The name Mohammed is now the most popular new-born boy's name in Amsterdam, Brussels, Copenhagen, Oslo, London, Westminster, Yorkshire, etc.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6194354/Mohammed-is-most-popular-name-for-baby-boys-in-London.html
Is this trend good because it reflects an underlying increase in diversity?
Or is it bad because this increasing lack of diversity in names may lead mistaken identities?
Do readers think this trend will continue and what are the long term implications for Europe if and/or when the majority of Europeans are named Mohammed?
For example, could it lead to potentially disruptive mass confusion?

Gawd. As soon as I read the thread title I knew who had posted it.

Personally, I've long been aware of "disruptive mass confusion" in the Anglophone world due to the popularity of the name "John". Get real.

Just another Proxy troll. Good for traffic, I suppose.

with a track record like the prophet you would wonder why anyone would name their child after him.

Dear Proxy,

Don't you worry about a thing.

Fads come and fads go.

It's always been thus, especially with
the naming of babies.

Some choose to name their children after
fruit, for example, "Apple."
Others choose the name of places, "Dakota,"
"Alabama," "Paris," and so on.
Others choose heroes and heroines, "Scarlett
O'Hara," is an all time favourite.
Others choose fictional characters,
"Bilbo," "Frodo," "Lolita."
Others choose famous people, for example, "Wolfgang,"
is very popular in Germany.
A couple in the US even chose "Hitler,"
for their son. "Winston," was very popular in the UK.

The recent bestselling vampire Twilight series saw many
vampire-loving fans select baby names from the series.

The name "Jesus" is very popular amongst Hispanic
people. It all comes down to personal
choice - as it always has. Whether you name a child
after a fruit, a tree, a famous person, a king,
a queen, a flower, a place, names ultimately are
the parent's choice and people select them for their
children for a variety of reasons. The popularity
of given names also tends to change with the passage
of time and given trends.

However if you're interested in the top 10 names for
each country around the world, the following site
may be of interest:

http://www.babycenter.com.au/pregnancy/naming/top10namesaroundtheworld/

And your point is...

Would Proxy be posting this topic if the most popular name was David? I don't think so.

Foxy,
<<Fads come and fads go>>
It's about 1400 years since this fad came.
When do you predict that it will go?

Oh well, at least it can be spelled in at least four different ways, unlike "John".

There are two ways this thread could go. It could be taken as an opportunity to openly discuss the declining populations of developed countries and whether large scale immigration is a cure, if a 'cure' is needed at all. Most will try to discuss those issues.

Or it could become yet another of those threads where the usual bigoted fools create a divide to stand on either side of and hurl the usual gorilla poop at each other while declaring that the other 'side' was the first to pull out the racist card.

That is all very unfortunate because there is so much to discuss, such as why, fifty Years after the Pill, more than 200 million women still lack access to contraception.
http://www.unfpa.org/public/cache/offonce/news/pid/5552;jsessionid=AE795E48F072E93E1E105E2E87B7259A

Then again, it could be an opportunity to challenge the growthist policies of the World Bank and its promotion of increased population. The very positive economic outcomes of migration (for population growth) claimed by the World Bank have been challenged by a committee of the UK House of Lords and also in Australia. Yet the World Bank's discredited claims are still parroted by both Mr Rudd and Mr Abbott and usually without challenge in the media. Why the sacred cow?

There would also be benefit in discussing the controversy over 'replacement migration', that was stimulated by the UN report, Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations? (ESA/P/WP.160) New York: Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations.

As identified by the UNFPA, multiculturalism and massive immigration have generated discontent in many countries. Most low-fertility countries have come to accept some immigration, but are concerned with preserving cultural identity. There are also cultural values/beliefs supporting environmental sustainability, a standard of quality of life and allowing women choices other than (continual) motherhood. Maybe in low fertility countries like Germany, Italy and Spain there are other alternatives than forcing population growth through high immigration alone.

Yes, potentially plenty to discuss or it could be another slug fest where racist epithets stymie the contribution by any but the usual adversaries.

I don't care what people call their children, as long as they don't invent the spelling.

Cornflower
It might be as you say, but I think these sorts of posts don't really seek to discuss those worthy topics you propose. Why not just start a topic about the pros and cons of multiculturalism or growthist mentality. The choosing of Mohammed as a name is not really about any of those things except in the abstract.

It is indicative of groupthink mentality, no critical analysis or review of ideas by Proxy at all - ever on issues concerning Muslims.

He has a right to his views as we all do, but previous posts tend to cover the same ground over and over - continuing a campaign to malign all Muslims because of the actions of a few militants.

Never yet the hand of friendship or seeking to understand the differences and how we can all live together with tolerance in a multi-cultural world.

Dear Proxy,

Try reading people's posts before you
respond to them - you may understand
a bit better what is actually being
said. Mohammad is only one name -
and just like Jesus, Zoltan, Hitler
or Winston - it will eventually
go the same way as all the others.
Remember as I said, "Fads come and go,"
as far as names go. No more sinister
then any of the others, except perhaps
in your mind - which is your problem -
no one else's.!

pelican, "It is indicative of group think mentality, no critical analysis or review of ideas by Proxy at all - ever on issues concerning Muslims."

One could argue that the group think is in the responses. There doesn't seem to be anything in the original question to provoke the reaction in the second post - which was totally unnecessary at that point and set the predictable pattern.

Respondents can choose how they react.

Pelican writes
'Would Proxy be posting this topic if the most popular name was David?'

Maybe if Germans named their children Adolf would be a better comparison (except for David Hicks).

Cornflower
I am not so narrow-minded to believe that groupthink is not confined to those in the anti-Muslim camp. However I think the opening post is very much following a predictable pattern which incites the predictable responses as you say. Not sure how one should respond without sounding old and tired - tends to be a bit red flag to a bull for those in the secular egalitarian camp.

As a fellow human being I would like one day to be able to support or champion one of Proxy's posts but he tends to limit his topics to anti-Muslim propaganda.

Pelican,
Do you not think it is worthy of comment that there are more Mohammeds born than Jonas in Oslo, than Daan in Amsterdam, than Lucas in Brussels, than Mikkel in Denmark, than Jack in London?
Is this not remarkable?
Does this not point to significant social trends that are worthy of bringing to other peoples attention?
Is not something which could reasonably be discussed?
Am I allowed to mention that Morocco has taken the unusual (well I consider it unusual. Am I allowed to say unusual?) step of banning its (dual) citizens in the Netherlands from giving their children non-Islamic names?
http://www.nisnews.nl/public/290109_2.htm
Or is this also totally unremarkable?

pelican

Thanks. I have no interest in defending anyone and I reckon we can run as we please, getting what we want from the topic. If we let ourselves be confined to the usual game of exchanging unpleasantries, in effect we are ensuring the subject is closed for us and others.

I should have mentioned before that I took the lead for my possible discussion openers from the last paragraph of the link given in the first post.

I am interested in your views on any of those issues and I hope I haven't offended anyone with my directness. There are many on the board who have different expertise and experiences and they can help us see things from a different angle. I can get a bit lateral at times and I usually post in haste (and between things, business is like that). I really enjoy the reality check that some of the more detail-focussed posters can bring.

You are really working hard on this one, aren't you Proxy

>>Do you not think it is worthy of comment that there are more Mohammeds born than Jonas in Oslo, than Daan in Amsterdam, than Lucas in Brussels, than Mikkel in Denmark, than Jack in London? Is this not remarkable?<<

Frankly, no I don't think it is remarkable. I expect there are fewer Muslim names to choose from, making the comparison lop-sided.

Here is a site (an evangelical Christian site, so it is effectively their "prospect list") that shows the percentage Muslim population across Europe.

http://www.hfe.org/_old/resource/aids/eurol1.htm

For the countries you have mentioned.

Norway: 1.04%
The Netherlands: 5.4%
Denmark 3.02%
UK: 2%

You are jumping at shadows.

>>Does this not point to significant social trends that are worthy of bringing to other peoples attention? Is not something which could reasonably be discussed?<<

With the emphasis on "reasonably"? Absolutely.

>>Am I allowed to mention that Morocco has taken the unusual (well I consider it unusual. Am I allowed to say unusual?) step of banning its (dual) citizens in the Netherlands from giving their children non-Islamic names?<<

The article you point to states quite clearly that:

"Moroccans in the Netherlands are not allowed to give their children any Berber names any more"

It should be noted that this "ban" is i) against the Berber population and ii) originates from Morocco, not the Netherlands.

"The registrar of births (in Morocco) accepts only known names, and those are usually Arab [i.e. not Berber] names."

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3f35d97x

This hasn't exactly gone down well with the Dutch Moroccans:

"MP Samira Bouchibti, a Moroccan national (by royal Moroccan decree) like all other Moroccans who moved to or were born in the Netherlands, is angry. "We must get rid of these lists of names and this interference. I want to be able to decide myself how I name my children. This is discriminatory."

The Berber population of the Netherlands is estimated at 1.72%

Perhaps if you could explain exactly what it is that scares you so much, Proxy, we might be able to help.

Pericles,
Your statistics do not reflect the disproportionate impact underlying them.
For example, although Denmark's Islamic population is only 3.02%, their youth represent 2/3's of the juvenile prison population:
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/05/among-criminal-muslims/

In Sweden, almost half of rape perpetrators are immigrants and the majority of these are Islamic:
http://theopinionator.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/04/sweden-tops-europe-for-number-of-rapes.html
Malmo's Islamic population is 25%
Stockholm's Islamic population is 20%

Filling in the gaps in your statistics:

Norway: 1.04%
Oslo: 11%

The Netherlands: 5.4%
Amsterdam: 24% (Greater Amsterdam 12.7%)
Rotterdam: 13%

Denmark 3.02%
Copenhagen: 12.6%

UK: 2%
London: 8.5-17%
Birmingham: 14.3%

Brussels: 17-20%
Marseilles: 25%

It might also be noted, from the article, that Moroccan "Dutch" are already forbidden to give their children Christian names.

I think Pericles is right.
Although it is shown on all the 'name' sites I looked at that Mohammed (or derivatives of the name)is the most popular first name in the world, it is surely true that almost all Muslim people name at least one of their children Mohammed?

Most other people of different religions and cultures have a somewhat larger number of name choices to choose from, leaving the name Mohammed as a large representative of a smaller number of families.

Proxy, this does not mean that the Muslims are going to take over the world, as is obviously your greatest fear?
I don't see what your problem with that would be anyway, since the Muslim religion is even more intolerant of homosexual behaviours than you are- if that is possible.

They shot another 5 or 6 so called "terrorists" here in Indo the other day. Near Jakarta from memory. I didn't see that the ABC reported it, but as I have been otherwise occupied of late I may well have missed it.

The local news reports further allege that the so called "terrorist prime directive" appears to have altered slightly with Prez S.B.Y. and his supporters becoming primary targets above and beyond foreigners in their quest to achieve a hub in Indonesia for their pan Islamic super state.

Indonesian implementation of certain principals of "democracy" appear to have caused great offense in certain circles.

There is much more that could be said, but it remains "forbidden knowledge" for now, and without wishing to cause offense to those who are best afforded some degree of respect, will leave it at that.

My "tour of duty" in Indonesia is rapidly coming to end, and I yearn to rest in the earth of my home Australia.

A quick trip down in June, which I hope will be cold, bleak, windy and rainy, a quick alleviation of another 350mLs of blood and then just one more circuit, to hook up with my non-practising Islamic *Munchkin* girls and wooooooos! (touch wood the guvna being reasonable)down to Perth to re-settle.

..

I noted with interest comments made by *Oliver* recently regarding *Pagans* and indeed I have met more than a few people here in Indonesia who whilst maintaining a God Concept, have long since abandoned any belief that Divine matters are administered by human intermediaries.

Look on the bright side.If you are a teacher and say,'Mohammad pay attention." It becomes ecnomies of scale.At least half the class will pay attention.

Come to think of it, in Australia the name Gough has never taken off. Wonder why ? Is it phonetically to close to Oaf perhaps ?

A question I've been pondering since +- 1990. Will Europe become Islamised? Will it become part of Dar-ul-Islam?

As Neils Bohr famously said, prediction is difficult, especially about the future. With that in mind let's look at the facts on the ground.

--The fertility rate of European natives is below replacement level. How far below varies from country to country.

--The fertility rate of Muslim migrants is above replacement level. How far above also remains a matter of controversy but no one questions that it is above replacement level.

--While the fertility of Muslim migrants does tend to fall with subsequent generations it tends to remain above that of the natives and mostly above replacement level.

--Most migrants to Europe are Muslim.

If these trends continue Europe will inevitably become a Muslim majority region.

Will they continue?

While the trends are not smooth - immigration rates for example vary from year to year - they do appear to be PERSISTENT.

Putting it all together I would say it's not a question of "if" but "when".

Of course what form the emerging Euro-Islam will take is a whole new debate.

One possibility is that people of Muslim origin become secularised. Thus far there is little evidence of this. If anything the trend is in the opposite direction.

In any case, Europe and Australia are global outliers as regards secularism. The enforced secularism of Communist countries aside, many, not all, societies appear to be getting more, not less, religious.

I think you may need to brush up on your definition of "forbidden", Proxy.

>>It might also be noted, from the article, that Moroccan "Dutch" are already forbidden to give their children Christian names<<

Who is doing the "forbidding"?

It is certainly not the Dutch government.

And - also from the article - the "Moroccan Dutch" don't seem particularly impressed with the notion.

"MP Samira Bouchibti, a Moroccan national (by royal Moroccan decree) like all other Moroccans who moved to or were born in the Netherlands, is angry. "We must get rid of these lists of names and this interference. I want to be able to decide myself how I name my children. This is discriminatory."

So if there is no law against it, and the people to whom it applies reject it, what is your point in bringing it up here, 16,500 kms away?

The original article and its links are an interesting example of manipulation of statistics to exaggerate a point. Checking through the links, there seem to be different totals for Mohammed variants in different articles: 6591 and 7576. The first article does not give the total number of male births but another says: 'There were 708,711 live births in England and Wales during 2008, with 26,815 different boys' names and 34,043 different girls' names registered.'

Using 350,000 for total male births (assuming ca. 50%, probably not the case) and 7576 for Mohammed type names, this gives just 2% of total male births with Mohammed variant names. In the UK 1,591,000 Muslims were recorded at the 2001 Census (2.7% of the total population); recent estimates suggest 2.4 million (Wikipedia). (Note that an increase of 500,000 in a base of 1.5 million, or ca 30%, in less than 10 years seems statistically suspicious - if it is really correct (testable at the 2011 census), this has to be migration, or conversion etc not births.)

So, the absolute proportion of Mohammed variants is small, but its appearance among the most popular names has to be related to the tiny number of names used in Islamic communities, compared to the huge number of boy's names overall - 26,815!

