The meek shall inherit the earth and psychiatrists shall inherit their wealth.

Those who constantly remember that the future is in the hands of God, accepting what comes, are not violent or angry. There are of course others who only say 'Inshallah' out of habit and culture without in fact reflecting on what it means.

The arrogant West believes that self-created humans are masters of their own destiny - and so are the Muslim clerics who call for political action. Religious leaders are meant to remind their flock to surrender to God and do their duty without expectations, yet these are ambitious and wish to change the world just like their Western atheist counterparts. A true Muslim should not follow these clerics.

Yuyutsu ... you assert that those who constantly remember that the future is in the hands of God, accepting what comes, are not violent or angry. This suggests some kind of supreme being which controls the destiny of mankind.
Every person is entirely responsible for his own thoughts, words, and actions, and cannot pass that responsibilty over to some nebulous overseer.

Definitely, Ponder:

Every person is entirely responsible for his own thoughts, words, and actions which they sow - but only God is responsible for the results of those thoughts, words and actions which they reap.

It seems to me that Islam is going through a similar process to Christianity in the Middle Ages, think of the Catholic/Protestant wars, The Inquisition, and all the other religious terror and social rendering of those times.
There are no ready answers to this process, all we can do is hope they achieve a similar outcome, the separation of religion from political power, a focus on the good in people, love and acceptance etc etc, unlikely as that may seem at the moment.
You can't even blame the ordinary Muslim, they live with even more fear of the Fundamentalists than non-Muslims do, and they are being forced into ordinary human clannish behaviour by the rancour and prejudice created by the actions of the Fundamentalists.
Basically, we are all suffering from being born into a period covered by that ancient Chinese curse...
May you live in "interesting" times.
And I suspect that times are going to get far more "interesting" before they settle down, after all, it took Christianity several centuries, and nowadays the numbers involved are far larger, the weapons more effective and vulnerability more pronounced.There's nothing the West can do to assist this change, any outside pressure inevitably causes a defensive "enemy without" reaction, that's only human nature at work.
All we can realistically do is keep our heads down, lock the doors and hold onto the kids, and pray.

A very learned informative article, and hard to disagree with on any grounds!
Thanks Tanveer.
Rhrosty.

Yuyutsu, you say “A true Muslim should not follow these clerics” but that is immaterial – an Imam may be moderate or radical, blind or gay, white or subcontinent, Lebanese or Australian, but he is just a cleric. The problem is Islam. The fact is that a Muslim – whether true, religious, moderate or unmosqued -- by definition believes the Quran and follows Mohammad.

In case you haven’t read the Quran, it teaches hate, discrimination, slander and yes, calls to violence against non-Muslims. Anybody from Mars, or anywhere else, upon reading the Quran, would believe that infidels are really bad people. The same is true of islam’s prophet, a man consider to be a noble example. Well, this noble example did many, many evil things to his neighbors, according to all Islamic writings, including but not limited to murder, plunder, torture, rape and enslavement of men women and children. Some example…

The problem is not lack of integration, identity, personality, anti-social behavior, bad parenting, large families, lack of education or notions of blame and guilt. The problem is an ideology that divides the world into two camps: us and them. The problem is a religion that has lots of rules and rituals but little morality. Actually, morality is for non-Muslims, since faith (belief) is the sole requirement to get to Islam’s paradise with the wine, houri (or grapes) and little boys. There is none of that silly “repent, confess your sins and sin no more” attitude of the Judeo-Chhristian tradition – say the shahada and you are good to go.

All this fuss over a few beheadings. Didn’t we have a little Muslim kid holding up a sign urging this, predicting this, in a public park in Sidney, a year ago? Don’t infidels know what “strike their necks” means? It is not like Allah is telling Muslims to send flowers

Radical Muslims kill, moderates make excuses and blame others. The future will not be nice.

The one thing these young men surely have in common is their anger. It is not, however, a ‘holy’ anger but more of an anger towards those close to them who have formed them into people who have no idea what to do with that anger.

Their parents deal with their anger, their fear, and their sadness by resorting to religious behaviour. Even when good things happen to them they resort to religious behaviour by praising their god. When they feel guilt they ask forgiveness not of those whom they have offended but of God.

Resorting to religious behaviour as a way of dealing with one’s feelings is simply a primitive response. It is primitive because there are rational ways based in nature that are the proper responses to anger, fear, sadness and guilt. Those feelings demand a response but it has to be the right response. If someone is treating you unjustly at work you do not go to the mosque or fondle you beads. If you are afraid you do not huddle in a corner and recite the Koran. You take action to achieve justice by using the resources made available for that purpose or you move away from danger where it cannot be contained. Many people who resort to religious behaviour have never been shown any other way and this may have something to do with the impoverished circumstances they come from. They resort to religion when everyone else around them seems more able to cope with those feelings without doing so.

Cont.

Cont.
This is one of the prime reasons they congregate together – to support each other in the way they deal with their feelings. They feel isolated from the way the rest of the community in which they now live deals with their anger, fear and sadness and even joy. They teach their kids to deal with their feelings in the same way but their kids grow up in a society where it is not shameful for a woman to go out alone or it is not wrong to put all justice into the hands of God. The kids become torn between what they see as a better way and the power that all parents have over their kid’s basic needs. Some are strong enough to survive this form of parental abuse but others are not. When they see what appears to be a threat to the way they deal with their feelings they lash out with violence. They are angry alright but not with those who threaten their religious behaviour rather with those who have failed to show them a better way. Even as adults they still feel afraid of their parents and join the cause to fight against an enemy they do not have on their own terms.

Such is the power that parents can wield that these kids are more afraid of not being a suicide bomber than of being one. They are more afraid of not being involved in Jihad than of going off to fight a war that they can never win. They need help and such violence, while it should be resisted with all force, is really a cry for help. Help to extricate themselves from the vice-like emotional grip that their parents have over them

Maybe compared with the overall Australian population it is a small percentage of Muslim adherents who are engaged in violence, for instance in those bikie and drug gangs. Relative to the overall population it is allegedly 'only' some dozens or is it hundreds who are fighting overseas or are active supporters?

But, those 'small' numbers are not so small when compared with the number of Muslims in Australia. Maybe compare apples with apples.

Remembering too the concern that very few can wreak an awful toll with very simple tools.

Rightly, the public resents the limitations on the quality of life enjoyed previously and the restrictions on freedom that become necessary and are permanent features of daily life.

