Since the main way both Islam and Christianity spread is by violence it is ridiculous to call either religion peaceful. The history of the Arab conquests is well known. Coming out of the Arabian peninsula the Muslims conquered North Africa, Spain, the Middle East and central Asia. After Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire it became illegal in the empire to practice other religions and those who practiced them were subject to torture and death. With the exception of Ireland all the European countries have been Christianised by violence, and missionaries together with gunboats have been effective in bringing the religion to the rest of the world. Both Christianity and Islam refer to themselves as religions of peace. Neither are. The US is trying to enlist Saudi Arabia in the struggle against ISIS. Last month Saudi Arabia beheaded 8 people for the crimes of drug trafficking, adultery, apostasy and sorcery. Over half of those who Saudi Arabia have beheaded are foreign nationals.

The prospect for world peace would be furthered by the elimination of all missionary religions.

I agree with David F. Islam is not peaceful and neither is it peaceful to demonise people who oppose it. Labeling anything against islam as "Hate crime" and islamaphobic is repression of the worst type. This was all done in Europe and has the police and authorities cowed and compliant. Then islamic child exploitation and rape is condoned and the authorities feel the need to apologise for the job they are paid to do. The ABC on Q & A last night are already sponsoring someone to start a career as the resident expert in islamaphobia. She will enjoy a career culminating in a fabulous job and pension courtesy of people she will deride and criticise. Nothing at all peaceful about religion and as a life long atheist I say learn from the European experience.
Let's keep islam out of Australia.

Religions thrive on persecution. Any attempt to keep Islam out of Australia is doomed to failure. It's foolish to even think of going there. Islam is one of the three great Abrahamic religions, and it is as much a part of modern Australia as is Judaism and Christianity. We can deal with this reality by being inclusive or by being exclusive. Since exclusion breeds resentment, only the former will give us a unified, peaceful nation.
Our PM says these are dangerous times. He is right, but by overreacting with draconian statements of intent such as “the delicate balance between freedom and security” will have to change, and with the introduction of new 'anti-terror' laws to put that intent into effect, he heightens the danger of our times. You can't put out a fire with gasoline. You don't become secure by giving up freedom to live in fear.

'Do we use our reason and logic, and conclude that this is an extreme, radical wing that has bastardised an otherwise peaceful religion?'

the denialist use no reason or logic. Bombings in Madrid, Bali, London, authors going into hiding for life, towns being burned because of cartoons and the list goes on.

Just look at the cost that less than 2% of this countries population is costing us. Apparently we have just as many Buddhist in the country. Never any trouble, no terrorist and no vicitm industry.

Dale shows no reason or logic in his article.

"Do we use our reason and logic, and conclude that this is an extreme, radical wing that has bastardised an otherwise peaceful religion? "

The author makes no attempt to justify his assertion that Islam is a peaceful religion.

All you have to do is read the life of Mohammed to see why David's unsupported assumptions is untrue and completely unhistorical.

Mohammed personally participated in robbery, murder, slavery, sex with a child of 9, and mass killings, and taught that God said it's okay. And this man and line of reasoning is what Muslims take as their model.

In the earlier phase of Mohammed's mission, as they call it, when he was a fugitive, had least power, and needed to curry favour and compromise, the verses of the Koran are more moderate. In the later phase when he was the commander-in-chief of a victorious army, there are plenty of kill-the-infidel and otherwise violent verses, including rape-is-okay-if-it's-a-slave. Any inconsistency between earlier and later verses is solved by the saving maxim that later revelations prevail.

After the death of Mohammed, an immense multitude of infidels was slaughtered when Islam erupted out of Arabia to the north. That's how Iraq and Syria, which at the time were Christian countries, became Muslim in the first place. Afghanistan was Buddhist when the Muslims converted the population by the sword.

There is simply no reason in theory or practice for the author's assertion, which is based not on reason or logic at all, but mushy mid-brain sentiment, ignorance of the facts about Islam, and groupthink.

Does Isis speak for Islam. A much watch from someone who knows much more about Islam than most.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=QxzOVSMUrGM&app=desktop

We should employ logic and reason?

There are many videos available where Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have tried just that and the results are there to see.

Quote: Our best defense against extremism is our reason and our tolerance.