In short the world is not coming to an end, and the UK is not being overrun by Muslims.

In fact I'd be a lot more worried about the Jedi. The 2001 census recorded 390,000 Jedi Knights, making Jedi the fourth-largest "religion" in the UK (Wikipedia). But discrimination is at work here: all returns with "Jedi Knight" were classified as "No religion", along with Atheist, Agnostic, Heathen and those who ticked "Other" but did not write in any religion. [Moving Jedi from No Religion gives the following percentages, roughly: Christian 71.6%, Muslim 2.7%, Hindu 1.0%, Jedi 0.7%, Sikh 0.6%, No religion 15%]

Why are the authorities hiding the Jedi expansion? Where are the investigative reporters?

There are intended religious conitations in the name that is supposed to be brought to mind by its use. So when you address the person as Mahomet / Mohammed you are expected to respect the person. It is not used commonly as blasphemy in the West. Islam is a propagation religion and the use of the name in a Western country is intended to give respect to the prophet and his divine authority. Whereas the name Jesus is not used in western countries as a personal name out of respect for one who stands alone in divine revelation. Though many use the name in blasphemy in Western countries with the intent of disrespect to the person.

Urgent fact-checking required, Philo.

>>Whereas the name Jesus is not used in western countries as a personal name...<<

http://www.thetop100babynames.com/Nationality/HispanicBabyNames.htm

"Marias, Joses and Jesuses are very common names (English names being Mary, Joseph and Jesus)."

Please note: Jesus (pronounced 'hey-zooce') is a "very common name" in - largely Catholic - Hispanic countries.

Heh. My daughter's high school Spanish teacher's name is Jesus. On the other hand, in my tiny little country town we have two Mohammeds and one Muhammad. Strangely enough, nobody confused them for each other.

Mind you, Proxy may have a point. A Muslim immigrant has just been crowned Miss USA. The end is nigh.

<< A Lebanese-American woman has beaten 50 other contestants to be crowned Miss USA.

Rima Fakih is the first Muslim and immigrant to win the coveted beauty pageant title. >>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/18/2902284.htm

Any kids around called Santa?. That would be cool.

CJ Morgan,
The end is nigher than you think:
"Intelligence sources confirm that at least three of Fakih’s relatives are currently top officials in Hezbollah and that at least eight Fakih family members were Hezbollah terrorists killed by the Israelis in past Israel-Lebanese wars and interventions. Some of her family members were originally in Harakat Amal [the Shi'ite Amal militia], which is now essentially a part of Hezbollah. There’s a reason that even Al-Manar TV–Hezbollah’s official TV network–is high on Fakih in the Miss USA pageant."
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/21757/exclusive-miss-usa-contestant-is-shiite-muslim-who-supports-hezbollah-hezbo-taqiyyah-allows-bikinis/

Dear StG,

There's a few called Jack Frost.
And some red-nosed Rudolphs.
Do they count?

More fact checking needed! Mohammed was a prophet, and founder of Islam, but did not claim to be God/Allah. The comparison would be between Jesus and Allah as personal names. Mohammed, meaning 'praiseworthy' is comparable to many Christian personal names from prophets or disciples, such as John 'God's grace' or Daniel 'God is my judge' or Elijah (variants include Elliot) 'The Lord is my God'. The latter two names include an actual name of
'God' - 'El', as does Christopher, 'bearer of Christ'. If you included all the variants of some of these names, especially John, (Sean, Ian, Ivan, Jack, Jean, Janet, Jane etc.) they would far outnumber the Mohammed variants. Secular westerners just don't notice the religious basis of our names any more, though some names are still recognised as associated with certain religions (Fatima, Solomon etc.)

R u sure yr not *Boazy* in disguise *Proxy?*

Hmmm ...

Here's another Indo tale for you.

Local news allege that a rapist was caught recently. Allegedly he has admitted to the crime though of course the court action is still pending. This individual is alleged to have kidnapped a pre-pubescent girl from primary school, raped her and dumped her.

Interestingly, he came from the village of the now dead "terrorist" Amrozi. The individual is alleged to have had a religious justification for his actions.

..

The news on the day of the event spread like wildfire through the local "Banjar" here in Bali. I arrived with *MunchKin* to collect our daughter at 12:30PM and the old fellas at the local security point called out: (these are retirees doing community work)

"Sir, Sir, a girl child has been raped in Denpasar. Leave not your children unguarded."

I'm afraid you're right, Proxy. Coming from such a reliable source and all, I expect you're preparing yourself from the imminent Islamicisation of your neighbourhood.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Proxy re :
“For example, although Denmark's Islamic population is only 3.02%, their youth represent 2/3's of the juvenile prison population… half of rape perpetrators are immigrants and the majority of these are Islamic”

Ah, but don’t you know Proxy, that that is all about discrimination –if there are disproportionate numbers of any minority group showing up in unsavoury situations-- it can only be because of racism, or one or other of those exclusively white crimes!

Stevenmeyer
A very thought provoking post ,so many of your posts hit the nail on the head , and say what I am wont to say. In fact we seem to agree on everything with the small exception of AGW ( which just goes to show that for all your great foresight, you still aren’t prefect!)

CL Morgan re: “Be afraid be very afraid”
For the all the woe, look at the bright side, much better Mohammed, Muhammad, Mohammad, Muhammed than Morgan, Morgan,Morgan,Morgan!

Horus: << much better Mohammed, Muhammad, Mohammad, Muhammed than Morgan, Morgan,Morgan,Morgan! >>

I agree. Imagine the "potentially disruptive mass confusion" amongst the intellectually challenged if all men were named Morgan.

I wouldn't get too worried, Proxy

>>Intelligence sources confirm that at least three of Fakih’s relatives are currently top officials in Hezbollah<<

She doesn't appear to be much of a hajib'n'burka girl to me.

http://www.usmagazine.com/moviestvmusic/news/pic-new-miss-usa-works-a-stripper-pole-2010175

And her family seems quite nice too.

"'We are so often described as terrorists and killers, but we Shiites love life and beauty -- and mainly the beauty of the soul, which is what is so special about Rima,' said [Aunt Afifa] the veiled 62-year-old, who speaks English and French fluently."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5htaTU0vhNWvmM6nPdlJAIOgloFLg

Oh, and she went to a Catholic school in New York.

You can relax, Proxy, she doesn't pose a threat to anything except your prejudices.

Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 19 May 2010 9:24:14 AM
" ... She doesn't appear to be much of a hajib'n'burka girl to me. ... "
&
" ... And her family seems quite nice too. ... "

Indeed, metaphorically speaking, my BeLoved is more like one of those naughty rabbits out the front of Tottingham hall in:

*Wallace & Grommit - Curse of the Were Rabbit*

which is one of our family favorites incidentally, along with:

*Sean the Sheep*

Most excellent productions in my view.

..

*Proxy,* whilst there is in my view without a doubt a nasty element in a tiny minority of Islamic adherents in the world, I think one of the things that offends the clear minded thinkers in this place as much as it does is your want, in a fervent and dogmatic fashion, to tar the entire Islamic world with the same brush.

..

Australia network here ran a story this morning on a couple of the things that I mentioned earlier, and all the Islamic organisations here are out and about thick in the media, attempting to reinforce to the community here that, in the words of one speaker from NU:

(and my immediate family had an NU upbringing)

"The doctrine of violent Jihad is like a lost, stray, wandering cat without a home, and in no way reflects the innate truth of Peace Loving Islam."

And we may recall, that historically speaking, "The Prophet," Bless his cotton socks, was politically successful to the extent that the establishment of the time tried to genocide him and his group, but with the support of his relatives and others, he prevailed and the rest is history.

..

I note also with pleasure from the news here this morning that Israel is attempting to address some of its own home grown problems arising from ultra orthodoxy and would say that I also believe that by bringing a "New Peace" (JeruSalem) to our own inner world, that this helps balance out the external affairs as well.

Oh!? OLO appears to have developed an international flavor to its advertising enterage. I have just noted a:

NOKIA from the NEW OVI store add,
replete with Indonesian for our interactive pleasure ..

most excellent. It no doubt picks up on my Indonesian IP address and plays a language track accordingly.

Mmmmm .. Mmmmm ...

..

We recently bought a Nokia E71 by coincidence and Luv to turn all the computer gear off bar the modem and just WiFi Skype from the privacy of the bed after hours.

Damn fine, very damn fine!

...Adam...

The proliferation of the "mo" name is just a symptom.

Yes..it might well point to a number of scenarios such as "Muslim fertility vs non Muslim" and the eventual overtaking of the original community...

But it is not those bearing the name who deserve the scrutiny as much as those who nourish and foster the process by which this happens.

Enter the "Politicians"

*hurls a rock* at them.

The bigger concern for large numbers of "Mo" around is the possibility of electoral control in specific community interests.
See the UK election where it was estimated that the "minority" vote which includes blacks and Asians of various religions would determine the outcome of possibly 100 seats. (some estimates said 55)

If one (any)group gains such a foothold.. I suspect it is too late.

*hurls another rock*

Cripes, Porkyboaz. How many sockpuppets do you need?

Hehehe this thread is hilarious. So much ado about nothing.

If I had to choose names to be concerned about I would pick New Age names like Echo, Harmony, Trinity, Jubilee, West, and especially this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB_htqDCP-s&feature=related

DreamOn
<<The doctrine of violent Jihad is like a lost, stray, wandering cat without a home, and in no way reflects the innate truth of Peace Loving Islam.>>

Would that be the same cat that Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali is talking about here?

“Those atheists, people of the book (Christians and Jews), where will they end up? In Surfers Paradise? On the Gold Coast?
“Where will they end up? In hell. And not part-time. For eternity. They are the worst in God’s creation.
“Who commits the crimes of theft? The man or the woman? The man. That’s why the man was mentioned before the woman when it comes to theft because his responsibility is providing.
“But when it comes to adultery, it’s 90 per cent the women’s responsibility. Why? Because a woman possesses the weapon of seduction. It is she who takes off her clothes, shortens them, flirts, puts on make-up and powder and takes to the streets, God protect us, dallying. It’s she who shortens, raises and lowers. Then it’s a look, then a smile, then a conversation, a greeting, then a conversation, then a date, then a meeting, then a crime, then Long Bay jail. (laughs).
“Then you get a judge, who has no mercy, and he gives you 65 years.
“But when it comes to this disaster, who started it? In his literature, scholar al-Rafihi says: ‘If I came across a rape crime – kidnap and violation of honour – I would discipline the man and order that the woman be arrested and jailed for life.’ Why would you do this, Rafihi? He says because if she had not left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn’t have snatched it.”
cont…

…cont:
“If you take a kilo of meat, and you don’t put it in the fridge or in the pot or in the kitchen but you leave it on a plate in the backyard, and then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats eat the meat, you’re crazy. Isn’t this true?
If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.
If the meat was covered, the cats wouldn’t roam around it. If the meat is inside the fridge, they won’t get it.
If the meat was in the fridge and it (the cat) smelled it, it can bang its head as much as it wants, but it’s no use.
If the woman is in her boudoir, in her house and if she’s wearing the veil and if she shows modesty, disasters don’t happen.
That’s why he said she owns the weapon of seduction.
Satan sees women as half his soldiers. You’re my messenger to achieve my needs. Satan tells women you’re my weapon to bring down any stubborn man. There are men that I fail with. But you’re the best of my weapons."

There's a problem with latching onto random soundbites without actually giving any thought to what is behind them, ALGOREisRICH.

>>See the UK election where it was estimated that the "minority" vote which includes blacks and Asians of various religions would determine the outcome of possibly 100 seats. (some estimates said 55)<<

You look just a little foolish, when you pick it up and scrape the racist dirt off it, and work out what it really signifies.

Let's see if we can deconstruct, post facto, how this calculation might have been arrived at - bearing in mind, of course, that it was a pre-election, not a post-election topic.

"Campaigners believe that voters from the Asian and Afro-Caribbean communities could determine the outcome in as many as 100 constituencies during the May 6 elections."

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/65068/record-number-asian-candidates-contesting.html

First of all, you write down the winning margins of the candidates who were elected last time around.

Then you count up all the "minority" vote in each electorate.

Then you work out that if they all voted in the same direction, they hold the "balance of power".

Hallelujah! You have just calculated that this application of block voting would determine the outcome of "possibly 100 seats. (some estimates said 55)"

Now can you see how dumb your follow-up statement now appears?

>>If one (any)group gains such a foothold.. I suspect it is too late.<<

Errrrr. Epic fail.

No "group" is gaining any "foothold" here, since you are only taking into account the delta between the winner and runner-up. Not, as you seem to think, using their combined vote to actually vote in their own candidate.

Look, I know it is important to you to have something to be scared of.

But at least try to get your arguments straight.

Oh, and many many thanks to Proxy, for his - somewhat predictable - regurgitation of the famous Hilaly sermon of October 2006.

I notice that you present this work - as evidenced by it stretching over two posts - as a mainstream view.

For the sake of balance (don't you just hate that word, Proxy?), I'd like to record the aftermath of his remarks - which I can only assume that you omitted due to lack of space.

First, his apology.

"I unreservedly apologize to any woman who is offended by my comments. I had only intended to protect women's honour, something lost in The Australian presentation of my talk."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/sheik-sorry-for-sexist-comment/2006/10/26/1161749243241.html

You may also notice, as reported in the same article, that:

"Sheik Alhilali has been widely condemned by Muslim and non Muslim groups for the Ramadan sermon he gave in Arabic to 500 worshippers in Sydney"

Not quite the mainstream Muslim thinker you make him out to be, eh?

Less than a year later, he "retired".

Given the massive credibility you seem to ascribe to him, this would have come as something of a shock.

Strange then, that it didn't.

The trouble with symbols of course can be that they mean different things to different people.

Maybe they are referring commonly to an unrefined, undisciplined, "animal" like mentality, that acts out its primal urges without thinking first.

I don't profess to know. I do not know enough about these people, their religion, their culture, their language etc.

..

Though I would say, and to quote *Bruce Lee* again,

" ... Absorb what is useful. ... "

&

*JC*

" ... but does it not (the dead dog) have beautiful teeth? ... "

Of course, young Ozzie chickie babes would be well advised to have an awareness of the prevailing local conditions before strutting about in their bikini costumes, so that much at least is a plus from hearing the raving of the particular Sheik in question, as more than one young lady has made that mistake in other parts of the world.

Right or wrong often doesn't come into it in the first instance, but rather the reality as it is at a grass roots level - and hopefully our own personal prejudice, misconceptions, misplaced idealism and or religious fervor does not cloud our perception to the extent that we make a habit of judging people by the "outer garment."

..

But *Proxy* it does leave me wondering why you attempt to wrestle with an "Angel" so to speak, for surely you must realise in your Heart that they are not all bad.