It is apparent that despite all of the federal government 'never you mind' assurances and positive spin, the management of immigration has always been flawed. Otherwise how did organised crime become so easily established in Australia? Referring to the organised crime that federal governments always denied existed. How many good, honest police had their careers destroyed for pointing out those inconvenient facts as a public service?

Presently, both sides of politics are standing behind the public servant who is being required to doing their job for them. So much for that ministerial responsibility the Aussie taxpayer pays so dearly for. See here,

<Migration Fraud Reporting
"The Secretary for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Martin Bowles, today responded to reports alleging widespread migration fraud. His comments are as follows:

“Serious claims have been made against the Department of Immigration and Border Protection today, calling into question the integrity of Australia’s migration and visa programmes.

“These allegations, including that migration fraud is going undetected and is not being appropriately investigated, are of great concern to me">
http://www.newsroom.immi.gov.au/channels/NEWS/releases/migration-fraud-reporting

Is there any apology, contriteness or accountability from the PMs and Immigration Ministers past and present? Heck no and there is no interruption in the flow, with promises to take a large number of displaced persons from another war. First, kindly fix the deficiencies in present risk management and controls, now!

Not sure if we can lump all Muslims into
the one group - when there are so many
cultural and linguistic differences between
them. And I'm equally not sure that we are in
any position to judge the religion - unless
we've spent years studying it. Even in that
case theologians don't always agree on everything.
Therefore I think posters should refrain from
sweeping statements and generalisations or buying
into what the media reports. Blaming any religion
for the behaviour of extremists and fanatics within
any group is not a valid way to argue - and smacks of
extreme bias.

The follwing link may be of interest:

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/05/02/3493640.htm

Dear Kactuz,

One may believe the Koran, but still be moral.

Anger comes out of attachment: you want this and that, heaven included, but it's not happening so you become angry.

A true good Muslim could say: "Yes, the Koran teaches how to reach heaven, but if it takes doing evil in order to reach heaven, then may I forego heaven, may I even enter hell rather than hurt my fellow who is made like me in the image of God. O Allah, I want you alone, not even your heaven with all its pleasures, you alone!".

In other words, those who seek heaven are not religious - but selfish!

Foxy obviously believes that the Pope and the Catholic Church shouldn't ever be held accountable either. It was just a few bad apples, eh?

otb

Sssssh! you're not supposed to notice inconsistencies like that.

SPQR,

LOL, you mean the contradictory and compartmentalised thinking of the politically correct?

OTB
"thinking" may not be the right word to use in that context

Foxy:
“And I'm equally not sure that we are in any position to judge the religion – unless we've spent years studying it.”

I don’t think we need to study a particular religion to know that it has no redeeming qualities at all. You do not have to study any religion at all. You have to study human behaviour. This can bring you to a conclusion that religious behaviour is fundamentally neurotic and all theological discussion is merely an argument about the best way to rationalise neurotic behaviour to questioners. Religious beliefs are not opinions they are just ways of trying to explain the irrational behaviour that religious people practice.

Whilst extremist behaviour may be the province of only a small minority you have to question where that behaviour came from and there is a very good chance that it is a result of non-extremist religious people who have abused their children and forced them to adopt such practices. People do not become extremist in a vacuum or overnight. It is a product of their life experiences and if that involves things like being beaten for not following religious practice as a child then you have to lay the blame at the feet of religion and those who practice it.

Point taken.

Correction:

My "contradictory and compartmentalised thinking of the politically correct"

should have read,

"contradictory and compartmentalised dogmatism of the politically correct".

Foxy said,

"Not sure if we can lump all Muslims into
the one group ....".

As Muslims are followers of Muhammad and the Koran then they can all be lumped together, they do have have their differences but not about the Divine inspiration of their Book, nor that Muhammad was chosen by Allah.

The message of Muhammad advocates violence.
The message of Christ advocates peace.

G'dayBruce, writes

'It seems to me that Islam is going through a similar process to Christianity in the Middle Ages '

just like the unborn are going through a similar process as those being headed thanks to secularism.

OTB,
Thanks for posting that release from the DIAC. I have been looking for further comment.

I still await comments from the current Minister and more about the allegations made by the Fairfax press.

It concerns me that other media outlets have not taken up the issues and as to why there is not comment from the Opposition. My guess is that all are trying to be a small target, after all the allegations are very scathing and occurred over many years that we know of.

In relation to Islam, We have a muslim problem, the world has a muslim problem. Someone said the muslims are going through the same situation as Christianity did in the Middle Ages. I am not sure about that but it seems to me we should stop all muslim immigration until the muslims sort themselves out. This must be done for the safety and well being of our citizens.

What will it take for our politicians to confront the reality that muslims will never integrate into our society.

Tanveer Ahmed, as a psychiatrist and Indian-Muslim-Australian is to be commended for an excellent article that a non-Muslim wouldn't even attempt due to accusations of anti-Muslimism and racism.

I'm surprised as to WHY so many of the Lebanese, that Ahmed identifies, came to Australia and then settled in one part of Sydney.

Was it Inshallah or the will of Labor Party electorate stackers?

otb,

Foxy stands by her posting record and her
posting record on the Catholic Church and Sexual
Abuse is crytal clear.

"No one is denying that
sexual abuse of children is horrendous and
intolerable and the the failure of the church to
deal with it efectively has done immeasurable damage
to victims. The cover-ups, the protection of abusive
clergy and the refusal to admit egregious mistakes
are unjustifiable..."

However, regarding the question of Islamic fundamentalism
and extremisim - that's a different issue alltogether.
Not all Muslims are fundamentalists or extremists.
And to infer they are is simply wrong. As the following
link explains:

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/05/02/3493640.htm

G'dayBruce, writes

'It seems to me that Islam is going through a similar process to Christianity in the Middle Ages '

There has been no change in Islam since its founding in the 7th century.
It started its history as a violent anti Jewish religion and has gone
on up to the present day in the same vein.
The Koran tells them that they have to spread Islam by submission or
the sword.
The Koran cannot be reinterpreted. It is rigid and unchanged.
This is the crux of the matter. Any negotiations are merely for
short time advantage. The Koran is quite specific about that.
I am no expert reader of it but I have read those particular paragraphs.

Hamas demonstrates that, for once honestly, no agreement with them
can accept a permanent existence of Israel. Mohammad made that clear
right at the very beginning of his campaign against the Jewish towns
near Arabia.

