believe – using Islamic deception or “Taqyia” - that all Egyptians are treated equally. Taqyia (plain lying) is allowed and encouraged in Islam as part of jihad as long as it is used to deceive the enemy (all of us) and advance the establishment and propagation of Islam.

So FH is doing his part establishing an ideology that is so different to what we have seen in Australia to date. And what are we doing to stop it? Follow Hillali and his stooges.

Wake up Australia – our children’s children will never forgive us for being so gullible – and letting our country go to this Islamic mob... slowly but certainly.

Coach,

Hilali isn’t in office since he is self appointed.
Perhaps you should tell us what % if any likes or supports Hilali since none of the Muslims I know attend or even like the guy. The only popularity I see for Hilaly is in the older Arab generation (including non-Muslims like yourself) and the Aussie media because he ‘sells’. Of course why would you the media refer to any of the new generation Aussie Imams?

Re-read my post: I am not saying there is no discrimination to Christians in Egypt. I am saying that everyone in Egypt is discriminated against; explain why Egyptian prisons have +60,000 held without trial every year (majority Muslims, atheists, democracy activists, etc.)

Now that you are an Egyptian Christian, perhaps you should explain why Pope Shenouda of Alexandria called on all Christians to vote for the local government and also why in 1977 he called on all Christians to boycott Jerusalem and the peace treaty with Israel (which was initiatiated by the Muslim majority).

Or you like only monologue and www.islambashingwebsites.com?

Pericles,

With your feign arguments, truth about FH's stooge is fast surfacing.

I asked FH to comment on alleged kidnappings. FH sidetracked to horse-saddle.

Instead, FH's stooge eagerly leaped into conclusion: "...stories are so obviously manufactured"

Have you not heard, "Where there's smoke, there's fire"?

Man, there's a lot of smoke!!

Eygpt, an Islamic States, is where majority Muslims wield great powers of coercion and threat. Powers that silent its victims; where minorities fear speaking out.

It takes rare character of strength to go through judicial process loaded in favour of Muslims, to risk a violent repercussion.

It's quite understandable most victims would, by resigning to their "twists of fate", desire to relieve their families of prolonged trauma.

"Afterall, don't we believe in the same Allah? ", the girls finally succumbed.

Those are probably lost souls due to forced brain-washings. Unfortunately instigators are not even criminals because: (1) lack of transparent rule-of-laws in Egypt, and (2) victims afraid to speak out.

Tell us, why is Coptic Christians a fast diminishing breed?

What seems "innuedo" to you are what minority non-Muslims experience daily !!

Most allegations of kidnapping would NEVER progress beyond mere allegations. They just became a "misfortune" of victims family (until everyone finally succumb, convert to Islam and re-unite as one "happy" Muslim family.)

So how to legally prove a young girl's soul is kidnapped in favour of Islam in an Egyptian court?

Contrary to your thinking, the web-sites alleging kidnappings are honest by being TECHNICALLY CORRECT (using only terms pertaining to allegations). But they tell a lot what's going on in REAL LIFE !!

Yet you simply prejudged and denied a course of justice, by pushing aside allegations, against a KNOWN bullying Islamic majority, with wild presupposition that all the stories "...are so obviously manufactured".

If you're a law-enforcement officer, please quit !!

BTW, it's normal practice to have a disclaimer about opinions expressed on any web-site. This does NOT imply Cross Rhythms doubt veracity of the article !!

Looks like I ought to bolt saddles on you both!!

Careful GZ, you are becoming inarticulate.

>>With your feign arguments, truth about FH's stooge is fast surfacing<<

There are thirteen definitions of "feign" in my OED, none of which is an adjective.

If it is a misprint for "fine", thanks for the compliment.

On the other hand, English might not be your first language, in which case I advise more careful use of the dictionary in future.

Your justification for the "my daughter was abducted by Muslim aliens" articles was particularly exquisite...

>>Have you not heard, "Where there's smoke, there's fire"?
Man, there's a lot of smoke!!<<

I am sure you must have heard the American expression "blowing smoke".There's a nice definition in "American Idioms" that goes like this:

"To be boasting without being able to back it up, talking about action without intent to follow through. For example 'Do you really want to buy this car or are you just blowing smoke?'"

It speculates its origins as:

"Magicians often use smoke in their performance to obscure your view and conceal a bit of trickery. A person who is "blowing smoke" is tricking you and attempting to cover it up"

I think that this is exactly the kind of smoke contained in those articles, don't you?