You can for sure make arguments of opposing triangles in the outer orbit ad infinitum, but deep down, surely you must sense that there is something of virtue in some of the people you constantly seek to take down and alienate as a whole.

If you take exception to certain aspects of the lack of morality as demonstrated by certain individuals then it is all well and good to point it out in a considered manner, but to want to alienate the entire people for the sins of a few, surely will lead to the loss of much of your audience, to say the least?

Pericles.. kind thanks for your valuable and informative perspective.

Nothing like a bit of greek wisdom to clear the brain of it's cobwebs.

I look forward to your intrepid efforts to clarify muddy and fuzzy thinking in future :)

This seems an appropriate thread to point out that tomorrow, 20 May 2010, is the world's first International Draw Muhammad Day

See cute video at bottom of link

http://www.drawmuhammadday.com/

Pericles,
<<You may also notice, as reported in the same article, that:>>
"But the mufti of Australia and New Zealand would not back away from his comments and said he was shocked by the way his sermon was interpreted."
Hilali apologises for offending but does not withdraw what he said.
The fact is that Hilali's comments represent the orthodox Islamic view.
Your hypothetical "mainstream Muslim thinker", unlike Hilaly, is out of synch with Islam.
Mohammed on women:
1"A nation headed by a woman shall never succeed”,
2”The worst sin and distraction from virtue that I have left for man is woman”,
3“When I stood on the door of hell, I saw most of its inhabitants were women”,
4 “Women lack brain and religion”,
5 “If I have commanded kneeling for somebody, I would command a woman to kneel for her husband”,
6 “If a man summoned his wife for intercourse and she refused, the angels will curse her till the dawn”,
7 “If a man summoned his wife for intercourse, she has to respond even if she was above the furnace”.
“The husband has the right to have sex with his wife even if she is above the camel”
8“A woman shall not fast without the permission of her husband”
http://www.myspear.org/quran_stoning_women.html
Multicultural apologists are betting Australia's future that Islam can be reformed.
History shows otherwise.

Hmmm .. re the thread I note there are lots of people here whose namesake is the Prophet, lots of Abduls etc. People here, as elsewhere, take pride in their name and its religious significance. This society Indonesia is greatly influenced by those of the religious persuasion, both Islam in Jawa and Balinese Hinduism in Bali.

Strut, strut, strut " ... Yes my name is ... and my name means this and I do like this ... "

I personally find religious extremists of all persuasions irratating, with their petulant demands that others should do as they wish whether it be clothing or otherwise.

To me, the likes of *Philo* have some things in common with the Pakistanis who have just recently banned "FaceBook" access because of a campaign to caricature the Prophet of Islam.

*Philo* takes offence when people take His Lordy's name in vein:
"JESUS!"

Both ways, I think that their offense is rooted in their own ego and the Glory of Man.

..

I find fundamentalist Islamic teaching in relation to Women beyond offensive. But I could say the same of the Yahudis and also of the Catholics with the Protestants being remedial students.

..

So what's your message *Porky?* How do you break it all down? Do you perhaps assert that the Prophet of Islam is a looney and sufferer of hallucinations who gave birth to a bigoted, crazed, religion?

Equally, institutions are full of those who claim to be Jesus or a disciple of significance, who all burn with the inner fire of needing to preach the word to the heathen that they may be saved.

..

Be that as it may, there are a lot of good people who take something of one of the world religions and apply it in a good, decent, humane way, notwithstanding that some parts of their Holy Books may be bigoted and BloodThirsty.

..

What say you *Porky* Enlighten us lesser beings if you will in a NutShell.

Dreamon says:

"there are a lot of good people who take something of one of the world religions and apply it in a good, decent, humane way, notwithstanding that some parts of their Holy Books may be bigoted and BloodThirsty."

..and WHACKS that fascist nazi racist fundy 'Proxy' over the head with it...

you go Dreamy.. Proxy is clearly a menace to safety and social harmony.

Proxy. shame..shame :)

ALGOREisRICHandHEdoesn'tTURNoffTHElightsINhisMEGAmansionONearthDAYeitherANDheTRAVELSinAlincolnTOWNCARandPRIVATEjet,
Al Gore is your prototypical progressive and so is ALGOREisRICH...
Black is white, up is down and cause is effect.
<<Proxy is clearly a menace to safety and social harmony.>>
Here we have a "religion" that has been preaching rape, paedophilia, death to Jews, apostates, infidels and homosexuals for 1400 years. Where its most orthodox practitioners fly passenger jumbo jets into skyscrapers to the glory of their god or behead unbelievers on the internet screaming praise to their god. Where masses of true believers burn buildings and kill people when someone caricatures their "prophet".
Why is <<Proxy clearly a menace to safety>>?
Is it because he might incite yet more violence from one of the followers of the religion of peace?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Dear Proxy,

Take a look at the crimes committed in the
name of Christianity over the ages as well.
Finger-pointing is not a very constructive exercise.
And fundamentalists exist in all religions.

The majority of people don't cause needless suffering.
The majority believe in free speech and protect it
even if they disagree with what is being said: most
people pay their taxes, they don't cheat, don't kill,
don't commit incest, don't do things to others that
they would not wish done to them. Some of these
good principles can be found in holy books, but
buried alongside much else that no decent person would
wish to follow: and the holy books do not supply any
rules for distinguishing the good principles from
the bad.

Here is a list of "New Ten Commandments", which appeared
on an atheist website:

Do not do to others what you would not want them to
do to you.

In all things, strive to cause no harm.

Treat your fellow human beings, as your fellow
living things, and the world in general with love,
honesty, faithfulness, and respect.

Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering
justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing
freely admitted and honestly regretted.

Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.

Always seek to be learning something new.

Test all things: always check your ideas against
facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished
belief if it does not conform to them.

Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent:
always respect the right of others to disagree with
you.

Form independent opinions on the basis of your own
reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be
led blindly by others.

Question everything.

DreamOn,
<<So what's your message *Porky?* How do you break it all down? Do you perhaps assert that the Prophet of Islam is a looney and sufferer of hallucinations who gave birth to a bigoted, crazed, religion?
Equally, institutions are full of those who claim to be Jesus or a disciple of significance, who all burn with the inner fire of needing to preach the word to the heathen that they may be saved.>>

You say <<Equally>> but there is a minor flaw in your analogy.
The latter are recognised as delusional and are not taken seriously.
The former, after 1400 years, still commands allegiance until death from hundreds of millions of followers, many of whom are willing to kill in his name.
Apart from that small detail, they're much the same.

Posted by Proxy, Thursday, 20 May 2010 10:36:23 AM
" ... The latter are recognised as delusional and are not taken seriously. The former, after 1400 years, still commands allegiance until death from hundreds of millions of followers, many of whom are willing to kill in his name. ... "

Oh I don't know *Proxy* but I suspect if certain individuals started preaching violent retribution against the infidel in Australia they would soon enough be locked up, and further that some people regarded as delusional in Australia would likely receive honour in other parts of the world.

How does it go?

"A Prophet is not without Honour except in His own Home."

Hmmm ..

And can we really equate modern Islam or Christianity with its current day expression. Things evolve, and I enjoyed *Foxy's* last contribution, with some of my Demons shrinking from the mirrors held up.

Certainly as you well know the activities of the Church such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, the persecution of Women to name but a few surely cannot be considered to be expressions of the Christ God.

Every society has mechanisms by which they can be harnessed up for war, which obviously vary depending on culture etc. Its a bit like the multi headed mythological Beings from the Hindu pantheon, which present differently according to the nature of the entity that comes before them. So, if you arrive with malintent, you are likely to get a dose of Kali Ma, but if you interact with Love and Compassion, a different face accordingly.

Certainly the kill ratio is vastly more dead Islamists than Westerners and I for one do not simply view the activities of the West as all peaches and cream.

I forget all the 4 Greek words for Love, recalling but Eros and Agape, but do recall that one also is Love of Country. There are not so many who are prepared to stand up for what they believe in the face of the Will of their Family, Friends and Country.

Consider the activity and fate of *Lawrence* both before and after Arabia.

Dreamy

EROS (erotic/sensual)
PHILEW (philial love)
AGAPE (divine..not related to any merit in the object of that love)

just 3 I think

On the preaching etc.. you might do well to listen to some sermons from Sydney some time :) you probably know which 'faith' I'm talking about.

Hillsong is about as dangerous as a wet lettuce leaf. (physically at least) gee..I suppose you could always slip on one of them eh :)

Dear AG,

Perhaps you should (to maintain some
sort of balance) also read Christopher
Hitchen's book, "The Missionary Position:
Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice."

Or listen to Randall Terry, founder of
Operation Rescue, an organisation for
intimidating abortion providers in the US.

"When I, or peole like me, are running the
country, you'd better flee, because we will
find you, we will try you, and we'll execute you.
I mean every word of it. I will make it part of
my mission to see to it that you are tried and
executed..." Terry was here referring to doctors
who provide abortions, and his Christian inspiration
is clearly shown by other statements:

I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash
over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash
over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a
Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called
by God, to conquer this country. We don't want
equal time. We don't want pluralism. Our goal must be
simple. We must have a Christian nation built on
God's law, on the Ten Commandments. No apologies."

The ambition is to achieve what can only be called
a Christian fascist state is entirely typical
of the American Taliban. It is an almost exact mirror
image of the Islamic fascist state so ardently
sought by religious extremists in other parts of the world.

Randall Terry is not - yet - in political power.
But no observer of the American political scene
can afford to be sanguine.

Perhaps AG, you could start a new thread on Randall
Terry?

Foxy quotes:

We have a Biblical duty, we are called
by God, to conquer this country. We don't want
equal time. We don't want pluralism. Our goal must be
simple. We must have a Christian nation built on
God's law, on the Ten Commandments. No apologies

That's indeed scary stuff Foxy.
Fortunately we have the New Testament and Acts 15 which stipulated the limit of the Mosaic law to be applied to Gentiles.

If Randall Terry chooses to ignore it.... not much I can do except demonstrate the 'un' Christian nature of his position.

If he get's elected into power.. it would only be by the 'we the people' saying so..and if they choose to put him there..to quote one of my favorite recent quotes of yours "what is that to us" :)

Good for NYC council.. Good for Randall Terry's political future eh ?

However..for your comfort...I cannot see any serious Biblical Christian supporting such a person or program. I sure wouldn't.

I'll spare you the detailed unpacking and analysis of Terry's quote.. you have a New Testament.. just read it please.
blessings.
AGiR

Plenty killed by the those claiming to be Christians in the past but not nearly as many as Stalin, Mao and now abortion all in the name of no god.

I think what we are seeing now with Islam is what in financial circles is called a “dead cat bounce”.

A lot of the losers & loonies who in previous times would filtered into the Red Brigades or Baader-Meinhof or a monastery are finding a home in Al-Qaeda-copycats.They look more potent than they are because they are aided and abetted by cheerleaders in the loopy left in the west who parrot their propaganda.

While acknowledge that some aforementioned LLs are highly educated . In the long run –barring a major world reversion to an earlier more primitive stage--I cannot see Islam or any other such creed holding out ,for long, against the spread of education & technology .

Even the Saudi royals – despite their ritualistic show of adherence to the most conservative of Islams -- are beginning to use the western-liberal equations & mores , describing the fundamentalists as seeking to return things to the “dark age” .

And, if the whiz-bang super-duper university they have on the drawing boards comes through, it will set in motion some pretty powerful modernizing currents in Islams heartland

Dear AG,

Thank You for referring me to the New Testament.
I've read it.
I'm currently reading Richard Dawkins at the moment.
His book, "The God Delusion," is one I can recommend
you read. Especially the chapter on the New
Testament.

Dawkins says:

"There's no denying that, from a moral point of view,
Jesus is a huge improvement over the cruel ogre of
the Old Testament... The Sermon on the Mount is way
ahead of its time. His "turn the other cheek"
anticipated Gandhi and Martin Luther King by two
thousand years..."

However Dawkins criticizes Jesus' family values.
"He was short, to the point of brusqueness, with
his own mother, and he encouraged his disciples to
abandon their families to follow him. "If any man
come to me and hate not his father and mother,
and wife and children, and brethren, and sisters,
yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

Dawkins asks:
"Isn't that what cults do? Get you to reject your
family in order to inculcate you?"

Dawkins then says:

" Notwithstanding his somewhat dodgy family values,
Jesus ethical teachings were - least by comparison
with the ethical disaster area that is the Old
Testament - admirable." ; However, according to Dawkins
" there are other teachings in the New Testament
that no good person should support." He refers
especially to the central doctrine of Christianity:
that of "atonement" for "original sin."
Dawkins says us that "this teaching which lies
at the heart of New Testament theology, is almost
as morally obnoxious as the story of Abraham setting
out to barbeque Isaac..." The Christian focus is
overwhelmingly on sin, sin, sin, sin. According to
Dawkins, "What a nasty little preoccupation to have
dominating your life..."

I won't go into any further detail.

I am pleased that you also found Randall Terry
frightening. And I have to admit that I can't help
but wonder whether you are BOAZ_David?

Are you?

Dear Foxy

you stated:

However Dawkins criticizes Jesus' family values.
"He was short, to the point of brusqueness, with
his own mother, and he encouraged his disciples to
abandon their families to follow him. "If any man
come to me and hate not his father and mother,
and wife and children, and brethren, and sisters,
yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

I should have added in my original referral to the NT .. "and some in depth knowledge of ancient middle eastern Jewish modes of communication"

That passage Dawkins cited is just one of a number which is often misunderstood, and is taken 'literally' when it was not mean't to be.

Another example is "If your eye sins, gouge it out".. Jesus also said that.
It was a method of speaking which got the message across by using extremely colorful language.

Dawkins is RIGHT.. 'cults' DO use such tactics, gee..I wouldnt be surprised if they even use that passage from the Bible.

However, Jesus made other claims which kind of set him apart from the 'cult' thing. "I am the light of the world" wow :) that ought to raise Him to the 'loony nutter' level no ?

If you believe Jesus was starting a 'cult' in the way we understand the term.. well.. perhaps less of Dawkins and more of Jesus would be my prescription. Plus!- a nice walk in the Dandenongs.

Dear Foxy
with all due respect and consideration for your question.. let me just say that the rules of the forum are that a contributor cannot have more than one identity at the one time.... so..if they choose to delete old accounts and begin a new one.. is that not their right ?

I am ..who I am.. the real life person. But online..I am who I choose to be. Just like you are not 'foxy' but someone with a real name and life. My online persona should not be of concern to anyone. But of course, feel free to speculate :) that is also everyones right.

There seems to be a lot of undue attention paid to this kind of thing, for reasons I am not yet sure of. If Proxy is Herman is KMG ? I don't know and I don't care.. however..I DO care about what he says and whether he backs up his claims with evidence which I can independantly verify.