The Jews have had thousands of years experience of Islam and they
know that any compromise is only temporary and Islam has not changed
its fundamental aim.

Richard the Lionheart learnt that to his cost.
The wars that started in the 7th century by a band of brigands
still continues.

Dear Plantagenet,

You ask why Lebanese tend to live in the one place?
So do the Vietnamese, the Chinese, the Greeks,
Italians, and so on.

Australian reseach has concluded (Dawkins, P., et al,
(1991) "Flow of immigrants..." Canberra, AGPS) that the
larger the existing stock of immigrants and the more
recently arrived they are, the more such immigrants are
likely to regroup and re-settle at places of residence
influenced by friends and family. They tend to join their
own communities there.

cont'd ...

why do Australians live together in the one
part of London?

Because its a normal thing to do.

Foxy,

From your last reference:
".... militant Islamism rests upon a marginal interpretation of Islam that cherry-picks its way through Islamic source texts and historical events."

No cherry-picking required, just shake the tree called "Koran" and all the needed cherries fall to hand.

Foxy,

Don't be so simplistic.

Australians that migrate the vicinity of London don't all congregate in the one place, shew me the Lakemba, Punchbowl or Bankstown of London.

Hi Is Mise

Earl's Court is still popular with Aussies and Kiwis in London.

But they are spreading out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australians_in_the_United_Kingdom advises: The 2001 UK Census recorded 107,871 Australian-born people.[2] In 2005, the highest concentration of Australians in the UK was in south-west London with sizeable communities in Earl's Court, Kensington, Hammersmith, Fulham, Shepherds Bush and Putney.[3]

Pete

FOXY SAID;
shew me the Lakemba, Punchbowl or Bankstown of London.

No problem at all. There was a news item just the other day, I am
tryingto remember its name, it is the East End, it is near Petticoat Lane.
The moslems are putting up posters stating that it is a Sharia Law
area and women must be covered. No liqueur allowed in the area.

The local council is going around taking them down but it is a losing battle.
I cannot remember where I saw it. It was a video, and a group of
tough looking arabs were standing on a corner at the entrance to the
area warning people off.

It is known as Londonstan.
Of course Leicester is totally moslem.
The British are not welcome there.

Whoops, not Foxy but Is Mise was meant for my last.

Tanveer is also describing the migrant experience. Even with all our pretensions to multiculturalism, Australia still remains pretty much clueless about the socio-psychological impacts of migration.

The right remains largely reactionary and the left just lapses into sloppy sentiment.

While I don't agree with a lot of what Tanveer says, especially his views on how Islam 'differs' from Christianity and his obvious bias towards men, at least he's making an effort to understand the dark side of the migrant experience.

Killarney...

The right remains largely reactionary and the left just lapses into sloppy sentiment.

To answer your question, if they not Australians.... then what are they?..

Tally

Bazz,

I should have made it clear that I was referring to a London equivalent of those Sydney suburbs where Australians are in a cultural takeover that excludes the Poms.
That number of Australians would largely go unnoticed, unless they've all taken to wearing wide brimmed hats.

I really don't understand the purpose of Tanveer Ahmed's article at all. He seems to be saying that criminal behaviour has a cultural link to Islam, then treats this fact as if it is just an interesting academic exercise. After suggesting that the way Muslims from Lebanon raise their kids is an issue, he then tries to distance himself from Islamic culture by saying that Muslims from other Muslim countries do not have the problems which the Lebanese have.

Such a premise would be actionable under 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, as it suggests that the Lebanese are more prone to criminal behaviour than other people. Of course, this is true. But we in multicultural Australia are not by law supposed to say what is true anymore, only what does not offend, insult or humiliate our imported minorities.

Tanveer then goes on to explain why the Arab Muslim way of thinking is different to the western way. Although he does not explain how the Lebanese Muslim Arab way of thinking is different to any other Arab Muslim way of thinking, which could account for any difference between Lebanese and other Arab and Muslim crime rates, if such differences actually exist.

Altogether, Tanveers article seems to accept the undeniable, that Lebanese Arab Muslim crime rates are very high in western countries and it has a definite causal link to Islamic culture, philosophy, and child rearing practices. I agree with Tanveer.

The $64,000 dollar question which Tanveer forgot to ask is. "Then why on Earth should western nations import people who have a cultural pre disposition to violence and criminal behaviour?

Lego, you are concerned as to why the Arab moslem has a different way
of thinking about crime etc.
Again it is in the Koran, it is not a sin to lie or misdeal with an
infidel if it is to the advantage of islam or moslems.

So, you see that is why they often seem defiant when caught by the police.
That is an affront to Allah as what they have done is not a crime under Sharia.

Yeh it was the West that started ISIS.

Watch this training film in explosives http://youtu.be/vR3FPplcJGg

Not only was the leader with the flare pistol a Mossad agent but he was bin Laden's daddy-O.

I take heart that more and more of the population have had scales lifted from their eyes when it comes to the ideology of Islam. The rest will still be making excuses even if family members are targeted. Very strange bedfellows Isalm/Feminism/Progressives. All however have somewhat of a death culture.

Foxy; stay on message luv.
You are like a tiny candle or truth illuminating the darkness.
And while a tiny candle of light (truth) can push back the darkness, no amount of darkness (evil) has any power to dim the tiny candle!
Rhrosty.

YoooHoooo Pete, come quickly

Hey Arjays hacked your OLO account and is posting under your nom de plume --see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16593#290658

Dear Rhrosty,

Thank You for your kind words.

I watched "Insight" the other night presented by
Jenny Brockie. It dealt with the subject of Islam
and had many concerned Muslims in the audience,
as well as a few more strident speakers - both
Muslim and non-Muslim.

One thing appeared to be quite clear. Prejudice
creates what it fears. The acute feelings of the
minority and that of the broader society reinforce
each other. As Dr Eva Sallis once stated -

"If contemporary Australians are to live at ease with
ourselves, we need more education, less fear mongering
and not least greater honesty about the culture of
racism that is damaging to us."

Foxy, "Prejudice creates what it fears"

Typically, you are blaming the 9/11 victims for the terrorism that killed them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ElW8UAM30E

A mantra is not an argument. It is your beliefs at work again.

Your dogmatism forever blinds you to the obvious.

Foxy wrote

"Blaming any religion for the behaviour of extremists and fanatics within any group is not a valid way to argue - and smacks of
extreme bias."