No. The best defense is honestly. We need to tell Muslims:
1. We are offended by the hate, slander and calls to violence in the Quran. We must tell them that the brutal ravings of their Allah, a sadistic wantabe god that delights in barbaric torture, are an affront to decency and human rights.
2. We are offended by the evil deeds of their dear prophet, a man that for 10 years attacked his neighbors, committing all kinds of atrocities (looting, murder, rape of captives, torture and enslavement of men women and children). Well that what all of Islam’s own writings say, yet this man is considered by Muslims to be a great moral example.
3. We are offended by the way Muslims treat others in almost every society they dominate. In 50+plus Islamic countries, they discriminate and persecute nonMuslims, women and even other Muslims. In fact, this is a good reason to believe that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. When Muslims renounce the hate and violence in the Quran, condemn the nefarious actions of Mohammad, end the discrimination, the apostasy and blasphemy laws in Islamic societies, then we can dialog based upon common principles.

The fact is that Muslims have no capacity for reflection on Islam. They pretend that Islam is what they want it to be, instead of what the Quran says or even what Muslims do. They never apply to themselves the standards they demand from others.

Perhaps, who knows, items 1 and 2 explain not only item 3 but also the terror we see today. It is just about as easy for a turtle to fly as for a Muslim to be honest about Islam.

Mr. Hughes, we should be polite, but honest. We need to tell Muslims the things they don’t want to hear. The bigger problem is not “those that have tarnished and butchered their religion” but Islam itself. To be tolerant without being truthful about the evils of Islam is a recipe for disaster

" Do we use our reason and logic, and conclude that this is an extreme, radical wing that has bastardised an otherwise peaceful religion?"

Anyone who is familiar with Islam's history and ideology could not possibly arrive at that conclusion.

As previous commenters have stated, Islam is not a peaceful religion, it was invented by a bandit leader and his followers and, unlike Christianity and Buddhism, was initially spread by terror and conquest, IS is simply following Mohammed's example.

"We as a community have a responsibility to look to our best selves and not react emotionally despite provocation. Meanwhile, the Islamic community needs to be active in condemning the actions of those that have tarnished and butchered their religion."

Agree completely, however (1) the Islamic community seems rather reluctant to condemn the atrocities committed in the name of Islam and (2) do we really know what the actual level of support for IS is within Australia's Islamic community?

"Can we really be surprised that some young, idealistic Islamic youths struggle to 'live our way of life' when they are made to feel unwanted in the community?"

Of course, it's all due to the prejudices of majority society rather than the nature of Islam itself, it's the duty of Muslims to proselytise. Even if Australia were a multi-culti paradise, some Muslims would attempt to convert the Kuffars and destroy our liberal democracy, it's another phase in the 1400 year-long war against the infidels.

On the issue of Islam being a violent creed, which religion isn't?
Buddhism? Ask the Rohingya people of Myanmar what they think of that.
Christianity? In history, ask the native Americans how they were first introduced to Jesus, or the inhabitants of the Middle East about the Crusaders. Today, and isn't it Christians from the US, Europe and Australia who are wreaking such havoc across that same Middle East?
Judaism? Isn't the Old Testament full of exhortations to slaughter the enemies, to rip them out root and branch? And today, was there any call to ban Judaism following the recent slaughter of innocents in Gaza?
Intolerance, or at least a tendency to intolerance and the violence it carries in its wake, seems to be in the DNA of religion, and if religion is in the DNA of mankind, then no prizes for guessing where that takes us.
Either mankind, all of us, can do better than that, can rise above intolerance and violence, or we are doomed to an endless cycle of strife and finger-pointing justification for taking the lesser, the violent, way.
On the current challenge posed by ISIS, our PM has shown he has the courage to act. The question is, does he have the courage to think?

Religion is always peaceful.
Religion leads us to realising the common ground, that essence which I am, which you are and which "they" all are - we all are God, there is nothing but God, so how could one who realises that be violent... towards THEMSELVES?

The main question is thus: IS ISLAM A RELIGION?