Privacy is a good thing. Who knows?.. the real "ME" might end up the thorn in the Liberal and Labor and Green side in the next election :)
But 'ALGOREisRICH' is who I am for now..and next I might be 'MSisCORRUPT' or DELUDEDgreen or.. LABOURthug or.. BNPwarrior .. or WATERMELON (green on the outside..red in the middle) I rather like that one actually. Each persona might have a specific social or political purpose. You may be assured of one thing though, OLO is just one of many avenues for a person to engage with others and in the process refine arguments, style and ideas, even when mocked or riduculed..it's all good.

Ain't life grand *smile*

Horus,
I find your theory the more realistic. I wonder though if we'lll ever manage to subdue religious superstition & beliefs to a stage where people actually think for themselves ? I mean this nonsense has been going on for a couple of thousand years now & even longer in a more primitive form. I think as long as people take notice of this crap the world isn't going to improve. A demise of religion would undoubtedly result in a demise of mayhem & suffering. As for those names well, they're a true reflection of the mentality of those we have to tolerate until natural selection takes its course.

We've had this discussions so many times before, Boaz. And therefore I know ahead of time what your excuse will be, but I'll ask it anyway.

You write:

>>That passage Dawkins cited is just one of a number which is often misunderstood, and is taken 'literally' when it was not mean't to be.
Another example is "If your eye sins, gouge it out".. Jesus also said that. It was a method of speaking which got the message across by using extremely colorful language.<<

If you ever get back into your old habit of quoting passages from the Qur'an, please will you remember what you have written here about your own holy book?

In fact, why don't you print it out, laminate it, and stick it on the keyboard of your machine, where you can constantly refer to it?.

Dear Pericles,

Beautifully said!
Excellent advice.

However don't hold your breath that it
will be heeded.

Only one book is holy, only one religion
is "good," as only one needs to be chided,
over and over and over again ...

Double-standard rules apply here - ad nauseum!

Pericles, Foxy,

You are missing the point.

None of us believes the bible or koran is some sort of holy book dictated by the creator of the universe.

The question is this:

To what extent to BELIEVERS interpret these texts literally?

Whatever its faults, the Catholic Church famously is NOT literalist. Here is what Augustine had to say on the topic 1500 years ago.

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, … about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters,…"

Of course this does not stop the Catholic Church having some pretty loony dogma. But they are not literalist.

However many protestant denominations are as evidenced by their objections to evolution.

My experience is that most Muslims do take the koran and ahadith literally as evidenced by THEIR objections to evolution and the stoning to death of "adulteresses".

How can it be otherwise if you believe that the koran is a faithful transcript of a message direct from God to Muhammad via the angel Gibril? Muslims do IN FACT believe that the koran replicates this message word for word, syllable for syllable, phoneme for phoneme. The written koran of today, when correctly enunciated, so Muslims REALLY believe, captures every meaning and every nuance of every meaning of that original message.

Don't take my word for this. ASK ANY PRACTISING MUSLIM.

It is you who are applying double standards by refusing to acknowledge that practising Muslims are as BLOODY MINDED about their religion as fundamentalist Christians like Boaz. Or for that matter like certain fundamentalist Jews.

How many people died as a result of the Rushdie affair again?

Foxy,
<<Double-standard rules apply here - ad nauseum!>>
Yes, and you are the one applying them.
Please show me where even one Christian suggests that Jesus' figurative speech about plucking out offending eyes should be taken literally and then proceeds to pluck out a transgressor's eyes.
For every one example you give me I will give you ten+ where Mohammed and the Koran's literal speech advocating death to the infidels is taken literally.

Proxyyyy.. ur giving me ideas there :) Plucking out transgressors eyes...hmmmm....

*looking at Pericles*.....

I just wish poor Pericles and dear foxy would actually do some theological training before making silly comments on things they obviously know very little about.

The Bible and Quran are TOTally different types of document.. separated by linguistic, cultural and historical issues and contexts and by 600 yrs.

If u blessed pair are going to pick on me.. try doing it on a point of weakness rather than strength.. otherwise you look like a pair guilded not so youthful people in that IronBark barbers shop with smug looks. (Cultural note for the foreigner Pericles.... see next link)

http://www.wallisandmatilda.com.au/man-from-ironbark.shtml Verse 3

/....TAGS PROXY :)

StevenLmeyer.. excellent points. But I sympathize with you :)
You are speaking logically, rationally and reasonably, -qualities which are totally lost on the 'bigot' whoever he or she or they might be *smile*

Steven..but even if they did 'ask a practicing muslim'.. when you suffer from the entrenched denial of Pericles and the well meaning but "I still see the good in people" Foxy.. I fear they would 'hear..but not perceive'.

Being Jewish you might 'get' this more than some (the link) :)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+135&version=NIV
verse 16 (last half) and 17 (first half)

I'm not sure you can have it both ways, Boaz and stevenlmeyer, however much you would like to.

>>None of us believes the bible or koran is some sort of holy book dictated by the creator of the universe. The question is this: To what extent to BELIEVERS interpret these texts literally?<<

More relevant to this thread would seem to be "to what extent do Christians insist that the Qur'an is taken literally by its believers".

We don't actually see any Muslims here making outlandish claims and muttering dark threats, I have noticed.

Only Christians.

I wonder why. Any thoughts?

>>The Bible and Quran are TOTally different types of document.. separated by linguistic, cultural and historical issues and contexts and by 600 yrs.<<

Actually, stevenlmeyer clearly disagrees. At least, from any practical point of view.

To him, they each have relevance to their "believers", as he calls them (I can't bring myself to type that in caps), and would appear to be some sort of behavioural guide.

Your approach though is quite similar. You carefully pick and choose the bits of your own style guide you insist that your lot follows, and then carefully pick and choose the bits of theirs that, you insist, the other lot follows.

A touch lopsided, is it not, when you get to make the rules, as well as being a competitor.

And then do the umpiring, just to be on the safe side.

>>If u blessed pair are going to pick on me.. try doing it on a point of weakness rather than strength.<<

Your weakness, Boaz (and I'm sure I'm not the first person to have pointed this out) is that you are culturally and attitudinally unable to listen.

Regrettably, you see this as a strength.

On which basis you are right, of course. We will forever be talking to your "strength".

Pericles asks why "We don't actually see any Muslims here making outlandish claims and muttering dark threats…"

How many Muslims do we have posting here?

How many non-Muslims posting here are Christians "making outlandish claims and muttering dark threats"? Very few.

Unlike you Pericles I have tried to find out what Mosque-attending Muslims believe. I've engaged with them here and in South Africa. I've enquired about their beliefs. I've spoken to Imams.

How many Muslims have I questioned over the past decades? I cannot give you a count but it is certainly well over a hundred. Probably over 200 though I cannot be certain.

I visit Islamic bookshops and ask what people are buying.

And of course since the advent of Internet I browse high traffic Muslim websites and read the comments of respected Muslim scholars such as al-Qaradawi.

You see, unlike you Pericles, I take the trouble to research BEFORE I pontificate. Unlike yours, the views I express here are researched.

As a result of my researches I can make the following statements with confidence.

--That the koran is an actual VERBATIM message from God is a core Muslim belief.

--Most Mosque-attending Muslims believe this to be literally true.

--Many of them believe the koran contains "scientific miracles" – facts which were unknown at the time but have now been revealed as true by science

--Most believe that Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are true stories about Muhammad and his sayings.

Many of them are completely bloody minded when it comes to applying the koran and ahadith.

Oh, and if you want to see Muslims "making outlandish claims and muttering dark threats" may I suggest you browse the Muslim Village Forum website:

http://muslimvillage.com/forums/

Inter alia you will see Australian Muslims seeking to justify violence against cartoonists.

Your refusal to acknowledge that Muslims are as bloody-minded as fundamentalist Christians about their beliefs, the mental gymnastics you engage in to avoid seeing the reality of contemporary Islam, tells me nothing about Islam but rather a lot about Pericles.

How many people died in the Rushdie affair again?

Regarding how one culture should conduct themselves when integrating into a host culture, saint Ambrose put it well "when in Rome do as the Romans do".

I call it as I see it, stevenlmeyer.

>>Your refusal to acknowledge that Muslims are as bloody-minded as fundamentalist Christians about their beliefs, the mental gymnastics you engage in to avoid seeing the reality of contemporary Islam, tells me nothing about Islam but rather a lot about Pericles.<<

I can definitely agree that there are some Muslims who are as "bloody minded as fundamentalist Christians about their beliefs".

I however disagree that this permits you to tar all Muslims with the same brush.

I have worked in a number of Muslim countries, including Indonesia and Turkey. Not one of the Muslims I have ever met - and they would be certainly more than your 200 - have exhibited any of the traits that you ascribe to them.

My information has not been influenced by searching the Internet for sites that confirm my prejudices. Perhaps that's where you are being misled.

Foxy,
<<You know you're right because you've read
the "truth" in your holy book and you know
in advance, that nothing will budge you from
your belief. The truth of your holy book
is an axiom, not the end product of a process
of reasoning. To you the book is true,
and if the evidence seems to contradict it,
it is the evidence that must be thrown out,
not your holy book.>>
You're talking in riddles.
Which holy book are you talking about?
The Koran or the Bible?
I don't subscribe to either of these, or any other "holy book".
The reason I criticise the Koran and not the Bible is not because I have an affinity with the Bible.
Please note that I also don't criticise the Upanishads or the Bhagavid Gita or the Tanakh either.
I criticise the Koran because it is a dangerous document.
Its adherents take its evil injunctions to be literally true.
The literal word of God.
Unchangeable.
Forever.
It underpins the Islamic violence we see everyday in so many places around the world.
To compare the Koran to the Bible is unthinking stupidity.

StevenlMeyer

for insights into what christians talk about in forums..

why not look at some ?

Here's one :)

http://www.christianforums.com/t7459262/

"DaBronx" asks..

//Hi... I have a question about the Jews...
Hey guys,
Blessings in Christ Jesus!

I'm doing a study on world religions and need to know what does your religion feel about the Jews... are they still the chosen people... or do Christians and Christianity replace them?//

ANSWER..from "Anoetos"

We believe that the Church is Israel, not to the exclusion of ethnic Jews but rather to their inclusion, with believing Gentiles, in Christ, the sum of the Law and the Prophets.

The Church has not replaced Israel, Israel is always the Church and the Church is always Israel, but that now, in Christ, the wall between Jew and Gentile has been broken down such that Gentile believers are brought near and included in the saving covenant.

STOP PRESS! .. notice the belligerent "the wall between Jews and Gentile has been broken down"..now THAT should rate as a verry dangerous and violent comment..right ? :)

But I must confess..it sounds more like conciliation to me.

I'm sure someone could dig up something more 'dangerous' though?
(Pericles.. your good at that)

Oh.... I found this in Muslim Village Forum :)

http://muslimvillage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=58944

Topic: "RACIST MUSLIMS"
Asalamalaikum,

couldn't find a thread discussion on this so I figured I start one up. Alhumdolilah its great to see Islam spread with more and more reverts perse, but one thing that really annoys me and I mean really annoys me... Is the amount of worship 'white' reverts get compared to non-white reverts. Kick, scream and argue all you like about how Islam preaches peace and tranquility but i'm starting to get quite fed up with such erratic behaviour from muslims who say one thing but do another. I've seen it all too much in hajj and throughout my journeys across most of Asia plus from personal accounts from non-white newcomers to the faith. It astounds me as to why a white revert will be given so many perks yet a non-caucasoid will be given diddly squat.

COMMENT.

Seems 'White Power' is alive and well even in Muslim circles.

Well..what can I say ? :) at least the above is not violent!

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

wow..

-Racism
-Sexism
-Slavery

all solved in just one sentence. I'm sure my MARXISM 101 or Gender Studies said different......

ALGOREisRICH

The "Muslim Village Forum" website has long been a source of fascination and, above all, AMUSEMENT for me.

You may want to look at the "Lars Vilks attacked at Uppsala University" thread.

http://muslimvillage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=58882

Vilks is a cartoonist who drew Muhammad.

The thread was started by someone called "Kristin" who claims to be a Christian but argues like an atheist.

She(?) opens with a link to a youtube video:

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

Someone who calls himself "Gnu Ordure" tries to get the Muslims there to commit themselves. Do they or do they not agree with the attack on Vilks. Someone called "Randwiggend" keeps equivocating.

Then "toomuchnoise" weighs in with this beauty (post #89):

EXCERPTS:

Again, I applaud it [the attack on Vilks].

Reminder for Muslims, from the noble book, Al Shifa of Qadi Iyad:

The following a fiqhi and qawa'id rulings.

"Know that all who curse Muhammad, …or blame him or attribute imperfection to him in his person, his lineage, his deen or any of his qualities, or alludes to that or its like by any means whatsoever, whether in the form of a curse or contempt or belittling him or detracting from him or finding fault with him or maligning him, the judgement regarding such a person is the same as the judgement against anyone who curses him. He is killed as we shall make clear. This judgement extends to anything which amounts to a curse or disparagement. We have no hesitation concerning this matter, be it a clear statement or allusion."

"… All of this is the consensus of the 'ularna' and the imams of fatwa from the time of the Companions until today."

END EXCERPTS

Muslim Village even has their equivalent of our own OUG. He calls himself FatBoyMuslim. Here is one of his contributions (post #99):

EXCERPTS

"i would love it if those guys got into a head on collision with a muslim's 16-wheeler and if their corpses were plastered on the asphalt like worthless roadkill.

"i really hope they get into a traffic accident and die inshallah ya rabb."

END EXCERPTS

I especially follow FatBoyMuslim's posts

stevenlmeyer: << The "Muslim Village Forum" website has long been a source of fascination and, above all, AMUSEMENT for me. >>

Sounds very similar to the way that reading the paranoid comments from OLO's Islamophobes and religious nutters functions for me :)

CJ MORGAN

There is no doubt that Muslim Village and OLO add to what Samuel Johnson called "the public stock of harmless pleasure."

Here's a tale of a husband who got busted. Muslim Village poster "Shenayeshen" asks whether her husband can change their daughter's nappies.

QUOTE:

"My hubbies boss told him today that it's haram for him (my hubby) to change our daughters nappies"

END QUOTE

http://muslimvillage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=58897

Nice try. I wish I'd thought of that excuse three decades ago.

However it doesn't fly.The poster, "alaq" (post #5) directs Shenayeshen to a ruling by the scholar Amjad Rasheed who, let if be noted, has an "ijaza". This provides the definitive answer.

QUOTE:

"Yes, it is permitted for a man to change his small child&#65533;s diaper, and also the diapers of another&#65533;s child.