So, you wouldn't blame all Nazis for the holocaust? It was all the fault of the minority of Nazi's who were extremists and fanatics? Most Nazis are rally nice people, right? It is only the fundamentalist Nazis which give the majority of Nazis who are moderate a bad name?

Most Khmer Rouge, Thugees, Hells Angels, Mafioso, Narcotrafficantes and Al Qaida are nice guys also. Judging people by the actions of the groups they identify with is "bias."

Agree Lego.
What no one ever says is why should we have to bother to sort out the
goodies from the baddies ?
It is too much trouble and would be subject to too big an error rate.
If it was anything else they would pull them off the shelves and send them back to the manufacturer.

Prejudice does create what it fears - as Dr Eva Sallis
(who I have quoted frequently on this forum regarding
Arab Australians) pointed out (not my "mantra" at all
or my personal beliefs) - but comes from the vast
experienceof Dr Sallis and her research. -
She states:

"By curtailing young people's prospects.
Young Arab Australians are increasingly, ghettoized in
Sydney's poor suburbs - where they struggle for education
and jobs. Their families are often prejudiced against
non-Arab Australians ..."

Which of course means that the racism of the minority and
that of the broader society therefore reinforce each other.

@Foxy,

<<Young Arab Australians are increasingly, ghettoized in
Sydney's poor suburbs - where they struggle for education
and jobs.>>

BS! If they are ghettoized it is largely their own doing

Dear SPQR,

Unfortunately that's the reality for some
people. - That's where these families live - and
as we discussed earlier - migrants do tend to
go where their communities are. Having the choice
to live in better neighbourhoods usually only
comes as a result of education and a good-paying
job.

Dear Foxy

<<Unfortunately that's the reality for some People>>
*SOME* people yes.But is it hardly the system agen newcomers as some are want to sing.

I have very close associations with a number of Asian migrant communities .And that certainly is NOT the case with them. Oh they may they may tend to congregate in some suburbs but they do very well. Do a headcount at our Selective Schools the majority of students have Asian roots.

So as Julius Sumner Miller would ask ‘why is it so?’ with the Arab community
Is there a sign above the school door saying ‘no Arabs allowed’
Are the TAFEs closed to Arabs
Are our Unis closed to Arabs

Thanks SPQR

For the heads-up.

I never even dreamt that Arjay, chock-full of visions of Dubya the CIA-Mossad, al Qaeda, undercover bin Laden, Jewish banker could be so sneaky.

There is only one recourse but to screen this cruel but fair ISIS recruitment video http://youtu.be/72gT3OuaEhI

cunningly disguised as US Marines

Foxy is right about where they live.
I have however noticed a difference between the moslems and the Chinese.
The Chinese are not so densely settled as the moslems.

@Pete,

<<There is only one recourse but to screen this cruel but fair ISIS recruitment video http://youtu.be/72gT3OuaEhI >>

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Not the ISIS recruitment videooooooooooo!

Do you have any idea of the effect that will have on the likes of Steele and Dane they are already tetering on the edge. They will be off like a Hamas rocket to their nearest ISIS centre to sign up.

No for Pete's sake. I beg you Pete, not the ISIS vid

Dear SPQR,

For your information:

http://amf.net.au/library/uploads/files/Religion_Cultural_Diversity_Resource_Manual.pdf

Just trying to help.

I don't want you to gain the reputation that

"He's the kind of person that
you could use as a blueprint to build an idiot."

Playfully artful as you are. ;-)

Yuyutsu, Christians follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and Muslims follow the teachings of Mohammad.

Jesus Christ's message was similar to your own, peace, love and mung beans. 'Blessed are the peacemakers". "Love thy neighbour" "If man strike thee, turn the other cheek."

Mohammad's message is "Fight the unbelievers who are near to you, let them find harshness in you, lay ambushes for them, strike terror into their hearts"

Mohammad got started by beheading 800 Jewish men in Medina who refused to convert to Islam and he sold their women and children into slavery after first allowing his men to rape the women. All religions think that their particular religion is the one and only religion of God. And if they want to spread their message through public speaking and the media I can accept that.

But Islam believes in Jihad and spreading Islam by the sword. Sixty million Christians, a few million Jews, a hundred million Hindu's ten million Buddhists, and God knows how many tens of millions of Africans have died because of Islam. Get it through your head that Islam is opposed to everything you believe in.

The aim of Islam is world domination. Everywhere they have invaded or immigrated to they have always tried to dominate where they lived. If they can not take over a country they will take over a region and spread like a cancer from there through Muslim immigration or high birth rate differentials. If they created prosperous and tolerant societies that may not necessarily be a bad thing. But wherever Islam spreads it creates poverty stricken and totally intolerant societies at war with each other, and where women and minorities are second class citizens.

Dear LEGO,

<<All religions think that their particular religion is the one and only religion of God.>>

And they are correct.

There is only one religion - that which leads to God.

Religious practices and beliefs can vary according to culture, geography, temperament and other conditions, so different religious teachers give different and even seemingly conflicting teachings to different groups of people. Buddha for example is known to have given conflicting instructions to different individual seekers, each according to their situation and capacity: to one he said that God exists, to another he said that there is no such thing as God and to his closest disciple, Ananda, he said nothing, but led him into meditation where he could find out for himself.

The question now is whether or not Islam is a religion. Indeed, whether specific streams within Islam are religious or otherwise. I would like to find out what Mohammad actually taught, as opposed to what is written in the Koran (which itself has several versions, http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven.htm). I still have much reading to do before I can be decided on this question.

There are Islamic streams that teach that Jihad is an internal war which one wages against their own sins and weaknesses. If that's indeed what Mohammad taught, then he successfully adjusted religion for the Arab temperament. As I said, much research is needed to find whether that was the case, but meanwhile, regardless of what Mohammad actually meant, millions of good, civilised and moderate Muslims benefit religiously from fighting that war within.

Yuyutsu,

<<There are Islamic streams that teach that Jihad is an internal war which one wages against their own sins and weaknesses. If that's indeed what Mohammad taught>>

Well, no, he didnt teach that. That is very much a modern beat-up. Jihad means war against infidels.

Dear SPQR,

Jihad as projected in the Koran is not a single
concept.

It is a range of activities based on the Arabic
meaning of the word - "exerted effort." In the
Koran it is projected as exerting effort to
change oneself. The most difficult jihad is
the one of the soul. The biggest trouble is not
with your enemy but with yourself. Changing yourself.