You justify the articles' vagueness with this piece of sophistry:

>>Contrary to your thinking, the web-sites alleging kidnappings are honest by being TECHNICALLY CORRECT<<

I have absolutely no problem with that. Except that by being "technically correct" they also expose the fact that the allegations are extremely thin. All of them can in fact be explained in terms of parents moaning "I didn't like the man my daughter married", instead they are used as examples of religious persecution.

As for this, you are being disingenuous in the extreme:

>>it's normal practice to have a disclaimer about opinions expressed on any web-site. This does NOT imply Cross Rhythms doubt veracity of the article !!<<

Nonsense. It is crystal clear that they referred to the one segment, the admission that girls "voluntarily leave their families and convert to Islam to escape poverty and unhappy family situations".

Pericles,

If I know someone's article is false, I would not publish it on my web-site, then display a disclaimer.

I simply do not publish a false article !! Full Stop. No disclaimer is even needed.

Conversely, the fact that an article on kidnappings is published with a disclaimer (whether or not clearly referring to a segment) DOES NOT MEAN the publisher disbelieve the veracity of the kidnap allegations !!

Is this simple logic not crystal clear ?

Earlier I mentioned to Google-search these 4 words : muslim kidnap coptic christian

There are lots of "smokes & fires" on kidnappings, not limited to 2 web-sites !!

I included 2 URLs in my earlier post, just in case there is someone who is too "donkey" to Google-search, or won't otherwise browse more than 1 web-site.

You have the distinction of being that someone !!

But worst, leaping into conclusion that: "...stories are so obviously manufactured", after browsing just ONE of two web-sites that I listed.

The bias and narrow-mindedness of FH's stooge are PROVEN, right here !!

Then you childishly point-scored on semantics of "feign" and "smoke".

Nevermind your spins and distortions, people are capable of reading about those kidnappings and decide for themselves.

Looks like I have reasons to downgrade your saddle to a "d@*&$y" one.

Please look in your OED whether the word "d@*&$y" also has thirteen definitions.
Perhaps one of them is even complimentary !!

( I wonder about Islamic Public-Relation representatives on OLO )

I'm intrigued GZ.

>>If I know someone's article is false, I would not publish it on my web-site, then display a disclaimer. I simply do not publish a false article !! Full Stop. No disclaimer is even needed.<<

Does this mean one of those sites was your own?

Where do you get the input - anonymous contributions? No need for fact checking, just measure the smoke content, and away she goes.

There are many similarly credible sites dotted around the Internet. Here's a good one. http://www.kkk.com/

And another. http://www.kkk.bz/

Oh look, here's another one. http://www.kkkk.net/

I like the last one best. "The Ku Klux Klan is a US Supreme Court recognized and protected Christian Organization... We are against terrorists, the immoral, and oppose all criminal behavior and activity."

There's a significant volume of smoke output in these three sites too, so they must be true, mustn't they?

Here's some of their smoke, specially for you GZ.

>>My friends, the truth is out there and the fact is there is an ongoing race war in the country and white men, women, and children, are the victims. Some mistakenly belief that acts of violence against whites are justified because of past slavery. But the raping of your wife, daughter or sister and the robbery and assault or murder of your son, brother, father or husband has nothing to do with slavery hundreds of years ago. Blacks still enslave other Blacks in Africa, but who is most often the victim of their savagery? white families butchered by the thousands.

Even now, as you are reading this, white children in any part of the world are being mauled, tortured, raped, and murdered! Ahhh- power in the hands of Negroes; Isn't equality great? Brothers and sisters, remember, though you may have as yet been personally untouched by the race war against whites - It is only a matter of time before your friend, loved one, or neighbor is at their mercy. <<

Wonderful, credible stuff.

Pericles,

It appears you do not comprehend English very well.

I think it has more to do with your deficiency in reasoning rather than my mother-tongue being non-English. ( I'm convinced my vocabulary is very simple. )

I repeat, if I know someone's article is false, I would not publish it. No disclaimer is even needed.
In other words, if I ever publish someone's article (with or without a disclaimer), that means I have checked the article's facts and accuracy beforehand.

So what has "anonymous contributions", "smoke content" and "credibility" to do with an article that has already been checked for veracity ??
Is this a looping logic in your muddled mind ??

If you do not believe an article, it does not even imply that article is false. The way you've jumped to a conclusion tells me there's a fair chance it could be that you are : biased, illogical, weak in comprehension and narrow-minded.

There is no need to point-score using KKK web-sites. Why didn't you listed pornographic sites instead ?

I am not interested in KKK at all. In fact I rarely hear about KKK in the past 25 years !!

I cannot even imagine that KKK (as a threat to freedom & democracy) is worse than Islam religion which commands 1.2 BILLIONS believers !!