"In such a case, it would also be permitted for him to look at the private parts of the child, whether male or female, because of the need to clean and apply medicine [when the need arises]. This has been explicitly stated by Allama al-Shabramallisi in Hashiyat al-Nihaya.

"It should be noted, however, that touching the private parts with one&#65533;s inner palm without a barrier invalidates ritual ablutions (wudu) in the Shafi`i school, even when the one touched is small."

END QUOTE

See:

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=2905&CATE=335

However poster Hasaan Fatal (post #14) has an even better answer.

"It is only haram to change your daughter's nappy if the soccer is on."

LOL steven - I like it :)

Dear Steven...this is SPECIALLY for you.. it will blow your mind if you don't already know it.

Chat rooms/forums etc can be very intersting places..you never know who is doing the talking...

That 13 yr old girl the Pedo is talking to could be a cop !

or
That racist neo nazi on Stormfront could be a Canadian Human Rights lawyer baiting you so he can sue your ass off and milk you of truckloads of money.

Especially when that lawyer is the Hate Speech commissioner on that Tribunal and his mates are the ones deciding the case.... truly.. even a good writer would struggle to invent this stuff but it's true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tVBeDoJc3Y

Ezra Levant is one of my newest hero's

See how he destroyed THREE of Canada's Human Reich tribunals with one simple weapon 'truth'.

THE DYNAMIC DUO Steyn and Levant in full flight :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h21ukA5lFA&feature=related

There are a few parts to that vid series and each one will have you in stiches of righteous indignation at the utterly vile bottom feeding fecal pc socialist scum who try to control our lives through human rights tribunals..

Ours is on my 'list' for attention I assure you.

ALGOREisRICH

I have been following the adventures of Ezra Levant for some time. Here is his statement to a "human rights commissioner".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5dwUqCGJeE

I am happy to say that thus far he is winning hands down.

To repeat what I have often stated.

Regardless of what the law may say I regard ANY belief system including but not restricted to agnosticism, atheism, Buddhism, Christianity, Fascism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Marxism, Nazism, scientology, Sikhism, Zionism and Zoroastrianism to be a LEGITIMATE target for critique, analysis, satire and SCORN.

It does not matter whether the belief system is labelled a religion. Religion should enjoy no immunity from critique, analysis, satire and scorn.

The critic is under no obligation to consider the feelings of believers or to take heed of notions of "fairness".

The only speech that should be prohibited is actual and EXPLICIT incitement to violence.

Islamo-phobia, Judaeo-phobia, Christiano-phobia and any other belief-o-phobia is as legitimate a point of view as, say, Nazi-phobia.

Islamo-phobia is not comparable to anti-Semitism since this is hatred of an ethnic group not a belief system. Islamo-phobia is comparable to Judaeo-phobia but since Muslims have a marked aversion to Judaism they cannot really complain if the compliment is returned.

I will respect anyone's right to believe and say what they want. I will also respect their right to espouse their beliefs but that is different to respecting the beliefs themselves.

I support Ezra Levant and his fight for free speech 100% and am happy to see that he wins every time

I've never tried to create more than 1 persona here, though I imagine it is not too difficult. No more difficult than creating a new persona after you have been IP banned I would imagine.

..

*BoazY* In the part of Indonesia where I lived for a while, and can do again if I so choose, most of the people can't even read well or read well enough to get seriously into the text of the Al'Quoran.

Mmmm ...

They are practising Muslims all right though. But they're prayers are like a singing chant, which they do over and over.

One guy who did the trip to Arab Saudi and became a Haji couldn't understand a word that was said in Arabic during the whole trip he reckons. But he did the walk and the Mecca thing and returned to be afforded increased respect from all the locals.

..

*WaterMelon* - Green on the OutSide and PINK on the InSide too:
;-)

..

*Posted by Proxy, Friday, 21 May 2010 9:56:34 PM*
To compare the Koran to the Bible is unthinking stupidity.

Of course, and it has been cited in this place before, the Al'Quoran is quite clear that JC is a Prophet and that ALL the Prophets are equal and to be adhered to.

..

Of course, in many places religion is meshed and welded into the political control mechanism

AND

we are at war with parts of Islam poppets - UNQUESTIONABLEY.

Thus, I think a lot of what *Proxy et al* latch on to are something of the mechanisms used to incite violence in the orchestration of hostilities.

..

However, once you have combed out the politics, control mechanisms, history, culture and doctrinal distortions, you end up with avenues for the expression of peace and Good Will in abundance.

DreamOn,
<<However, once you have combed out the politics, control mechanisms, history, culture and doctrinal distortions,
you end up with avenues for the expression of peace and Good Will in abundance.>>
The trouble is, those who have attempted to comb out all the above have ended up brushing with death.
Not that I agree with you on the doctrinal distortions and the expression of peace and Good Will in abundance bit.
Islamic fundamentalism is a return to pure Islam;
a combing out of the doctrinal distortions.
That is the problem.
"Moderate" Muslims have no doctrinal basis for their "moderation".
Good neighbour Muslims are good neighbours because they are not good Muslims.
ie they are not adhering to the Islamic doctrine,
as it is clearly spelled out in the Koran and Hadith:
* Infidels are your sworn enemies (Sura 4:101).
* Be ruthless to the infidels (Sura 48:29).
* Make war on the infidels who dwell around you (Sura 9:123, 66:9).
* Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day (Sura 9:29).
* Strike off the heads of infidels in battle (Sura 47:4).
* If someone stops believing in Allah, kill him (al-Bukhari 9:84:57).
* Take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends (Sura 5:51, 60:13).
* Never be a helper to the disbelievers (Sura 28:86).
* Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them (Sura 2:191).
* No Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel (al-Bukhari 1:3:111).
* The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land (Sura 5:33).
The above are not "doctrinal distortions"; they ARE the doctrine.
Al Qaeda et al. are the true followers of Islam.

*waves at Dreamy* "Anun Bala"? .. do? hope so :)

I know you won't get that.. ok..I'll relent- "apa kabar"? baik? haraplah.

On the Muslims of Indonesia.. err most as you describe are

Animists with a thin layer of Islam on the outside. You know it.I know it.. now every1 knows it :)

salam bahagia

Dear AG,

Two things:

1) kesatuan dalam keragaman.

And -

2) hidup dan membiarkan hidup.

Foxy wrote:

1) kesatuan dalam keragaman.

And -

2) hidup dan membiarkan hidup.

These are fine sentiments Foxy. I wonder how many Muslim majority countries apply them.

I wonder how many Australian MOSQUE-GOING Muslims would sign on for them if they were not themselves in a minority here.

See:

http://muslimvillage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=58508&mode=linearplus

See especially posts #51, #59 & #67.

From #67

QUOTE

that is my personal wish to see what happens to a person who insults the prophet, anywhere in the world where i know islamic law is not applied - in kafir lands. it is my wish to see them get involved in such accidents and i am proud of wishing such accidents on these cartoonists and anyone who supports them. if they were in an islamic state, they would be executed and cremated dishonourably. they could be crucified upside down and burned, as the masud website article points out and numerous other islamic texts.

END QUOTE

I'd like to say this guy has a few mental health issues. But then I'd have to say it about quite a few Muslim posters on Muslim Village Forums who appear to agree, or at least not disagree, with him.

The major critique is:

"I think you need to seriously reconsider how you behave in public."

Note: IN PUBLIC.

Well_done_Foxy :) do you know the lingo or just go a translation online ?

Unity_in_diversity is something most Protestant_Denominations have..and (in the light of a wonderful recent_experience at a mall,) -Charismatic Catholics)
High Anglican and Roman Catholic don't often share those attributes with the rest of we sub humans :)

But the point is, a Baptist ('Believers Baptism' emphasis) and a Presbyterian (Infant Baptism) are not at odds very seriously. Neither would like the other to try to change the way they do things, which is entirely understandable, but on basics they are identical.

1/ -Christ died for our sins and was raised from the dead according to the Scriptures.
2/ -He will return.
3/ -The One God is eternally existent in three persons. (always a difficult one..specially for Muslims)

But the very very important thing about this unity we share in the pan denominational faith.. is that we could not and would not have it if one group utterly cursed the other. Let's use our favorite warm hearted pastor Fred Phelps as an example. I don't sense any unity whatsoever with his mob and I'm sure it is mutual.

Harmonious diversity should (or can only) be based on non mutually exclusive elements.

I know that trying to persuade you of this is futile..so I won't try :) all I can do is state it for the record.

Just out of idle_curiosity.. what do you make of what Steven posted ?

Here is a good one..

http://www.islaam.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=211:shirk-polytheism-the-ultimate-crime&catid=46:polytheism-association-with-allah&Itemid=194

//Murder, rape, child molesting and genocide. These are all some of the appalling crimes which occur in our world today. Many would think that these are the worst possible offences which could be committed. But there is something which outweighs all of these crimes put together: It is the crime of shirk (associating partners with the sole Lord and Creator)// (fundamentalist site)

COMMENT
For info on what 'associating_partners_with_Allah' is..please see point 3 in the three point list above.."that" is shirk.

Let me repeat..I'm not trying to persuade you.. just providing information you can factor in to the mix.
No offense meant.

Dear AG and Steven,

I appreciate your points of view -
even though I look at things from
a different perspective.

My father was raised by Jesuits.
He spoke Latin, and was a classics scholar.
He taught me to try to form
my own independent opinion on the
basis of my own reason and experience;
not to allow myself to be led blindly
by others. To question everything.

I therefore have a problem with sweeping
statements, generalizations, and tarring all
people of any given religion with the same brush.
I find that
you can only evaluate things from your
own experience.

I appreciate your points of view.
I don't mean to be contentious and
I really prefer not to indulge in confrontation
because I feel (like Richard Dawkins) that an
adversarial format is not well designed to get
at the truth. However, as we all know when the
right buttons are pushed, we all react.
However, I genuinely believe that there's enough
hatred in the world, and I really don't care to
add to it. We're going to have to agree to disagree
on this topic.

Foxy

I am afraid your last post is a piece of self-righteous humbuggery

Dear Foxy

as I said:

"I know that trying to persuade you of this is futile..so I won't try :) all I can do is state it for the record."

Which...is what I did.

You are right about one thing there is enough hatred in the world, as exemplified in the quote I provided from that 'fundamentalist' site ..and mind you, where I specifically mentioned it was a fundamentalist site.

You say we can agree to disagree.. but I'm not sure what you actually disagree "about" ?

I cannot imagine that your 'unity in diversity' claim will include in your own mind the extremes of any faith or militant ideology either left or right... would this be correct ?

There can never be "unity" between Hyper Capitalists and Revolutionary Marxists....can there ?

If there can...please explain how?

We can have 'co-existence' where one mob is trying to gain supremacy over the other.. held back by law not intent..

So.. the strategy embraced by the Marxists is to achieve their goals WITH the law rather than by blood on the streets.

(see new thread if approved "Clause 61 and Gay Rights" for a detailed examination of that actual process.

They have moved away from 'REVolution' and, as guided by Herbert Marcuse and his Frankfurt school of neo marxist critical theorists are now using EVOlutionary changes in the law to bring us all to "Marxist Utopia"

But.. not the hell on MY watch!

Dear Steven,

As I've stated previously:

It's best to remember that any criticism
born of ignorance, mistrust, or hatred is
not only ineffectual and a complete waste
of time, it's harmful and elicits equally
pointless and damaging responses.

Prejudice has made damned experts of us all!

Dear AG,

Unless you have real experience and knowledge,
what can you say that won't sound foolish or
worse bigoted, to someone who knows and
appreciates more than you do? You're not likely
to be in a position to have something worth
saying unless you spend years immersing yourself
in gaining knowledge, experience, and understanding,
and only then if your agenda isn't hostile.

Foxy wrote:

"Prejudice has made damned experts of us all!"

Yes it has.

Spot on!

My Concise Oxford Dictionary defines prejudice as:

"A preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience..."

Usually he word "prejudice" is used to characterise a negative opinion. But that need not be the case. ANY preconceived opinion, positive negative or neutral, that is not based on "reason" or "actual experience" is a "prejudice."

When it comes to contemporary Islam I submit it is you who is "prejudiced" and me who is making a considered judgment about the nature of that belief system and the effects it has on many, not all, of its adherents

Dear Steven,

According to the unabridged edition
of "The Random House Dictionary of
The English Language," the word
"prejudice," means :

1) An unfavourable opinion or feeling
formed beforehand or without knowledge,
thoughts, or reason.

2) unreasonable feelings, opinions, or
attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature,
directed against a racial, religious or
national group.

You really need to respect the right of others
Steven, to disagree with you and learn to test
things; always check your ideas against facts,
and be ready to discard even a cherished belief
if it does not conform to them.

Foxy wrote:

"You really need to respect the right of others Steven, to disagree with you..."

I always do. You will never find me calling for censorship of any sort.

Specifically it is not me calling for curbs on the freedom to subject ANY belief system to critique, analysis, satire and scorn.

It is not me trying to stop anybody expressing an opinion on the grounds that my feelings may be hurt.

I am not seeking to justify violence against those who differ from me.

I am not calling for cartoonists to cease and desist.

I do not regard anyone who expresses a contrary opinion as being guilty of "hate speech".

But respecting your right to disagree does not necessarily mean I respect the opinions you express. That's part of MY right to disagree with YOU.

"...learn to test things; always check your ideas against facts,
and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them."

Once again, I am always ready to to change my mind if the facts do not support my opinion.

Are you?

To me the FACTS support the view that contemporary Islam is a totalitarian ideology like Stalinism. That does not mean every Muslim has murder in his heart. As I have said on a number of occasions, most Christians are not as good as their religion and most Muslims are not as bad as their religion.

Semantic arguments aside I repeat what I wrote previously. Your purported inability to see contemporary Islam for what it is strikes me as a refusal to face up to the evidence. Self-righteous humbuggery is not a valid form of argument

Dear Steven,

You seem to be more interested in
condemnation rather than explanation.
When I tried to explain my position
to you you called it "self-righteous
humbuggery." And again repeated this
statement to me in your last post.
I tried to explain that
while I appreciate your point of view,
I look at things from a different perspective.
However, I can see that you're reluctant
to modify your judgments, especially
accepting my right to differ from
your opinion in this matter. Unless I
see things your way - I'm a self-righteous
humbug, according to you. Perhaps you should
look in the mirror as well Steven. Humbugs
come in all shapes and sizes. When you point
fingers at people, there's usually three or
more pointing back at you.

Anyway,
with this apparent breakdown in communication
I can see no further reason for us to continue this
discussion.

Foxy, while I generally respect Steven's contributions on many topics, when it comes to Islam it is usually him who descends into "self-righteous humbuggery" rather than those who argue against him for mutual tolerance.