Your understanding of jihad is a narrow one - and a
"Western" interpretation.

Foxy(to SPQR), "Your understanding of jihad is a narrow one - and a Western" interpretation"

Western understanding of jihad and false according to Foxy's dogmatism,

"Governments across Europe have noticed this pattern between crime and jihad and are fearful. These individuals will have access to criminal networks should they return and therefore have easier access to weapons
Terror expert Raffaello Pantucci"

and

"EXCLUSIVE: Violent young British criminals sign up for GANGSTA JIHAD
By: Amardeep Bassey:August17,2014

VIOLENT Muslim criminals from Britain who are flocking to join Islamic State terrorists are bragging about waging “gangsta jihad” and could pose a deadly threat on our streets if they ever return to the UK.

Some have admitted carrying out armed robberies at home to fund their trips to the Syria and Iraq conflicts while others have convictions for drug dealing and violence, with known links to street gangs.

Their battlefield experience, fanaticism, thirst for violence and links to gangs that would give them easy access to weapons, could enable them to launch terrifying attacks in the UK. Last night a Special Branch source said: “The so-called jihad in Iraq and Syria has been particularly inviting to some young British Muslims who are already involved in violent crime in this country.

“They are attracted by the glamour of fighting for a ruthless organisation like IS and are no strangers to extreme violence and brutality.

“For many it has been like an adventure holiday and some have referred to ‘gangsta jihad’ in their postings on social media. The language they use, referring to their guns as ‘chrome’ and addressing their ‘homies’ back in the UK, is the sort of street slang associated with criminal gangs.”

Governments across Europe have noticed this pattern between crime and jihad and are fearful. These individuals will have access to criminal networks should they return and therefore have easier access to weapons.
..
“If we do not act to stem the onslaught of this exceptionally dangerous terrorist movement, it will only grow stronger until it can target us on the streets of Britain.”

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/500239/Violent-young-British-criminals-sign-up-for-gangsta-jihad

otb,

You really are a champion of verbal abuse, nasty insinuation
and downright mistruth.

Your posts are getting even weirder and more inappropirate.

Kindly read what I actually did say.

Fair dinkum mate!

To Yuyutsu.

It is a good thing that Hitler's Nazis and Pol Pot's henchman did not start religions, because if they had you would be making excuses for them also, because they are blessed religions.

Mohammad was a warlord who led 68 successful military campaigns to spread Islam. But you give him the benefit of the doubt because he is the leader of a religion, and you are in awe of religions. It does not matter if he had 800 Jews beheaded in Medina and beheaded a few people himself he didn't like. God must love him or he would not have let him create a religion which praised God.

A cynic like myself would opine that Mohammed invented a Islam as a warriors religion to make his warriors invincible in battle and to justify Arab empirical expansion. Churchill once said that modern Christianity had been a moderating force against violence in the world. You definitely could not say that about Islam. Unless you approve of throat cutting, genocide, ethnic cleansing and beheading to advance religion.

How noice of you. Confronted by a religion which sanctions the marriage of little girls, the murder of apostates, blasphemers and homosexuals,female genital mutilation, the punishment of women who are raped, honour killings, the concept that women are minors who musty obey men, and that religion should be spread by military force, you wonder if Mohammad might have been misunderstood and you will not pass judgement on Islam until you have learned more.

If Christianity moderates western violence, could I make the connection that Islam is the opposite? That would account for the very high levels of violence in Muslim societies, and the very high levels of violence of Muslims in western countries.

"Practically the only way to change radical
fundamentalism is through economic
development and an improved standard of
living."
(Yitzhak Rabin).

The following link may be of interest:

http://amf.net.au/library/uploads/files/Religion_Cultural_Diversity_Resource_Manual.pdf

It's bit hard to overcome Islamic poverty when Islam's highest grade of Muslims knock down the World Trade Centre.

It is no surprise that those muslim countries that are the most insular, despotic, mullah ridden, and repressive, are the most staunch opponents of free trade and the most enthusiastic supporters of Osama bin Laden and his merry band of suicidal Jihadi's.

Guess what else they have in common? None of these nations even belongs to the hated World Trade Organisation. which, with 142 members, is hardly an exclusive club. The muslim world itself chooses to live in self imposed economic exile and is suffering terribly because of it.

For while economic rationalism, free trade and liberated market forces have fomented dramatic changes around the world, (mostly for the better) the two places they have achieved nothing is in the African and Arabic worlds. With a few mostly "liberal" muslim countries as exceptions, (Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia and some Gulf States) most Muslim countries have done their best to keep international economic integration completely at bay.

The extreme poverty that exists in Islamic countries, is a product of their own religious beliefs and almost every Muslim country is an economic basket case. Muslim economies are growing, on average, only 1% a year. But Muslim populations are growing, on average, at a disastrous 4% a year. Muslim societies are great believers in breeding like flies and Muslim families are noted for having very large numbers of children. This factor alone is instrumental in their appalling levels of poverty, superstition, unemployment and ignorance

Foxy – You say Jihad “in the Koran it is projected as exerting effort to change oneself.” Only in your dreams.

The word jihad is not used in the quran. The verb used instead is usually understood as “struggle” or “making an effort” And it is framed as “an effort in the way of Allah”.

In reality, jihad is nothing but holy war against infidels. In the quran, this struggle or effort requires that a Muslim leave home; the quran says it may cause the Muslim to get killed but it promises spoils of war (Surah 8). Sounds a lot like war to me.

For 1300 years jihad meant nothing but attacking and killing infidels, with the required looting, murder, rape and enslavement. Around 1960, Muslims apologists and silly infidels began to push the politically correct notion of “inner struggle”.

Do this, go to a site with Muslim texts and enter the work “Jihad”. Here is a link to hadith:

http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/home/search.php

Now go down the listed texts and read each result for jihad. Can you find any that is not about attacking, conquering non-Muslims?

Or better, if you wish, goto any Islamic news site (such as “arabnews” or others) and look for the word jihad and tell me if it is about stopping smoking, not looking at pornography or loosing weight.

Jihad as some inner struggle is only for stupid, silly infidels that believe anything, including that Islam is about peace.

On the other hand, Foxy, maybe you should devote your life to telling Muslims that jihad is really about character building and then they might stop attacking and killing us. Maybe, with your efforts, one day Ahmed the terrible will say: “Oh shucks, darn it… we didn’t know, they told us that jihad was about killing and capturing those hot infidels girls, sorry”.

