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

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

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

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

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

Kactuz

Pericles,

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

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

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

Vent your spleen at him

Johnny Rotten

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free speech cuts both ways.

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

Get over yourself."

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