So, is your warped logic tricking you that KKK is going to jump out of 3 web-sites and eat us all up tomorrow ??

I'd be a lot more concerned with the way Islam quietly breeding its massive population of followers. Perhaps kidnaps for the purpose of brain-washing to convert to Islam will happen in Australia too. ( I hope such kidnappings have never occurred here yet ).

BTW, Is there a disclaimer on those KKK web-sites ? Perhaps not ?
According to your logic on disclaimer, perhaps you would regard articles on those sites as credible then, huh !?

( Disclaimer- My comments are in no way implying I have a web-site or have published an article

Despite your undoubted command of the English language, GZ, you still haven't mastered elementary comprehension. Perhaps that should be your next challenge.

>>I repeat, if I know someone's article is false, I would not publish it. No disclaimer is even needed. In other words, if I ever publish someone's article (with or without a disclaimer), that means I have checked the article's facts and accuracy beforehand<<

So you claim. But what level of credence should I place on your word?

And in terms of "truth", I can well understand that the people who wrote those pieces actively believe they were factual. But they are so clearly only one side of the story. The claims by the girls themselves were presented in a way that invited disbelief, even though they seemed, in context, to be saying "go away and leave me alone".

>>So what has "anonymous contributions", "smoke content" and "credibility" to do with an article that has already been checked for veracity ??<<

Everything. Since there is absolutely no indication anywhere on those sites that anything has been "checked for veracity", I am perfectly entitled to see it entirely in terms of smoke.

I'm supposed to simply take your word for it?

What independent and unbiased credentials do you present to support your word? None. You won't even deny that the sites are yours - how is anyone supposed to believe anything you say?

>>If you do not believe an article, it does not even imply that article is false<<

Equally, just because you believe it doesn't make it true. The judgment call that I make is usually "just how much does this person want me to believe this?", and I measure the content of the piece starting from this proposition.

Which is exactly why I used the KKK sites. To someone who wants to believe that Jews and black people are responsible for all the ills of the world, it makes compelling reading. They are therefore far more inclined to "believe" the garbage on the site than, say, I am.

Same goes for those sites you pointed out.

Pericles,

>>I repeat... I have checked the article's facts and accuracy beforehand<<
>>So what has "anonymous contributions"... to do.....??<<

If your comprehension is up to scratch, you would have realised my above comments were meant to be read in tandem as they dove-tailed to address your statement that contain a "circular" logic.
But instead, in your eagerness to debate, you split my context and argued each comment in separation. So your separate comments to the above statements are irrelevant (to my point).

My position is essentially :

<< ... people are capable of reading about those kidnappings and decide for themselves.>>

I have no doubt there are always some who believe and some who don't. It is a matter of judgement on the part of readers, especially for those who bother to read beyond 2 web-sites that I mentioned, without jumping to a conclusion.

My observation is your conclusion were not even about facts or the lack of, but rather what came off a bias and propensity of some sort.

May you talk about facts, credibility; Frankly I probably distrust you more than you dislieve those kidnappings. I can imagine when someone likes FH put a positive tune around those kidnappings you would be one quite naturally inclined to dance to the tune.

So your disbelief of what Muslims majority is capable of doing to non-Muslims minority does not surprise me.

Well that was a surprise, GZ, but thanks for the apology anyway.

>>My observation is your conclusion were not even about facts or the lack of, but rather what came off a bias and propensity of some sort<<

Fair enough, it is quite normal for us to judge other people by our own standards of behaviour. Totally understandable.

>>Frankly I probably distrust you more than you dislieve those kidnappings<<

You made the connection with the websites, so in normal circumstances it would be considered reasonable if you provided the supporting evidence. All I am doing is pointing out how flimsy that evidence is.

Think of it this way - I'm doing you a favour, pointing it out to you so that you might do something about it.

You choose to take an ultra-defensive posture, that's your prerogative.

Pericles,

<<...thanks for the apology anyway.>>

( I have no idea what "apology" you referred to. We must be on two different frequencies).

You may recall I specifically asked FH to comment about those kidnappings, mainly because Coptic Christians connects with Eygpt. But instead it was you who jumped in head first.

There are heaps of web-sites pointing to similar kidnapping stories if you need further supporting evidence. Granted hardly any publisher will prove something (other than scientific/technical) is 100% factual to everyone's satisfaction before they publish an article.

There are Muslims who ridiculously insists 9/11 was a conspiracy of CIA and it was two American cruise missiles that hit the twin towers. The wonder of (some) human minds.

So in the end believe or not is entirely one's perogative.