Go for it, Foxy, make a difference.

PS: when I find time, I will write about your link to the “Muslim Australians - A Partnership under the Australian Government’s Living In Harmony initiative” booklet, a distorted piece of crude propaganda, full of misquotes, errors, and lies

Good post, Kactuz

Jihad this, Foxy.

Koran 8.12 When you Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those that believe. I will strike terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike of their heads and strike off every finger tip of them.

Koran 8:39: “And fight them until there is no more disbelief in Islam and the religion will all be for Allâh Alone...”

Sura (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."

Sura (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye knoweth not."

We knoweth, but Foxy, Yuyutsu, and Julianutter are in denial, and knoweth not.

Yuyutsu

Further to the myth that jihad means a Sunday picnic in the park. The below is from "Osama Bin Laden" by Michael Scheuer p32-33

-“Some US and Western government officials, journalists, and historians –abetted by the clerics of Arab regimes assigned to mislead them –labor hard to portray jihad as a vigorous but peaceful endeavor through which the individual Muslim struggles to control himself and then master his baser tastes and inclinations. These writers often cite a hadith claiming the Prophet spoke of a ‘greater jihad,’ considering the ‘greater ‘ to be the individual struggle just described, and the ‘lesser’ to involve specific military activity. This is an indefensible position. When mentioned in the Koran –which is God’s word spoken to Gabriel, who repeats it to Muhammed --jihad is almost invariably used in a martial sense. Moreover the hadith prized by the jihad-is-personal-struggle advocates is so poorly sourced –hadiths’ reliability depends on a validated chain of transmitters who passed the data from one person who heard the Prophet speak or saw his deeds—that it is not included in the two canonical hadith collections, those by al-Bukhari and Muslim.

A here the related footnote: See Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam, pp116 and 118. Professor Peters notes that many Islamists believe the frequent reference to this hadith by Muslims and Western writers is meant to’weaken Muslim combativeness.’ In addition, Shaykh Azzam quotes several eminent Islamic scholars who say the hadith ranges form weak to outright fabrication. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, for example, wrote: “This hadith has no source and nobody whomsoever in the field of Islamic knowledger has narrated it . Jihad against the disbelievers is the most noble of actions and moreover it is the most important action for the sake of mankind.’ See note 71 in Shaykh Abdullah Azzam, ‘Join the Caravan,’ http:www.islamistwatch.org.text/azzam/caravan/reference.hmtl.

_______________________________________

Great post kactuz --I will copy it for future reference.

Dear LEGO,

Obviously the issues around the message of Islam are in contention among several groups who all call themselves 'Muslims'.

I know some of those who call themselves 'Muslims' who are good and hard-working Australian citizens, while at the same time obviously benefit religiously from their prayers and fasting on Ramadan. When visiting Israel I see many Muslim blue-collar employees which do their job well and seem to only care about feeding their families. Just give them a tip and they will be your best friends. Yes, I see some of them taking short breaks to pray and I also see others who hide from their friends in the toilet to have a forbidden snack during Ramadan (could they still be called Muslims then?). I also read about the mystical Sufis, who have great religious teachings and practices. The other types of Muslims, I mostly know from the media/news.

Which is the true "Islam"?
Is Islam a religion?
What were the original teachings of Mohammed?
Is anyone following these at all?

I am unwilling to accept popular or political opinion as "truth" (otherwise just imagine what views would I adopt about Jews if I lived in Germany in the 1930's) and I was in fact planning a couple of months ago to do a research on this issue and bought a copy of the Koran, but right now I do have higher priorities. Once I complete my research, I will let you know what I found.

Dear Kactuz,

My information has been gleaned not from arm-chair
"philosophers" such as yourself and others, but
from actual experts in the field such as Prof.
Abdullah Saeed of Melbourne University.

As for your "polite" suggestion as to whom I should
devote my life to? That's already been taken care of
by my chosen profession - that of librarian.
Which of course is to continue to add, enrich,
stimulate, and amplify, the reading of people such as
yourself.

Now jihad and its meaning in the Qur'an?

The following link may explain clearer than I did:

http://www.abdullahsaeed.org/sites/abdullahsaeed.org/files/Terrorism_and_Justice.pdf

Dear Yuyutsu

So, you wish to read the Koran to discover the real meaning of Islam so that you can take an objective view of this religion? That is very good of you. I would not do that myself, because I would consider reading a book full of legends, and full of moral absolutes, to be heavy going. I started reading the Bible when I was 15 and it helped me a lot. I began at Genesis and by the time I got to Deuteronomy I realised that my religion was a load of crap. It was also very boring. God wrote a boring book.

Knowing nothing of Islam, I too took an objective view and read what I could about Islam. I read books by former Muslims who explained why they had left their religion. As a matter of fact, I am reading another, right now. (Cruel and Usual Punishment). I began to understand why Muslims act the way they do. It is because their religion teaches them to think differently to westerners. Islam is a dangerous religion. Just one aspect of it, that apostates should be murdered, should tell you right away that this is an evil religion.

Everything I see now about Muslims conforms to the stereotype I have formed of their way of thinking. I agree that there are good people everywhere. But if these good people believe in something which is very dangerous then these good people are dangerous too. I once met and worked with a genuine Nazi and he was a good man. He was formerly a soldier in the 12th SS Panzer (Hitler Jugend) division and he still loved Hitler, and he absolutely hated the Jews. If I was a Jew, I would consider that this nice, polite, hard working, taxpaying, law abiding Nazi was a real danger to me if he ever got organised with other Nazis. And it would also be a reasonable presumption that all fascist ideologies, be they Spanish, German, Italian, or Australian would be more or less a real danger to me

Dear LEGO,

You say:

<<Everything I see now about Muslims conforms to the stereotype I have formed of their way of thinking.>>

But how do you know that these are Muslims? Just because they say they are?

Yes of course, there is a problem with this group of people who call themselves "Muslims", but if we refer to this group (rather than to true Muslims) than it is a socio-political issue rather than a religious one. Of course one needs to deal with such threats, but I personally am only interested in the religious side and have no time or inclination to be involved in politics (not that I could change anything about it anyway if I were).

You say that those people believe in something dangerous - but do they really believe in it? All of them?

