"Does it really matter if Muslims believe Mohammed is infallible, based on their core religious belief that the Prophet (Blessings be upon Him) gave only the immutable word of God in his teachings?"

My neighbour has a dog which barks. I point out that barking dogs are a nuisance. He agrees completely, but does nothing.

I invite the police to inspect the dog. They give my neighbour a warning. He accepts the warning, but does nothing.

I bring an expensive court case. My neighbour attends and is found to be negligent. He agrees to pay the court costs and to have the dog put down, but does nothing.

At length I confront him, and he explains that he has been told the dog must be allowed to bark by means of undetectable supernatural messages which take precedence over everything else, even his own life or mine. I am not privy to the messages, but he believes them so totally that if I try to stop the dog barking he will kill me without a qualm.

This is the problem with religion: once you grant people a licence to behave irrationally you can no longer safely criticise or bring sanctions against them for doing so. Nor can you consistently recommend logical decision making and rational behaviour. Richard Dawkins can explain why Osama bin Laden is evil. Peter Jensen, Rowan Williams and the Pope can't.

"...Islam as a system of ideas is incompatible with liberal democracy as a system of ideas,"

Hirshi Ali is correct.

Richard Laidlaw who lives in Bali appears to be either blind or have become an Islamist apologists. Muslims in Indonesia have become increasingly more Muslim and abandoning their ethnic Malay culture of being friendly, patient and diligent. They are killing non-Muslims and trying to impose the rule of Shariah, after having been cheated by the Western organisation of the World Bank and the IMF.

The Indonesian Muslims (inspired by Arabs and Pakistanis) have persecuted the Ahmadiyya Muslim community and even called for them to be banned.
http://www.thepersecution.org/world/indonesia/08/08/reu04.html

Islam isn't incompatible with democracy but it is incompatible with barbarism. It is similar to Secular humanism where life is not held in high regard. At least Islam is honest about its hate while secularist who slaughter the unborn try and dress it up in some sort of warped morality. People practicing Islam are deceived while secularist are often straight out dishonest. I suppose the worshiping of their high priests such as Dawkins gives them some false comfort.

WOW....

This apprently drugged and braindamaged author says:

The idea that you can brand members of a religion as “a problem”, because of the fact of their religious faith, is a monstrous negation of humanity.

Yet that is what increasing numbers of non-Muslims are doing to the great religion of Islam.

MEIN KAMPF IS HEREBY REHABILITATED.... because while it is not a religion.. (though it may as well be as it contains the dogma on which the holocaust was based)

Now.. every person wearing swastika's and chanting about the glory of the Aryan race is also most welcome at Mr Laidlaws home... I guess.

ONE POINT... of what he says is worth noting.. "members of a religion"
yes..I have to agree that it is not right to brand all 'members' of a religion a problem.. any more than to brand all Catholics as paedophiles because some of their priests molested children.

THE IMPORTANT THING.. is to look at whether the doctrinal foundations of the Catholic faith can SUPPORT such behavior.. and if they DO..then we can then brand that FAITH.. in total.. as a sad and disgusting bunch of shite.

Fortunately for all Catholics and Protestants.. no such justification can be found in the Bible.

Obviously, the serious enquirer will ask "But what about Islam" ?

Then, they would (if they are honest and serious) make an examination of the founder and policies of that faith, and form conclusions based on that balanced research.

On that basis they would be right to conclude as follows:

1/ "The religion is a dark manifestation of evil" or
2/ "The religion is a shining light of tolerance and peace" or
3/ "The majority of it's followers do not actually follow its teachings"

etc.. according to where the evidence leads the serious, unbiased and balanced enquirer :)

I agree with a lot of this article and would embellish rather that critique. For George W Bush and the neocons democracy has morphed into being part and parcel of Christianity. That is why there is an evangelical move to spread democracy, especially to Islamic countries. But democracy is not a part of Christianity, it may have developed from a Christian background that recognised that each person bears the image of God, but the idea that government should be informed by every adult individual is not a Christian idea. There is no reason that a strong man or a monarch or a council of elders could not govern with justice. The examples that we have of corruption and nepotism are not a necessary addendum to such rule.

Yes, Islam is incompatible with liberal democracy as it is with Christianity. I would defend Christianity but not liberal democracy.

I always tend to go to sleep when people talk of interfaith dialogue. The idea is that if we understand each other all will be right. But, in the case of Islam and Christianity there are insuperable barriers to this happening because the two religions are so different. The only way that interfaith dialogue could bear any fruit is for each side to attempt to convert the other to their point of view. Then we would have a heartfelt and muscular interaction. Otherwise we are left trying to find points of agreement and between Islam and Christianity and there are few.

Labelling of any individual robs them of their humanity. Behind the label is a human identity and the things we share as human individuals easily overwhelms differences in religion, sexual orientation, race, gender etc. I would be willing to argue the point between Christianity and Islam but could only do so in the constant recognition that I do not oppose a person but a set of beliefs.

Peter Sellick

Does not Christianity claim to be the basis of Dempcracy in the west.

I personnally do not believe this is true but what is the difference from the east claiming that Democracy be based on their religion.

I am under the impression that Democracy as a way to govern people came into being long before either of these religions.

Unless I am mistaken, Democracy is govermment ot the people by the people. I fail to see what religion has to do with it.

Democracies should represent the cultures, needs and way of life of the people they represent.