It's quite clear that the Koran and Hadiths are contaminated by violent, anti-religious injunctions. It is also clear, however, that SOME of the teachings of Islam ARE religious inasmuch as they do bring people closer to God. It's also clear that MOST of those who consider themselves Muslims, ESPECIALLY those who enjoy a comfortable life, ignore those anti-religious injunctions - it's irrational, it's inconsistent, yet it's very common.

It's not true that the ISIS terrorists are willing to die for religion, or even for Islam: they are only willing to die selfishly, for their own carnal pleasures in heaven! The proof is that when they are attacked by women-fighters, they flee, believing that if killed by a woman they won't enjoy those pleasures.

A truly religious Muslim would say: "Dear Allah, I know that you've written in your holy book that those who die as martyrs enjoy all pleasures in heaven, but I am not tempted by heaven - I will forego those pleasures because I care for you alone: please make me fit and selfless to be worthy of you!".

We live in a world where their simply is no place for supremacists!
Be they white, KKK. Or mindless Isil, murdering all in the name of religion.
We have had Muslims here before Federation, mostly Afghans and mostly Sofie, which is a very peaceful, (do unto others as you would have done unto you tradition) oldest branch of Islam, with the least revised Koran!
I mean the people are now third or forth generation and virtually indistinguishable from any other Australian.
And could even be the bloke you have a couple of beers with after the footy, or the couple just down the road, who you had a b-b-q with just a couple of days ago; or the decidedly decent lady, who invariably mucks in when there's somebody needing help/a neighbor down on his or her luck.
It is just people who are different.
Inherently violent people learn what they live and then pass their brand of violence/rigid flat earth (must-insist-demand)firebrand cultural belief down through the generations.
And that can apply equally to any dumbed down/hugely revised creed or culture.
Instead of blaming or victimizing anyone, we so called Christians need to not only talk the talk, but walk the walk!
Like so many of our assimilated Muslim neighbors already do!
And stand up for the oppressed, even where we see it here at home, as some R Sole, (knuckle dragging neanderthal) victimizes someone for simply following their religious belief.
For heavens sake, my sainted mother wore a head scarf whenever going out, that nobody noticed, given that was very much the Irish Christian culture back then.
Q:How can you tell when a knuckle dragging Neanderthal is on the level?
A: He dibbles out of both sides of his mouth! Boom boom.
Rhrosty.

It is laudable for OLO to publish provocative opinions, but the purpose is defeated when responses are ignored. I would suggest that it be a requirement that the likes of Dale Hughes give an undertaking that they will engage in debate. Otherwise, OLO is perverted to give publicity to the most outlandish views.

Halduell: excellent responses. Great to see an article like this appear on OLO.

We are being made ridiculously afraid. There are greater more pressing threats to Australia's well-being. Like the growing resistant TB to our North, or the spread of Ebola. Can't bomb those bugs into submission by sheer war mongering fire power. Can't sign treaties with them either.

Only those who don't know about war, or don't have children, or other family members in the armed forces are keen about war and sending troops elsewhere with no plan.

Oh god, another frustrated fiction writer. Why is it that almost exclusively dills like this bloke become writers. Then why don't they go & write the fiction they really want to write, & publish it as fiction.

We continually get this garbage from these people, who have either an agenda to push, or are just too dumb to see the wood.

Religion of peace for gods sake, has this bloke ever read anything?

Dale, go write a modern day Greek epic for gods sake, writing opinion pieces requires some research & logic, things which are obviously not your strong point.

Yes! We are appalled by the beheadings but let us not forget the beheadings, shooting and torture by the Colonial British in the name of Queen Victoria that the Aborigines had to endure, she also wanted to claim the world as her own just like a world power is wanting to do right now.

I've lost track of the number of videos I've seen where Muslim thugs threaten to rain violence down upon "Aussie Dogs", this latest drama is nothing new.
How many homes are raided in Western Sydney on a normal day?
What's more it appears that the Muslim owner of the Rozelle convenience store which went up in flames killing three White people is about to be charged with murder, yet I don't see rioting on the streets.
Muslims rape and kill our people on a regular basis, just because they might shout "Allah Akbar" before striking shouldn't make any difference, if we're not getting worked up over the Rozelle outrage I don't think there's a reasonable apprehension of negative consequences arising from a murder which didn't happen.