Within this group there are so many sects, so many opinions: surely any of them who is not interested in violence can find the right Sheikh that will tell them that Jihad is internal, while those who are interested in violence would find a Sheikh who will tell them that Jihad is external. At the end of the day, people will act according to their own inclinations - rather than by the book, a book which (like the bible) can be interpreted anyway in 1001 ways.

<<It is because their religion teaches them to think differently to westerners.>>

So do I. I think differently to westerners, yet I have no inclination to hurt anybody. I do not believe that apostates should be murdered (or else I would have to murder most of my family), or that women are inferior, or in FGM, etc.: Why couldn't others who are not westerners be the same? Aren't there also westerners who harm others, including murderers and rapists?

Just more examples of why Australia does not need immigrants. We should return to a white Australia policy.

Dear Ozzie,

<<Just more examples of why Australia does not need immigrants. We should return to a white Australia policy.>>

Of course: whoever or whatever that "Australia" whom you speak about is, it's not a person or a sentient being who may have needs - any needs.

Real people on the other hand, do have needs, including the space to live in freedom and dignity.

Some 200+ years ago, a bunch of Englishmen landed on this continent and because their guns and ships happened to be better than others at the time, drew lines on the map and decided childishly: "this is all ours, now everyone who wants to live in this continent must abide by our laws and customs".

They never had any legitimacy to do so. Who gave a group of people, any group, the right to control a whole of one of God's blessed continents? The Jews at least claim that God gave them the land of Israel, but no one (who isn't mentally ill) can claim even that regarding Australia, so how is this behaviour different in principle than the current behaviour of the thugs of the "Islamic State"?

Yuyutsu,

People have always been "multiplying beyond their means of subsistence" (as Charles Darwin put it) and displacing each other.

"The human skeletons found in a Late Palaeolithic cemetery at Gebel dating about 12,000 to 14,000 years ago show that warfare there was very common and particularly brutal. Over 40 percent of the fifty-nine men, women and children buried in this cemetery had stone projectile points intimately associated with or buried in their skeletons. Several adults had multiple wounds (as many as twenty), and the wounds found on children were all in the head and neck -- that is, execution shots. The excavator, Fred Wendorf, estimates that more than half the people buried there had died violently. He also notes that homicidal violence at Gebel Sahada was not a once-in-a-lifetime event, since many of the adults showed healed parry fractures of their forearm bones -- a common trauma on victims of violence --and because the cemetery had obviously been used over several generations."

"War Before Civilization"by Prof. Lawrence H. Keeley (Archaeology, University of Chicago) p. 37.

There are similar sites all over the world. The British were no better and no worse than any other Malthusian trap society (with people of any race) that was around at the time; they were simply more efficient. Apart from a few very remote islands, every piece of land on earth has changed hands numerous times.

For an amusing story, look up Kennewick Man, a 9,000 year old skeleton with a spear point in its pelvis that was found in the US Pacific Northwest. The problem was that it was clearly racially different from modern American Indian skeletons, resembling a Pacific Islander or Aboriginal person. The local Indian tribe went to immense trouble to stop the skeleton from being studied. (It isn't very good for claims of victimhood to be shown to be merely the descendants of an earlier wave of invaders.)

I don't agree with Ozzie about the White Australia policy. Where there is a problem, it is far more likely to be due to culture than race. Muslims come in all races.

Dear Yuyutsu.

Could you please name one sect of Islam that does not believe in Sharia Law? And if they all believe in Sharia Law, then they must believe that apostates must be murdered, and that critics of Islam must be killed. They also believe that women are inferior beings who are the property of men, and that men have a right and a duty to physically punish wayward women (however that tern can be applied) with a bloody big stick. Can you name one sect that does not believe in punishing female rape victims, or who do not declare that a female can not even bring a rape charge against a Muslim man, unless four Muslim males of good character can testify that they witnessed the rape from start to finish?

On a religious note, I am sure that you do not condone the religiously inspired behaviour of Boko Haram, Jemaal Islamia, ISIS, Al Qaida, Al Shaabab, even though these gentlemen are doing exactly what their prophet did himself, and they are plainly conforming to the holy scriptures of Islam. If people conform to both their religious leaders behaviour and his written instructions, then I would opine that these gentlemen are most certainly Muslims. And the very best of Muslims too, according to the Koran.

Finally, we get to your well intentioned hope that maybe somewhere in Dar es Salaam, some imams and sheiks preach peace, love and tolerance towards non Muslims. I doubt if that could be true, because it would be against their religion. And these characters take their religion very seriously. And if these peace loving imams and sheiks opposed the teachings of Allah and His prophet, that is Blasphemy, and the penalty for that is death. Can you name any Muslim sect that preaches tolerance towards non Muslims, and does not endorse the death penalty for blasphemy?

Dear LEGO,

You assume that people in general and Muslims in particular, are rational beings. This makes for nice logical riddles ("a third of the island's population tell the truth, a third lies and a third alternates... what question should you ask to find whether an islander is a lier..."), but has no basis in the reality of human behaviour, which isn't black-and-white either.

In reality, people who consider themselves Muslim may not believe everything that is written in the Koran - although some could well believe that they believe... In practice, people can be quite selective even when it makes no logical sense.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, even people who do believe that the Koranic promise of heaven is true, may choose to follow their good conscience instead and be peaceful even if they believe that by that they forego and forfeit their place in heaven.

Now we don't even know who wrote the Koran - and if so which version!
They say it was Muhammad, but was it? was the Koran unedited? Then which interpretation is correct... if any?

Sheikhs and Imams too are clever people: whatever Muhammad's original intention was (which we are unlikely to find out), they have the capacity to interpret the texts in any way the like - and they do. Those who are full of hatred (most likely for socio-economic reasons that have nothing to do with religion) will emphasise hatred and those who are full of love will emphasise compassion.

You say that it only happens in Dar es Salaam, but we do recently hear the voices of Australian and American Imam's who object to terrorism, FGM, child-marriage, etc. Here is a random selection:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/australian-islamic-leaders-call-for-an-end-to-hatred-and-provocation-claim-radical-group-hizb-uttahrir-is-tarnishing-religions-reputations/story-fni0cx12-1226968293235?nk=87722d0a8a9beaf3bb59243b1bd70d2f

http://www.mmg.com.au/local-news/shepparton/imam-condemns-iraq-violence-1.74895

http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/promoting_islamic_non_violent_solutions/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072701863.html

http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/answering_questions_from_american_muslims/

Gee, what a nice person you are, Yuyutsu.