Of course, he is a secular Jew, so his ethnicity has nothing to do with his Islamophobia.

stevenlmeyer,
<<most Christians are not as good as their religion
and most Muslims are not as bad as their religion>>
You've summed it up very nicely. Well done.
Lots of luck convincing the Foxy's though.
They seem to think that Islamic violence is the fault of people who point out Islamic violence,
along the lines of the Islamic refrain...
"Death to those who say Islam is violent!"
Unfortunately, for all her verbiage, her mind is fixed.
<<You really need to respect the right of others
Steven, to disagree with you and learn to test
things; always check your ideas against facts,
and be ready to discard even a cherished belief
if it does not conform to them.>>
She seems blissfully unaware of the fact that, in her platitudinising,
she is essentially addressing herself.

Dear CJ,

I haven't for one moment suggested
that fundamentalism doesn't exist in all
religions. And I certainly do not condone
violence of any kind. But I thought that
I made that quite clear in all of my postings.
What I do object to is the dark side of absolutism,
which involves sweeping statements, and tarring
every one with the same brush no matter what
the religion. I think that John Hartung said it rather
well:

"The Bible is a blueprint of in-group morality,
complete with instructions for genocide,
enslavement of out-groups, and world domination.
But the Bible is not evil by virtue of its
objectives or even its glorification of murder,
cruelty, and rape. Many ancient works do that -
The Iliad, the Icelandic Sagas, the tales of
ancient Syrians and the inscriptions of the
ancient Mayans, for example. But no one is
selling The Iliad as a foundation for morality.
Therein lies the problem. The Bible is sold, and
bought, as a guide to how people should live their
lives. And it is, be far, the world's all-time
bestseller."

As Richard Dawkins points out,"Lest it be thought
that the exclusiveness of traditional Judaism is
unique among religions, look at the following
confident verse from a hymn by Isaac Watts (1674 -
1748):

"Lord I ascribe it to Thy Grace,
And not to chance, as other do,
That I was born of Christian Race
And not a Heathen or a Jew."

What puzzles Dawkins about this verse is not the
exclusiveness per se but the logic. Since plenty
of others were born into religions other than
Christianity, how did God decide which future
people should receive such favoured birth?
Why favour Isaac Watts and those individuals
whom he visualized singing his hymn?

Religion is undoubtedly a divisive force but as Dawkins
tells us, "Religion is a 'label' of in-group/out-group
labels such as skin colour, language or preferred
football team, and often available when other labels
are not."

LOL CJ MORGAN

There we go again with the I-word as in "Islamophobe".

Actually I am a totalitarian-o-phobe. I hate and fear ALL totalitarian belief systems That automatically makes me a Nazi-phobe, a Stalinist-o-phobe and, yes, an "islamo-phobe".

EVERYONE WHO TRULY OPPOSES TOTALITARIANISM SHOULD BE AN ISLAMOPHOBE.

Why do I keep picking on Islam among all belief systems?

Well, the Tea Party notwithstanding Obama is neither a Nazi nor a Stalinist. He is merely a rather ineffectual president who is still an enormous improvement on his predecessor.

In other words, the Nazis and the Stalinists are mainly history. The most threatening totalitarian belief system today is Islam. It is not the only one. But it is the most threatening.

In the inter-war years, and as late as the 1960s, many people who should have known better were taken in by Stalinists. Among them, famously, was George Bernard Shaw. There existed a flock of "intellectuals" who were, to use Lenin's apt phrase, "useful fools".

Even today while Hitler is, rightly, much reviled, Stalin and Mao get what amounts to a free ride given the enormity of their crimes. In reality Mao, Hitler and Stalin were equal monsters.

Today Islam, like Stalinism, has its useful fools. I accept that. There's nothing I can do about it. You CJ Morgan are one of them.

But, Foxy, I EXPECTED BETTER OF YOU. I thought if there is anyone on OLO who is able to see through the pretensions of a totalitarian belief system it's Foxy.

I was wrong. Foxy, you turn out to be no better than Stalin's apologists. You ought to be ashamed of yourself

Pure sophistry, stevenlmeyer.

>>I hate and fear ALL totalitarian belief systems That automatically makes me a Nazi-phobe, a Stalinist-o-phobe and, yes, an "islamo-phobe"<<

Islam is a religion. Christianity is a religion. Hinduism is a religion. Judaism is a religion.

These may also be described as "belief systems".

Stalinism was a totalitarian political system. Nazism was a totalitarian political system. Neither of these involved belonging to a particular religious sect.

Your attempt to equate a religious belief with a totalitarian political system is both fraudulent and insulting.

If you so choose, you may invent terminology that identifies Islamic extremists in the same way as, say, Zionists are identified as Jewish extremists.

But to use the language that you do in order to describe an entire religion leaves you completely exposed to the charge of inciting fear and loathing.

Which, given the general flavour of your posts here, doesn't particularly concern you in the least, does it?

Pericles

Christianity, Hinduism & Judaism are indeed also belief systems. So is Zionism.

And according to a High Court decision Scientology is a "religion".

Please explain why a belief system or ideology that happens to be a "religion" should be immune from critique, analysis, satire and scorn.

You write:

"Your attempt to equate a religious belief with a totalitarian political system is...fraudulent..."

Why?

What is so special about a belief system that is labelled a "religion"?

Why can a belief system that happens to fall within the generally accepted definition of a "religion" not simultaneously be a totalitarian ideology?

I fail to see why these are mutually exclusive.

In fact I would say that all religious belief systems have elements of totalitarian ideology in them. Think of Calvin's Geneva. Think of the Spanish Inquisition.

YOU NEED TO SHAKE OFF THIS CHILDISH NOTION THAT THERE IS SOMETHING SPECIAL ABOUT A BELIEF SYSTEM THAT HAPPENS TO BE LABELLED A "RELIGION".

Forget your Sunday school lessons. Belief systems that claim to be "religions" have proven through the ages that they can be every bit as evil as the worst secular belief system.

You write:

"But to use the language that you do in order to describe an entire religion leaves you completely exposed to the charge of inciting fear and loathing."

I certainly think we should fear and loathe totalitarian belief systems be they "religions" or secular.

The difference between you and me, Pericles, is that I see no reason to accord any special privilege to belief systems that happen to be labelled a "religion."

I wonder why you do.

Overexposure to Sunday school perhaps?

Dear Steven,

Your remarks to me are seriously out of
line and totally uncalled for.

I regard Islam as a faith, a belief
system as Pericles pointed out,
and as I stated over and over again,
I do not condone violence, no matter
where it comes from. However, the point
that I was trying to make was that by far the
majority of Muslims today live their
lives without recourse to violence,
because the Koran (like the Bible)
is like a pick-and-mix
selection. If you want peace, you can
find peaceable verses. If you want war,
you can find bellicose verses.
Any eccentric or extremist in any
belief system can find
their own interpretation of their faith.
No one has been suggesting that you can't
criticize any faith. Our criticism has been only
that you can't tar all of the followers of
any religion with the same brush as the
fundamentalists of that religion.

However to say to me that I am no better
than Stalinist followers is beyond
repulsion when you know full well how my
family suffered from the Stalinist regime,
and my father's brother was tortured to
death, while the rest of the family
were deported to Siberia.

How would you feel if I was to accuse you
of being a supporter of Hitler and the Nazis,
while knowing your family had perished in the Holocaust?

Steven you owe me an apology.
However, I won't hold my breath.

Dancing hard, I see stevenlmeyer.

>>Please explain why a belief system or ideology that happens to be a "religion" should be immune from critique, analysis, satire and scorn.<<

Where did I suggest immunity? You just invented that, didn't you.

Par for the course.

>>What is so special about a belief system that is labelled a "religion"? <<

See, you're doing it again.

Deliberately conflating political systems with religious systems. That's what is fraudulent.

>>Why can a belief system that happens to fall within the generally accepted definition of a "religion" not simultaneously be a totalitarian ideology?<<

Because you have to prove it to be. All of it. Not just the extremists.

Are you getting the picture yet?

>>In fact I would say that all religious belief systems have elements of totalitarian ideology in them.<<

Which proves absolutely nothing. And you know it.

>>Belief systems that claim to be "religions" have proven through the ages that they can be every bit as evil as the worst secular belief system<<

True. But irrelevant. It is the "can be" that gives you away.

Boy, you are a one for weasel-words and sneaky phrases, aren't you?

>>I certainly think we should fear and loathe totalitarian belief systems be they "religions" or secular.<<

And right back where we started. A nice generalization that you can drive a truck through.

>>The difference between you and me, Pericles, is that I see no reason to accord any special privilege to belief systems that happen to be labelled a "religion."<<

There are many differences between you and me, stevenlmeyer, for which I am extremely thankful.

But this is not one of them.

I hold no such view. Nor have ever held such a view.

You're clutching at straws.

And you know it.

Come now people,
Mohammed would never have countenanced such enmity.

Steven... if you were speaking with rational people.. all you say would make perfect sense.. it does to me... and to Proxy and I'm sure it would to any person who has made a fairly reasonable effort to study a few religions.

The disconnect between Foxy and the rationals :)(*waves at Foxy*) is that Foxy does not apply the rules of grammer and interpretation that she would EARNESTLY apply to the meaning of the Law if suddenly she found herself on the wrong end of say a lawsuit.

I hazard a guess she would be pouring over documents right left and centre and trying to work out if the claimant actually had a case.

Which of course is how any reasonable person would approach not just a lawsuit or criminal charges...but also religion.

Foxy resorts to the one irrefutable tool in her arsenal "sentimentality" which would be commendable if she worked in a hospice for the dying, rather than a forum for the living.

Foxy.. I notice that pattern..when people's argument reaches the point of 'game set match' you retreat into your sentimentality and idealism.

I can unscramble your brain with a good walk! bring hubby out and we'll fix ya. (though there is a naughty Goanna which suddenly scrambles up a particular tree and just about gave me a heart attack:)

Poor Pericles.. you'd think he gets sick of traipsing around the same old territory. Nevermind P.. I can unscramble your brain with Foxy.
You of all people should know how to interpret law..and holy documents are not far off in some cases..they just use sentences and words.. not too formidable for one such as you who appears to pride himself on pedantry.

You and dear foxy are both patently incorrect in thinking you can just 'grab' verses to suit your purpose. Of course it can be 'done'...but done improperly it makes as much sense as referring to the child protection act when you are suing your neighbour for blackberry intrusion. (that is how silly you sometimes appear)

Dear AG,

Do you know what "chutzpa" is?
Its Yiddish slang for unmitigated
effrontery or impudence.

An example that comes to mind is
when someone defecates on your
front door mat, then rings
your door-bell and asks you for
toilet paper.

Your last post was a perfect example
of it!

Thank You for making me laugh!

Yes, time to rest. Do some reading in this place, whilst listening to "Spirit of Gondwana" and with a bottle of pink which I am about to crack.

*Memang "pink" *BoazY* kalau bikin anggur dari ragi tape, mmmm, dan beras ketan yang warna hitam*

I like didgeridoo and Aust BlakFella tongue in song - I find it very soothing for some reason. And more so when encoded with "Dreamy Theta Waves 7.7Hz - 8.19Hz"

;-)

..

That was very beautifully conjugated Bahasa by *Foxy Loxy* I thought, albeit a "western" expression translated into the foreign tongue in the second part which doesn't always work.

Aaah, things indeed do evolve, and *Foxy* gains in strength and expression of Spiritual Individuality if I may be permitted to say so?

..

Reading this word "Infidel" in the Suras leaves me wondering as to its original meaning. Can anyone assist with Tomes of Knowledge or a good linky.

..

A brief word from the WitchDoctor:

" You are a Priest! Associated in Northern France. And you traveled, you traveled, with a group of Crusaders, to the Holy Land, to rid them of the .. and you were fortunate that you weren't killed. And compassion was shown by the .. So he's sitting there on this stone bench, gaunt, dirty, no eyes - they'd been taken out. .. It was the price you paid for your misplaced idealism and religious fervor. And your Soul longed to be free of the shackles that bound you to this Earth. You had come to the point in that life time where you didn't expect anymore .. and it was actually good that you came to that point, where nothing mattered any more. .. Certain aspects may well stand before you today, not to judge people by the outer garment, or their believes or culture. ... "

..

The Dandenongs, it has been a long time since I walked and hugged trees in that place *BoazY* Near the scones, jam and cream place with the big glass room, just down the road from the famous artists place.

But how you forget, Boaz. So quickly, you forget already.

>>You and dear foxy are both patently incorrect in thinking you can just 'grab' verses to suit your purpose<<

We learned from the master, remember?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7345#113521
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7345#113641
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7345#114126

et al.

Your entire basis of attack on Islam, as well as your entire defence of your particular version of Christianity, relies upon careful selection of scriptural gobbets.

It has been since the dawn of time, and I cannot see it changing. So, for you to take Foxy and myself to task for doing so is positively hilarious.

Incidentally, your mate Proxy seems pretty keen on the practice, too.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3611#86607

But then, consistency has never been your strongest point, has it Boaz?

And the little "out" that you provided for yourself is just pure arrogance.

>>Of course it can be 'done'...but done improperly it makes as much sense as referring to the child protection act when you are suing your neighbour for blackberry intrusion.<<

The implication being of course that when you do it, it is entirely legitimate, appropriate and convincingly final.

The corollary being that us poor saps just don't understand these things the way you do.

Sorry to disillusion you, Boaz, but it is not necessary to have a degree in godliness to recognize double standards when we see them.

I thought the references to rationality and "the rules of grammer" were pretty hilarious too.

Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 6:41:03 AM

...

" ... EXAMPLE 2. "If any man would follow me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily and come after me"
MEANING: 'Self denial, self sacrifice are essential for true discipleship- Christ must be first in our lives. ... "

Don't you think maybe that "our" first encounter with the "cross" was when we stepped out of the cave in the morning and the sun cast a shadow of the bod when first taking an early morning stretch.

To say it means "self sacrifice" is to hinge off the meaning imposed by the latter day church. However, it remains unclear to me that this indeed is the meaning of He that spoke the word in the context that it was said at the time that it was said.

(Perhaps *StevenLMeyer* can offer something regarding this from Old Hebrew.)

In the alternative perhaps rather to pick oneSelf up, physical imperfections and all and express something of the innate principals which unite us in to the one great family of Humanity.

..

It is like the word f_cked, from Old English, which was quite commonly used if you roll the clock back a bit. Its meaning if I am not mistaken varies somewhat from the manner in which it is generally used today.

..

This all reminds me that I need some new dictionaries.