Ojnab,

Wasn't there some law/legal instruction, enacted by the British, that was the basis of the successful Mabo case?

Hi Ojnavb,

" ..... the beheadings but let us not forget the beheadings, shooting and torture by the Colonial British in the name of Queen Victoria that the Aborigines had to endure ........"

Do you have the slightest evidence of that ? There is no record of any beheadings here in South Australia, and the killings were about even on both sides. The only massacre for which there is ample evidence was the murder of 28 people on the Coorong in 1840, by the clan from Salt Creek. Two men were hanged on the beach for that, and as a result, Governor Gawler was recalled: there were calls for him to be tried for murder.

Back to topic, please: currently, 130,000 Syrian Kurds are fleeing over the Turkish border from ISIS. People left behind are being killed and yes, beheaded.

In the paper today, an ISIS spokesman was quoted as exhorting followers to enslave non-believing women. Is that a mis-quote ?

Let's be honest: the Koran is the usual contradictory mess of a religious book: in the early part, yes, it says that to kill an innocent person, is as if one has killed all of humanity and thus one can never get into heaven. In the later parts, it exhorts murder, enslavement and rape. Something for everybody.

Surely it's time for 'moderate' Muslims to declare that they won't follow the second part, relating to the times when Muhammad had an army, and no longer had to be meek and mild and love everybody: if you like, he no longer had to be like Jesus on the Mount, but could go back two thousand years when the Hebrews were (according to their book) butchering every man, woman, child and animal from every town, hanging their king in a tree.

So which Islam is it to be ? One we can live with, or one which we will have to fight for a hundred years ? Which part of the ghastly Koran is bullsh!t and which part if 'genuine', worth following ?

[TBC]

[continued]

How is anybody supposed to believe any Muslim who claims to follow the Koran and does not differentiate its vile parts from its mild (uncannily early Christian) parts ? I want to be able to trust every person I meet, every Muslim, and of course I do, and this must be a burden for Muslims, but one that only Muslims can deal with.

Especially when there exists a principle of tukkiah, permission to lie and cheat in 'a good cause' ?

Joe

Loudmouth please refer to "The Myall Creek Station Massacre" Northern NSW in 1838, 28 Aboriginal men women and children were hacked, slashed and beheaded and their headless bodies were left where they fell,this would not have been one isolated beheadings of the Aboriginal people, I am sure many Aborigines in S.A. Would have also suffered the same fate at the hands of the superior Colonial British.

Is Mise

"Wasn't there some law/legal instruction, enacted by the British, that was the basis of the successful Mabo case?"

No. The basis of Mabo's case was that the British, in claiming and establishing sovereignty over Australia, had not intended or acted to extinguish native title in general.

Loudmouth
"So which Islam is it to be ? One we can live with, or one which we will have to fight for a hundred years?"

A hundred? What makes you think a hundred will do it? It's been fourteen hundred so far.

All
The fact that at any given time perhaps the vast majority of Muslims do not follow the precepts of their own religion is good, and to be commended. But it's nonsense to say it's a peaceful religion.

It would be great if the so-called moderate Muslims would turn their mind to actually renouncing the parts that are so obnoxious; but I can't see that happening somehow.

'Arab Logic' makes no sense to Westerns, its hardly make sense to them. There is no logical way to talk the Muslims around. So many of the jihadists are essentially uneducated, highly reactionary and religiously brainwashed - there is no dealing with them.

It was encouraging to see that at least Saudi Arabic, the Emirates, Qatar, and Bahrain are actively participating in the fight against ISIS. Let's hope its quick.

CH,
The other factor is that the median IQ in most middle eastern countries is below 90,Islam is actually a good fit for low IQ people, under normal circumstances it keeps them in order by limiting their options for error.

Ojnab,

Ref, Myall Creek etc., you left out the bit about the trials and subsequent executions of some of the culprits.

Ojnab,

Yes, and nine whites were properly hanged for it.

In two hundred years, can you think of anything else ?

I believed all of that paradigm for close on fifty years, promoted it, but I've grown sceptical of 'story' and oral history and rumour and hearsay. If there were any massacres, then surely a forensic survey of a reputed site would go some way to demonstrating that they occurred.