A billion people want to kill you because their God commands it, but you want so desperately to think that they are really nice people.

The leading "moderate" Muslim organisations in Australia were invited to attend a meeting with Australia's Prime Minister so that he could explain our new terrorism laws and they just gave him the finger. They think that the only extremists around is Tony Abbot. The "moderate" Muslim organisations in Australia approached the PM previously to lobby to exempt Muslims from voting as voting is against Islam.

Sheik al Hilaly was once feted as a "moderate" Muslim who's smiling face could be seen on Sydney's newspapers publically promoting multiculturalism, and saying how we were all one big happy family. Hilaly was sacked for his private comments in which he continuously praised suicide bombers, called Jews "pigs", attacked Australians, and blamed the "cat meat" 70 Australian girls who were gang raped by Muslim race hate rape packs for their own rapes.

Muslims have a vested interest in continuing Muslim immigration into Australia. They do not want to give the game away that they are a serious danger to our community, which they intend to overthrow and put in it's place a religious totalitarian system. So they tell the hot heads to cool it before even people as chronically tolerant as you are figure out how dangerous they really are. Because if even people like you woke up, then Australia would do the smart thing and stop accepting any more Muslim immigrants for our own security.

Tell ya what, Yuyutsu. When those "moderate" Muslim organisations come out publically and say that apostates and critics of Islam should not be murdered, then I might give whatever they say some credibility.

Dear LEGO,

It may well be that A billion people want to kill me because they (stupidly) believe that their god commands it, but I rub my eyes to hear that YOU, of all reasonable people, believe so as well!

I firmly believe that neither God nor any other god wants people to kill me, yet if I ever did believe that God wants it, then I would happily give my life according to His wish.

Yes, there are such people who call themselves 'Muslim' who are indeed dangerous, who indeed want to do the bad things you mentioned, in Australia just as they already do in those places they do control: but why should YOU believe them, that these phoney pretenders are indeed what they claim - "Muslims"? Do you realise that the word 'Islam' is a derivative of 'Salaam' - PEACE?

These are political/tribal/cultural issues, which you are welcome to discuss here and elsewhere and may very well want Australia to take prompt defensive action about, but don't you buy into their story as if this is 'religious' - it is not! God never told them any of that! (and I still want to investigate whether Mohammed did)

<<The "moderate" Muslim organisations in Australia approached the PM previously to lobby to exempt Muslims from voting as voting is against Islam.>>

I fully support their pledge and I wonder why you don't!

While other issues you mentioned are matters of security and need to be dealt with, I am unable to see how abstaining from voting could possibly be a security threat!

In fact, why should ANYONE be forced to vote if they do not wish to do so, how more so if it is against their religious or ethical convictions? A demand that people should go out and do something whether they like it or not, or else be punished for simply staying in bed that day, harming nobody, smells of the same fanaticism of which you accuse those calling themselves 'Muslims', who would cut off people's hands for staying in bed, failing to attend the mosque services.

The issue is, that the God of the Muslims has instructed his followers through his holy Koran and his prophets Hadiths (sayings) that non Muslims must convert to Islam or be killed. The Ku Klux Klan is a danger to African Americans because it's ideology supports the idea that African Americans are inferior and violence towards African Americans is justified to keep negroes in their place. Only a very small minority of Ku Klux Klansmen involve themselves in violence towards African Americans, the rest just approve of it, support it, look the other way, or refuse to give evidence against fellow Klansmen where they know that Klansmen have engaged in violence towards negroes. That makes all Ku Klux Klansmen a danger to all African Americans.

Now, apply the same logic to Muslims. The Muslim God instructs his folowers to kill non Muslims unless they convert. He also says that those who kill non Muslims are a higher grade of Muslims (Ghazis), and those who die killing non Muslims (Jihadis) are the highest grade of Muslims.

Only a very small minority of Muslims want to be Ghazis or Jihadis, but their religion demands that the majority respect them as better Muslims than the majority. That the majority of Muslims support the highest grade of Muslims in their murderous intent can be recognised in the opposition by all "moderate" Muslims to counter terrorism laws. They do not want these laws because they would make it harder for the highest grade of Muslim to kill you.

I have a book by the British police officer responsible for catching the London Underground bombers who said he found it "strange" that the "moderate" British Muslims did not inform on the bombers before the event. He said it must have been obvious what was going on because the mixing of the
volatile chemicals caused the bombers skin and hair to whiten and their family and friends must have noticed. It all makes sense when you realise that all Muslims approved of the bombing and would not inform on the very finest Muslims who kill infidels.

Dear LEGO,

What you are describing is a social issue, not a religious one:

Do you in fact believe that the God of the Muslims has instructed his "followers" anything whatsoever, good or bad, through his holy Koran? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, you yourself believe that this Muslim god does not even exist!

I enjoyed reading your post Tanveer and I agree with your analysis. I hope you have more opportunity to express your views more widely.

As an outside observer there seems to me to be an enormous amount of pressure on muslims to conform to a narrative that 'externalises all blame'. There seems to me to be a lot of pressure on muslims to conform generally and I have long recognised the role culture (particularly strongly religious cultures) play in affecting how people view the same issue.

I have also noticed the tendency of muslims who I have known over the years to accept everything that happens to them as a god's will and therefore they are very unwilling to do anything to change their circumstances, such as getting married later and have fewer children.

I am hopeful that one of the benefits of living in Australia will be that more muslims are free to question aspects of their faith/cultural traditions like that BBC correspondent who has recently decided to not cover her hair anymore.

Just forget it, Yuyutsu.

I prefer to think in terms of reality and logic, not superstitious mysticism. You may find a receptive opponent in the form of an online witch doctor. Bye bye.

Dear LEGO,

<<I prefer to think in terms of reality and logic, not superstitious mysticism.>>

Excellent. It's a good choice!

But how can you then claim that: "The issue is, that the God of the Muslims has instructed his followers through his holy Koran and his prophets Hadiths (sayings) that non Muslims must convert to Islam or be killed."?

The above claim is superstitious, unreal and defies logic.

<<You may find a receptive opponent in the form of an online witch doctor.>>

I am not looking for opponents, especially as I agree with much of what you write, if only you could substitute "those people claiming to be Muslims" for Muslims and "those who claim to be religious" for "religious". All I object to is the claim as if the issue at hand is a religious one, while I generally agree with you regarding the civil/cultural issues, so long as they are recognised as such.