Pericles,
<<Your entire basis of attack on Islam...relies upon careful selection of scriptural gobbets.
Incidentally, your mate Proxy seems pretty keen on the practice, too.>>
My selection of "scriptural gobbets" is no more selective than that of Al Qaeda, et al.
They understand that these "scriptural gobbets" are the essence of Islam.
You deliberately refuse to take note of the historical reality that these "scriptural gobbets" abrogate the "nice" parts of the Koran, even though the Koran itself makes this clear.
It represents the difference between Mohammed trying to curry favour with neighbouring tribes in Mecca and having gained the power to vanquish them when he was in Medina.
Mohammed's Meccan period - nice verses.
Mohammed's Medinan period - bloodlust verses.
The latter verses abrogate the former.
People who selectively quote the "nice" verses ignore this reality.
People who quote the nasty verses are not being selective so much as merely recognising that the "nice" verses have been superceded.
But none of this will even register with you because you have invested too much in your delusions.
It is nevertheless interesting to observe the phenomen of the closed mind and the open mouth.

Foxy bleats from the Alamo :) and Pericles crows from the mast of the Titanic...

I'd consider engaging you (Pericles) if I thought you had a clue about Hermeneutics .. which I'm sure you (like foxy) would suddenly become an instant *master* at if someone laid some kind of charge against you.

But in your case P, your usually well tuned skills of observation and understanding frankly dissappear when it comes to certain subjects.

Dragging up perfectly legitimate posts and information from the dark ages does not help you in the slightest, rather the opposite.

Your primary problem being, that in the case of my assertions about 65:4 in 'that' holy book, (this is the hilarious part) are actually taken from the opinion (as in,quoted) from a primary reference scholar of the University of Southern California MSA
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/

If you look at 'Other Resources' you will find him named as the fourth person.

Now this is what makes you look such a complete dill. but DON'T PANIC.. to the equally irrational and information challenged like Foxy and CJ.. you look 'like a god' :)

You think you are attacking me :) when in fact you are attacking your own credibility. As I said Pericles. "people can read" including this post.

I don't find it a challenge or even attractive to try to persuade you or Foxy about these things because as I said.. in some things you dear folks are irrational, uninformed and lacking understanding, seriously. (primarily in interpreting holy writ)

Foxy retreats into her Alamo cocoon of "look at the next cute thing I can throw at you" and you chirping from up there on the mast of your sinking ship....

CJ ? :) welllll.. "oh oh.. LOOOK Pericles.. LOOOK..just looook.. he made a...SPELLING mistake oh oh" like a little lapdog :)

Folks, I just come to this thread to see what Proxy says :)

Dreamy I'm sending you back to Bahasa school.. ur a bit berkarat :)

PROXY PROXY.....have a look at those links Pericles dredged up and you will see why they think you are chanelling *BD*

They (and the responses) will also show that you are travelling down a well worn track...which is why, having been where you are, I prefer to focus on things where there is a greater chance of rational responses, and of actually helping the poor buggers who will possibly quite soon wake up to who is really pulling the strongs (strings) of the world.


The best thing about such divergences of opinion is that it makes for colorful and entertaining interaction.. just look at the number of posts for this thread compared to others :)

I'd value your input on some of my newer ones.. have you looked at the Maurice Strong one ? You will find there is a strong overlap between your current focus and what I'm on about there, but in the case of Islam.. you are attacking just the symptom rather than the deeper causality.

We definitely need to have good information out there.. and you are doing a great job for those who are in fact open minded and objective.
But hoping for those qualities in your main adversaries here is, well.. optimistic to say the least. It will however hone your arguments for sure.

You are *experiencing* Marcuse's first paragraph...

http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm

In Foxy's case..it seems sincere, Pericles? not so sure..(definitely something going on there he doesn't divulge) CJ? oh.. he is red hot living in that paragraph.. day in day out. Christians have a 'quiet time' each morning.. CJ just reads the next page of Marcuse :)

"Dredged", Boaz?

>>PROXY.....have a look at those links Pericles dredged up and you will see why they think you are chanelling *BD*<<

I was simply pointing out that you have a long history of double standards on this, and no amount of name-changing will disguise that fact.

It is interesting that the knee-jerk response from both of you is to attack the messenger.

Proxy:

>>you have invested too much in your delusions. It is nevertheless interesting to observe the phenomen of the closed mind and the open mouth.<<

Boaz:

>>Pericles crows from the mast of the Titanic... this is what makes you look such a complete dill...you dear folks are irrational, uninformed and lacking understanding, seriously...you chirping from up there on the mast of your sinking ship...<<

I am aware that there isn't a chance that you can be led towards any form of open-minded approach to this topic - your religious bent effectively forbids you from entertaining contrary opinion.

But you will find me hanging around to set you straight on factual issues - which you treat, as you always have, with a cavalier disdain - and to continue to object to the more egregious outpourings of fear and loathing.

The difference between you and Proxy is that he doesn't even pretend to have double standards.

>>My selection of "scriptural gobbets" is no more selective than that of Al Qaeda, et al.<<

Nope, just one standard for Proxy: Al Qaeda's

Your justification for your fear and loathing of Islam is grounded in exactly the same process as that of your target.

We knew all along, of course, but congratulations on finally coming to the same realization yourself..

Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 26 May 2010 8:43:12 AM
" ... Your justification for your fear and loathing of Islam is grounded in exactly the same process as that of your target. ... "

Indeed, which has always concerned me, though I find it rather interesting, in a morbid kind of way, the manner in which these two poles stemming from the same source are manipulated to bring about the clash of civilisations.

..

I must get a copy of the Satanic Verses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_verses

" ... The subtext to the event is that Muhammad was backing away from his otherwise uncompromising monotheism by saying that these goddesses were real and their intercession effective. The Meccans were overjoyed to hear this and joined Muhammad in ritual prostration at the end of the surah. The Muslim refugees who had fled to Abyssinia heard of the end of persecution and started to return home. ... "

..

" ... The verses are seen as problematic to many Muslims as they are "profoundly heretical because, by allowing for the intercession of the three pagan female deities, they eroded the authority and omnipotence of Allah. But they also hold... damaging implications in regard to the revelation as a whole, for Muhammad’s revelation appears to have been based on his desire to soften the threat to the deities of the people."[11] ... "

So dear *BoazY* from rusty *Dreamy,* why is it that the "nice verses" as you put it, are abrogated by the "Blood Thirsty" ones?

..

I note with interest the split here and your acknowledgment that there is some good in the Islamic faith.

Dear Pericles

You said:

<a long history of double standards on this,>

then

<I am aware that there isn't a chance that you can be led towards any form of open-minded approach to this topic>

In all the warm hearted compassion I can muster... the reason you said those things is because you simply do not understand the mind of a person with faith.. neither the Muslim nor the Christian.

That's why you assert a double standard and claim that I'm not open minded.

Dare I repeat (yes..I will) my broken record statement that you are
a) Not knowledgable about Islam (by your own confession)
b) You seem to have set a record in forgetting (and you pick on me?)
that most of what was posted in the past, relied directly on an "Islamic" opinion... in particular the understanding of 65:4

That is the point of disconnect between us. You say I have a closed mind ? :) If it was not so sad it would be hilarious.

Here is the sequence.

a) I quote a credible and respected "Islamic" opinion on an Islamic issue.
b) You say "I" am closed minded.

That simply does not compute P... honestly... I suppose from your secular atheistic 'liberal progressive' (?) standpoint it might...
but for goodness sake.. you know any magistrate would laugh you out of the courtroom.

I suppose you could say "I select Islamic opinion" to suit my prejudice ? :) oh my..if you do, that would be what I can describe as a 'symptom'.
To say so is not to attack the messenger.. there isn't any message.

I'm not aware of having expressed any 'fear and loathing' type comments about Islam thus far since "re-entry"... but I'm sure you will find one :)
But for the record.. I don't 'fear' Islam, but I do 'loathe' it.
Muslims? they deserve our compassionate expression of the truth spoken in love. (robust love)

Dreamy.... a well considered post indeed.

"There is some good in the Islamic Faith"

Let's subject that to the test of 'objective observation' :)

Surah 23:1-5

1. Successful indeed are the believers.

2. Those who offer their Salât (prayers) with all solemnity and full submissiveness.

3. And those who turn away from Al-Laghw (dirty, false, evil vain talk, falsehood, and all that Allâh has forbidden).

4. And those who pay the Zakât .

5. And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts)

WHO can argue with that ? It's very nice.. noble..and virtuous.

But if we take the above verses literally..as they are clearly intended to be taken..... (agreed Pericles?).. we cannot avoid taking the very next verse seriously and literally also. (I'll let you blokes find that :) and that next verse represents a point of departure from the values most closely associated with the Christian faith and the West. (though with each daily blow of degradation the non Christian West is rapidly descending)

Abrogation. An Important topic.

Major Nidal has a lot to say about it :) and see where it led him?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2009/11/10/GA2009111000920.html?sid=ST2009110903704 If you proceed to slide 17 you will see his reason for it.. and that turns out to be a quote from the Quran itself.

I don't wish to push this too hard.. I provide information.. you blokes can consider it.

ALGOREisRICH,
<<I don't wish to push this too hard>>
Push as hard as you can.
Even then it's unlikely you'll make it through those thick bonces.
They don't want to know, because it challenges their bigotry.
Sequential verses?
They'll choose to accept the first verse because it reinforces their prejudices,
while ignoring the second verse because it causes them cognitive dissonance.
Then they'll turn around and accuse you of cherry-picking verses!

Pericles,

Re your post of Tuesday, 25 May 2010 6:02:30 PM

Are you saying that, yes indeed, a belief system can be SIMULTANEOUSLY a religion AND a totalitarian ideology?

If that is your position then I have obviously misunderstood some of your previous posts and I apologise.

NB: I am not asking you to commit as to whether any particular belief system is in fact simultaneously a religion and a totalitarian ideology. I am merely asking whether you believe this state of affairs is possible in principle.

Whether, or not, a particular belief system is in fact simultaneously a religion and a totalitarian ideology is a separate discussion.

If I have again misunderstood you, if you are saying it is impossible for a belief systems to be simultaneously a religion and a totalitarian ideology please explain why this is impossible.

ALGOREisRICH,

Numerous Mosque-attending Muslims have assured me they believe that the koran is literally true. Most of them believe the same of the ahadith.

If that's what Muslims tell me I am inclined to believe them ahead of Pericles.

However I have found that Muslims are divided on the question of abrogation.

Sometimes belief in the ahadith produces hilarious results.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvMEe_GHOXs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG66moSHTjk&feature=related

Obviously Monty Python is alive and well and living in Palestine. Ahmad al-Muzain is an infinitely better actor then John Cleese.

Christopher Hitchens expressed a view on the issue of Theocracies/Totalitarian regimes in regards to them equally being the "Enemy of Freedom" as he put it.

..

I had a look at the slide shows of Major Nidal at the suggestion of He of Many Names and extracted a couple of bits:

Rule of Abrogation

"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not Allah Hath power over all things?" Surah 2:106

"When We substitute one revelation for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages), they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not. "Surah 16:101

..

Example: Jihad-rule of Abrogation
In Mecca Muslims were not permitted to defend themselves/fight. There only job was to deliver the message (peaceful verses)
Emigration to Medina: self defense was allowed
Then offensive fighting was allowed
Later verses abrogated former ie: peaceful verses no longer apply
Indeed at one point Islamic empire spanned from Morocco/Spain to the Border of India/China

Proxy.. I recommend you don't try to *prove* the bleeding obvious to people who are bigoted :) it just doesn't work. The better approach is to raise questions and let them discover by themselves I think.
But I enjoy reading your work and would value you highly in a public debate with 'them' to be on my side/team.

Steven :) indeed... indeed.

Strange how much sense your post makes

//If that's what Muslims tell me I am inclined to believe them ahead of Pericles.//

Yes..I often wonder what Pericles sources are :) he seldom gives any because he is too busy attacking and crucifiying the messenger rather than the message. But..he has his uses :) like picking me up on factual errors.. (sometimes)

//However I have found that Muslims are divided on the question of abrogation.//

Yes Steven.. so true. A study of that division would produce interesting results.

a)Within the demographic spread of age and sect (Islamic) within a western democracy.
b)Across the spread of rich powerful Muslim countries compared to weak demographic minority countries such as Australia.

I am not a betting man, but if I was..I'd place quite a bit on "The powerful Muslim countries are more likely to agree with abrogation"

It isn't a perfect science though.. depends on Sect quite a bit.

Sunni's yes
Shia yes
Sufi yes
Ahmadiya ? not sure..but they are the only Muslim sect (considered a heresy by the others) who have actually renounced violent Jihad.
In all cases, it would depend to a degree on which 'school' they (Sunni's)followed
Hanbali
Hanifi
Maliki
Shafi
http://science.jrank.org/pages/9937/Law-Islamic-Jurisprudence-Sources-Law.html

You say this, but you don't really believe it, do you [insert current pseudonym here]?

>>Yes..I often wonder what Pericles sources are :) he seldom gives any because he is too busy attacking and crucifiying the messenger rather than the message. But..he has his uses :) like picking me up on factual errors.. (sometimes)<<

Be honest for once. You absolutely hate it when I point out that the "facts" upon which you base your posts are incorrect. More so, because it happens so often.

Remember the Swedish pastor you claimed had been imprisoned, when in fact he had been acquitted? You rambled on for post after post, trying to avoid acknowledging the fact - eventually you simply stopped posting, rather than confess you had got it wrong.

A practice you still indulge in, I notice. When challenged on your motives the "Barking" thread, you tried for a while to defend the BNP, but eventually had to change the subject. If you hadn't got your facts so egregiously wrong in the first place, you might just have got away with it.

I guess the most puzzling aspect of it all to me is how you rationalize it on a daily basis. Surely it must occur to you sometimes that you are actually fooling no-one but yourself?

LOL Pericles

I don't know about the interchanges between you and ALGOREisRICH. But given your tendency to deny inconvenient facts, introduce red herrings and perform verbal gymnastics your last post has an element of a pot calling a kettle black.

You come across as a politically correct robot

Actually, that doesn't even capture it. You come across as a parody of a bot programmed to be politically correct.

Posted by *StevenLMeyer* Wednesday, 26 May 2010 9:51:27 PM
" ... However I have found that Muslims are divided on the question of abrogation. ... "

Posted by *ALGOREisRICH* Thursday, 27 May 2010 6:44:25 PM
" ... Yes Steven.. so true. A study of that division would produce interesting results. ... "

Hmmm, is that so? Thus earlier statements indicating that the "nice" Mecca verses are trumped/abrogated by the "Blood Thirsty" Medina verses are in fact a matter of divergent opinion amongst Muslims and Scholars of Islam, would you not say, dear *BigAl likely Proxy 4 Boazy?*

Indeed, that seems quite plain does it not, as I can see the violent, frothing at the mouth variety as painted by *StevenLMeyer,* *Proxy* and *ALGoreis RICH* (and of course the Phantom of OLO, our one and only *Boazy*)

AND

also the respectful, tolerant, peaceful and Luving variety as experienced by me first hand in my encounters and engagements in Indonesia, Dahab Sinai (alas for a special sheesha ;-) )and Egypt.