And even if it were true, how does one evil cancel out another ? How does what someone did 150 years ago in Australia somehow neutralise what some bastards are doing now, in Iraq and Syria ? What childish logic. If both occurred, they were both evil and should be condemned. It's not either/or.

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Dale Hughes article is a stonewalling exercise by a multicultural ideologue who will not let the facts get in the way of his humanitarian ideology.

His errors begin with his statement that "Islam is a religion of peace." Islam, is not, never has been, and never will be, a religion of peace. It is self evidently a religion of violence and Muslims are an endless source of violence to their neighbours everywhere. Dale Hughes is hardly using "logic and reason" if he thinks otherwise.

Australians are beginning to understand just how dangerous Islam is and just how offensive Muslims as a group are. Dale can hardly complain about the Muslim inability to integrate successfully into Australia society when the Islamic religion demands social separation from non believers. If you want multiculturalism, Dale, you should have been a lot more particular about who you invited into Australia. Because inviting a group of people who are entirely racist and nationalistic towards their own religion, and contemptuous of anyone who was not part of their group, was not the way to advance your fairy land cause. Like most ideologues, you could not see the that taking your ideals to the extreme would make them a parody of what you intended.

Dale then claims that "reason" is the best defence against extremism, and then he destroys his own argument by using a perverted line of reason to claim that black is somehow white. Dale claims once again that Islam is a "religion of peace" that has been perverted by extremists. Dale obviously knows nothing of Islam if he claims that.

If Australia was populated by negroes, Dale, it might be understandable if the Australian population was concerned about Ku Klux Klan immigration. If Australia was entirely Jewish, dale, it might be understandable if the Australian population was concerned about the immigration of Nazis. 98% of the Australian population are infidels to Islam, Dale, and you can hardly blame us if we are concerned and hostile towards a religion which demands in it's own scriptures that we become Muslims or they will kill us

Halduell,

"On the issue of Islam being a violent creed, which religion isn't?"

Christianity for one, it is truly a religion of peace.

The teachings of Christ are peaceful, not so those of Muhammad.

Is mise,
This "violent" expansion of Christianity was carried out by unarmed missionaries going out to the new world in ones and twos, the film "Black Robe" is a good depiction of the missionary life.
Islam on the other hand was spread via Jihad by "hordes" numbering tens of thousands of soldiers who in one 40 year period alone murdered about 5% of the world's population.
There's no comparison between Islam and Christianity, the Muslims had destroyed almost all of the classical Christian world by the time Europeans started venturing into Asia, Africa and the Americas.
What's more much of the militaristic energy expended by the British in Asia and Africa was directed to freeing people from Islamic tyranny, this continued throughout the 19th century and only really ended in the 1920's.
When we say ended we really men that the war between the occidental powers and the oriental power has been of a lower intensity over the last 90 years but it's been ramping up again since the mid 1990's.

A reflection on what muslims seem to see as important in their religion has been playing on my mind recently.

I'm recalling the massive protests and the level of outrage expressed around the world when westerners have done something deemed to be offensive to Islam. Be it the Danish cartoon's, a film about their prophet or a US preacher threatening to burn copies of the Koran the reaction was widespread and strong about how many muslims feel when their faith is insulted.

The extremes of IS are pretty well documented (sometimes by themselves). Their use of rape, crucifixion, routine beadings of captured opponents, torture magnitudes more brutal than anything the US appears to have done, the posting of video's of the beheading of captured aid workers and journalists in the name of Allah and their faith don't appear to be open to any serious questioning.

There certainly has been a reaction to IS and it's extremes, muslim leaders have spoken out against them, some muslim countries are joining in efforts to stop them but I've seen nothing that looks like widespread outrage from muslims to actions done in the name of their faith that comes close to the public expresssions of outrage when cartoons mocking their founder were published or a number of other instances that lead to massive protests.

From my perspective if claims of Islam actually being a religion of peace had any foundation the insult to Islam from the actions of IS would be considered a far, far greater offence to Islam than the type of incidents I mentioned earlier. Muslims around the world should be in the streets venting their outrage at the actions being done in the name of their faith in far greater numbers then they were for offensive cartoon's. That's not what's happening and I think it sends a message about where the real values of Islam are.

R0bert