So, are you not wedged dear friends or was this always the line?

“Many traditional Islamic theologians and Qur'an commentators argue that violent material, such as sura 9, abrogates more relatively tolerant material such as sura 109. This is not a newly-minted view "cherry-picked" by Osama bin Laden; it is in fact a very ancient view. When discussing why Muhammad didn't begin sura 9 with the customary invocation bismillah ar-rahman ar-rahim, "in the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful," an intriguing answer comes from a Qur'an commentary that is still highly valued today in the Islamic world, Tafsir al-Jalalayn. This is a fifteenth-century work by the renowned imams Jalal al-Din Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Mahalli (1389-1459) and Jalal al-Din ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr al-Suyuti (1445-1505). The invocation, suggests this tafsir, “is security, and [Sura 9] was sent down when security was removed by the sword.”
“Security’s removal by the sword meant specifically the end of many treaties the Muslims had made with non-Muslims. Another still-influential Qur'an commentator, Ibn Kathir (1301-1372) quotes an earlier authority, Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, to establish that the Verse of the Sword, sura 9:5 ("slay the unbelievers wherever you find them") “abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term.” He adds from another authority: “No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah was revealed.” And yet another early commentator, Ibn Juzayy (d. 1340) agrees that one of this verse’s functions is “abrogating every peace treaty in the Qur’an.”…continued

Continued…“This idea is crucial as a guide to the relationship of the Qur’an’s peaceful passages to its violent ones. Suras 16, 29, 52, 73, and 109 — the sources of many of the Qur'an's verses of peace and tolerance — are all Meccan. That means that many Muslims, guided by commentators such as those above and the imams who teach from them, see these suras only in light of what was revealed later in Medina. Being the last or next-to-last sura revealed, sura 9 is generally understood as being the Qur’an’s last word on jihad, and all the rest of the book — including the “tolerance verses” — must be read in its light.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/10/the-islamic-doctrine-of-abrogation.html

DEar Proxy...

what you brought forth then was *dangerously* close to 'facts' :) in fact .. to any but the most bigoted and stubbornly resistant prejudiced person.. it would be a very compelling argument.

But to those who see more value in focusing on a minor error, such as our dear friend and Pedant Pericles regarding something longgg ago about a Swedish pastor, well.. that speaks for itself.

The issue of the Swedish pastor was that he was charged and 'convicted' under swedish hate laws..and sentenced to 3 months prison. The initial report (there were many) contained information which would suggest that he has been jailed, as he would have been if the appeal was not successful.
My interest in that story was to highlight the level of persecution of Christians by the Christaphobic hordes of politically correct police. As per the Bishop of Herefordshire.. fined $90,000 ish, for rejecting a homosexual applicant for a job.

But our pedant for political correctness Pericles.. appears blind to such core issues..and prefers to try to derail a report of a terrifying legal disaster, overt persecution and oppression... and cheaply tries to deflect it into 'you missed a fact'.... sigh :)

With that kind of 'alamo' mentality, your compelling arguments (Proxy) are wasted..but who knows.. there will for sure be some (Perhaps Dreamy?) who benefit from your points.

Pericles.. I'm still waiting for your take on the UK economy.

To me, *Proxy's* comments go to the issue that there are those in the Islamic world who are of the harsh variety when it comes to matters of dealing with those of other than their own persuasion and in matters of getting their own way when dealing with everyone else more generally.

I agree with something of the view expressed by Christopher Hitchens in that there can be something of a connection between totalitarianism and the manner of practice and expression of certain belief systems.

..

But as informed as these comments are, they are narrow in the sense that they do not obviate the fact that there is a variety of interpretations when it comes to the matter of so called "abrogation" amongst Muslims, and this is no doubt in part reflected by the fact that there are many different versions of the same thing.

Ahmadiyya was mentioned earlier which reminds me that in Indonesia, from memory, they have been restricted in practice by presidential decree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya_Muslim_Community

" ... The motto of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is “Love for All, Hatred for None” ... "

" ... The third article relates to the belief in all Divine Scriptures given to their respective Prophets. These include the Books believed in by Orthodox Muslims as well, namely:[8]

* The Torah of Moses (Tawrat)[8]
* The Gospels of Jesus (Injeel)[8]
* The Psalms of David (Zaboor)[8]
* The Scrolls of Abraham (Suhaf)[8]
* The Qur’an of Muhammad [8] ... "

" ... Asides from the belief in all Prophets in the Old Testament of the Bible, in Jesus, John the Baptist and in Muhammad, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community also regards Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha, Confucius and Ghulam Ahmad as prophets. Ahmadis believe in Muhammad to be the final law-bearing prophet but teach the continuity of prophethood.[1] ... "

" ... According to some estimates, the country with the largest percentage of Ahmadis is the African republic of Ghana.[34] The country with the most Ahmadis is Pakistan, where they number approximately 4 million. ... "

Still, if *BoazY et al* were to suggest that on balance there are more Muslims in the world predisposed due to indoctrination to violent barbarism and savagery than those of the benevolent persuasion, I would suggest that at times of crisis and war that the Human condition is such as to make the majority of us inclined to react aggressively if pressed or threatened, irrespective of whether that is real or imagined/perceived.

I personally think that the majority of people are passive when there is Peace and hostile when there is War.

Thinking people who can respond with a greater range of reasonable and rational expression at times of stress are in the minority in my opinion.

So, perhaps the question that is posed is whether or not the Muslim majority adopt the "Verses of the Sword" at times of war/crisis/stress ala *Proxy’s* earlier comments, or conversely are the majority of the “calmer” variety?

Well, without a doubt there is conflict in the world, with all of the so-called “terror” groups, but it does not appear that the “Muslim Hoard” has been summoned as of yet.

..

Further, I would suggest as follows, to slightly modify an old saying:

" The advocate opponent of my enemy is my friend,"

and that at times like this it is better to demonstrate virtuous behavior and to entreat those that have an ear to listen to us, rather then try to smear the entire Islamic world with the sins of the violent minority.

For *BoazY* especially there is a Christian saying/quote from one of the Bible Books that speaks of the manner of *Arch Angel Michael's* dealing with the *Beast* - something about not dealing up a railing accusation. I think something of that is appropriate here.

And also that said by Nietche, being something about those who gaze into the pit too long are at risk of becoming that which they observe.

Something like that ...

DreamOn,
<<And also that said by Nietche, being something about those who gaze into the pit too long are at risk of becoming that which they observe.>>
Maybe Nietzsche learnt this from reading of the experiences of the Banu Qurayza tribe.
In 627ad the Holy Prophet Mohammed, messenger of Allah, peace be unto him, had 400 to 900 boys and men of the tribe beheaded and thrown into a hole in the ground.
They certainly became that which they had observed in the pit.
1400 years later, his intrepid followers are still beheading infidels and apologists are still DreamingOn about the prophet of peace and the glories of Islam.
Nobody is smearing the entire Islamic world.
The entire Islamic world smears itself by venerating the murderous, marauding, madman Mohammed.

I've just seen the news on BBC. An Ahmadiyya Mosque in Pakistan has just been attacked with guns and grenades.

DreamOn,
Must have been some of those right-wing, fundamentalist, evangelical Christians.

Dreamy

don't you find it interesting that an Ahmaddiya mosque was violently attacked by Sunni Muslims.

Ahmadiyya have renounced violent Jihad
Sunni's obviously ...have not :) (ask any Ahmadi)

Isn't it ironic that in Indonesia a sect which says "Love for all,Hatred for none" is attacked and restricted in 'open' Indonesia ?

I witnessed a TV debate between Sunni' Muslims and Ahmadi's on INDO TV and I assure you. everything I have ever said about Islam was epitomized in the cold brutal faces of the Sunni's where were demanding they be banned.

cheers
Salam Hormat :

Proxy>>“Many traditional Islamic theologians and Qur'an commentators argue that violent material, such as sura 9, abrogates more relatively tolerant material such as sura 109.<<

Christians and Jews interpret the sixth commandment as "you shall not murder". Whereas the Koran interprets it as "you shall not murder unjustly". A big difference, takes the decision away from god and delivers it to man.

sonofgloin,
<< A big difference, takes the decision away from god and delivers it to man.>>
Yes, and combined with Koranic injunctions to kill the infidels...

* Infidels are your sworn enemies (Sura 4:101).
* Be ruthless to the infidels (Sura 48:29).
* Make war on the infidels who dwell around you (Sura 9:123, 66:9).
* Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day (Sura 9:29).
* Strike off the heads of infidels in battle (Sura 47:4).
* If someone stops believing in Allah, kill him (al-Bukhari 9:84:57).
* Take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends (Sura 5:51, 60:13).
* Never be a helper to the disbelievers (Sura 28:86).
* Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them (Sura 2:191).
* No Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel (al-Bukhari 1:3:111).
* The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land (Sura 5:33)

...it provides ample justification for killing non-Muslims, wouldn't you say?

Posted by sonofgloin, Saturday, 29 May 2010 12:44:50 PM
" ... Christians and Jews interpret the sixth commandment as "you shall not murder". Whereas the Koran interprets it as "you shall not murder unjustly". A big difference, takes the decision away from god and delivers it to man. ... "

Gimli was a Son of Gloin, and I remember him in the Mines of Moria on top of the tomb of Balin.

;-)

As for the above, a documentary I saw on *HISTORY CHANNEL* (that has some excellent stuff on it,) alleges that *Moses* was a complete and utter butcher as well. Not just men and boys but women and girls too, as the Yahudis made their way into that part of the world currently contested by them and the Palestinians.

..

*BoazY*

Interesting indeed and I tend to agree with you about the situation in Indonesia re Ahmadiyya. Islam as practiced in some parts certainly is wielded as an instrument of political oppression and repression.

It is hardly surprising to me that they have had a civil war, and I do wonder what Indonesia would be like if the so called communists had prevailed over the muslims and others.

DreamOn>> Gimli was a Son of Gloin, and I remember him in the Mines of Moria on top of the tomb of Balin.<<

DreanOn, regarding your observation on the son of Gloin. I would have to describe my relationship to Gimli with the perpendicular pronoun..............."It is I".

Two Fascisms collide

English Fascists:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/28/english-defence-league-guardian-investigation

And Muslim Fascists:

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

Dear Steven :) this is hilarious.

Haven't you seen the STRONG pro Israel theme in the EDL ?

1 in 20 flags at marches and rallies is ISRAELI you duffer.

"Far Right" ? :) that is the biggest joke of the century.

If 'far right' means strong support for Israel ...hmmm I better revise my understanding of 'far right'.

I've actually had sneaking suspicion that the EDL is in fact funded by the Israeli's or by Jewish interests.. which would not bother me in the slighest.

SonofGloin (I wish that didn't sound so much like groin *Grimace*

I need to take you aside and give you a mild dose of soft re-education :)

You said:

"Whereas the Koran interprets it as "you shall not murder unjustly"

Would you care to do some research and please fleshout the Muslim/Islamic understanding of 'Justly' in regard to that ?
You might find some help from this site.
http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shirk/crime.htm
The first paragraph will suffice.

DREAMY.. interesting question mate. What WOULD have happened if the commies had won?

Perhaps the 'opposite' to THIS:)

http://www.sa.org.au/mag-archive-from-old-website/108-edition-66/912-the-roots-of-islamic-fundamentalism

QUOTE:
However, through an alliance with bourgeois politicians, the mullahs began a campaign against the shuras. They formed the Hizbollah, an organisation designed to physically attack left and women activists. Gangs of Hizbollah were sent into the universities to beat and kill left-wing students.

Having failed to seize the leadership of the Iranian revolution, the left-wing parties were now smashed by the Islamic clergy and capitalist politicians who did. Pathetically, the Tudeh Party continued to support the Islamic leaders - even as those same leaders began to have them rounded up and executed.
UNQUOTE.

Now..can you tell me one thing...(I'm genuinely curious about this)
Why would a socialist support any Islamic movement today? :)

Remember this is FROM a Socialist web site.

Notice the telling use of the word "failed to SIEZE" 2nd para

With friends like the English Defence League Israel may not need enemies.

I suspect that some EDL members may be carrying Israeli flags for the same reason some American racists in the North sport the confederate flag. They know it angers the other side. It's often a case of my enemy's enemy...

My guess is that grassroots members of both Fascisms hate Jews about equally.

Dear Steven...that is not a guess :) it is prejudice.

If you want to know about the EDL you should research them.

http://englishdefenceleague.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=124&Itemid=130

http://lionheartuk.blogspot.com/2009/07/edl-calling.html

That particular chap lived in Israel for some time.. might even still be there since the Muslims in Luton tried to kill him and the British police arrested him.

http://lionheartuk.blogspot.com/2008/09/great-siege.html
This vid is excellent in filling in the information gaps.

You could also benefit from looking at exactly 'when' and in what circumstances the EDl began. March 2009

It began when radical Muslims denigrated and shouted abuse at British soldiers in Luton
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/4991313/Lutons-Muslim-extremists-defy-public-anger.html

It is an expression of English outrage that the Police protected the PERPetrators rather than the victims of their illegal abuse.

NEVER EVER believe the portrayals in the mainstream English media..(Left OR Right) they are hacking into the EDL for very specific political reasons.. you need eyes and ears and witnesses on the ground at 'ground zero' to know the full story.

MEDIA APPROACH

1/ FACTS.
a) "EDL hold a march in such and such a place. (peaceful)
b) UAF thugs hold a counter demo and hurl bricks at police and riot.

2/ MEDIA POTRAYAL
*Violence broke out at the EDL demo at Dudley*

They neglect to report that out of the 70 arrests, some 60+ were of the UAF for violence. The rest, which might have included some EDL were more than likely self defense acts.

"If Islam's image means more to you than the suffering of those thousands of innocent people murdered and maimed explicitly in the name of Allah each year, then it means that you are definitely a Muslim (or at least a Foxy or CJ Morgan clone) and this page is for you.

As a Muslim, you know that life is full of tough choices. Do you behead or not behead? Have adult relations with your buddy's 9-year-old child...? Take a female sex slave... ?

For followers of the Religion of Peace, it all comes down to knowing what Muhammad did when faced with the same decisions (based on reliable Muslim sources, of course). In fact, the more you know about the founder of Islam the better, even if you aren't Muslim.

Forget all those shifty apologists, trying to make Muhammad out to be some sort of "Jesus clone" based on a few obscure anecdotes. The prophet of Islam definitely wasn't one to turn the other cheek or keep his worldly appetites in check.

You want the truth? Think you can handle it? Well, here you are then...

What Would Muhammad Do?
(a checklist)":

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/WWMD.htm

[Deleted for abuse].