Like the Jewish Bible and the New Testament the Koran is a collection of texts gathered at different times and brought together later. We cannot be sure which parts came earlier and which came later.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran:

"There has been no critical text produced on which a scholarly reconstruction of the Quranic text could be based."

Valerie Yule concludes her article with:

"It is better to remember the original beginnings."

We do not and probably cannot know the early beginnings.

A beautifully concise,empathetic and above all, useful commentary. Many thanks Valerie. Sincerely: Chris Nugent

So there's an original Islam and a second version. On the face of it, you would think the new, improved version would count for more, as the New Testament outweighs the Old.
The Koran itself includes the doctrine of the abrogation of earlier verses.
It is no more than an opinion to say that model x of a religion is truer than model y. In the case of Islam, they both--or they all--can claim a basis in the Koran.

Thank you Valerie for this great article.

My personal theory is that Muhammad himself was a good and peaceful person, perhaps even a saint, but then, being illiterate, his teachings as well as the records of his personal history were hijacked by a gang of his evil "disciples", headed by Abu Bakr.

So how do we get Muslims back to the "pure" teachings of the Mecca period? A hypothetical origin for a religion is of no use in the modern world. Allah the Compassionate and Merciful, is and as far as I can see only to those who submit.

The major difference between Allah and the Christian God is, one is personal, the other impersonal.

There seems to be other differences,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4I_IXIs_1g

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxP_4O7MBTg

On the other hand, Christ can be swamped in piss and it is art.

More examples needed?

"It is better to remember the original beginnings."

Yes, indeed, never forget that Mohammed was a murdering bandit leader and his followers proselytised with the sword

Dear Mac,

<<never forget that Mohammed was a murdering bandit leader and his followers proselytised with the sword>>

That is assuming that the records about his life were not forged just as his teachings were distorted in the form of the Koran.

Jon R. asked: "So how do we get Muslims back to the "pure" teachings of the Mecca period?"

My answer is: By digging, literally, for evidence which would convince them that some of what they currently believe or support has not originated by Muhammad himself.

I can say the same thing twice using exactly the same sequence words to produce two quite separate meanings.
i.e., what is this thing called love?
What is this thing called, love?
During the first world war runners were often used to convey messages to the rear or command.
One such message started out as, send reinforcements we're going to advance; and arrived at HQ "reading", send three and four pence, we're going to a dance.
I believe Yuyustu is right, and very little of what the prophet actually said, is faithfully relayed down the ages as literal context?
And has been revised, with the second edition, completely different, and having almost nothing in common with the recorded words of the prophet!
In fact so much so, that there are now huge belief chasms you could drive a truck through; between Sophism, with its oldest least revised Qoran, bending to Allah the compassionate and Merciful; and later abominations, which clearly do not!
Or have more in common with Alice in wonderland, and the position changing Mad Hatters tea party, frequented by the Queen of hearts, with her oft repeated phrase, off with his head, as their basis for belief?
Were we to follow the original advise, we would, think with our hearts as well as our heads, and understand that Jihad is an intensely personal struggle, with one's own personal internal demons!
And simply cannot be made to mean something else, out of sheer unadulterated convenience, or the struggle over land and water!
Seriously, how can one condemn the crusades and label them the most inherently evil acts ever perpetrated and practiced by men; then set about emulating them, with even more dehumanizing brutality!
If it was the product of pure unadulterated evil the first time round; then nothing has changed except the players, and the intensity of the atrocities!
There is no place in paradise for those who spill so much as single drop of innocent blood, nor those who commit suicide for any reason! But least of all, in the name of Allah the Compassionate and Merciful!
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty, Yuyutsu it matters not a damn what you think Mohammed was, it is what his ratbag follower believe he was that counts.

To them he is a viscous victorious warlord, & the Koran is the word they follow.

That is the only thing that matters, & arguing otherwise is a waste of breath.

Dear Hasbeen,

<<Rhrosty, Yuyutsu it matters not a damn what you think Mohammed was, it is what his ratbag follower believe he was that counts.>>

True - but if only we could change what they believe, for example by digging evidence to the contrary, then we all win.

My Allah is better than yours!

http://sheikyermami.com/my-allah-is-better/

Yuyustu,

I agree with Hasbeen,

"Rhrosty, Yuyutsu it matters not a damn what you think Mohammed was, it is what his ratbag follower believe he was that counts." Exactly, which is true for any religion.

So, let's use Occam's Razor and accept that Mohammed was a psychopathic bandit leader as his followers claim, and that consequently, IS and all the other jihadis believe that they are really pious, faithful Muslims. There's no one "true" Islam.

Ms Yule's article is an eloquent expression of the sugar coating around the real, and mandatory, message of the Moslems' holy texts. The true message is broadcast to recruit Moslems who are flooding into the Middle East to put it into effect with rape, robbery, kidnapping, murder and enslavement. Propagating the sugar coating is facilitating the conquests and injustice called for in the Koran.

Decent people, who reject the Moslem message, are slated to be dhimmis, condemned to live (if the jihadis allow us to live at all) subject to discriminatory laws and made to pay a special religious tax ("jizya") to fund the Moslem cult. This tax is already being imposed on Australians in a giant protection racket against businesses and so far only one (Country Party) pollie has had the guts to stand up to it, and is already being reviled by western apologists (aka useful idiots) for doing so. The pollie is called George Christensen: his wake-up call is at http://www.georgechristensen.com.au/terror-in-the-tucker-box/ and one of the first salvos against him from the useful idiots is at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/no-doubt-halal-products-are-funding-islamic-extremism-australian-politician-claims-9872968.html

It's amazing, isn't it? You combine humans with any kind of religion (name your poison) and what do you get? A depraved bunch of sick, murdering, child-molesting psychos who engage in endless war.

Look at human history. What a disgusting saga of competing, lowlife creatures who, with each generation, slide further into an ever-deepening cesspool of cruelty, greed, and treachery.

The sickest group currently are the Americans who, while claiming they are exceptional and care about human rights and democracy, carry out massacres, torture, invasions and use weapons that contain depleted uranium, white phosphorous, jellied petrol, and who knows what else.

Bring on WW3 and cleanse the world of the naked apes before they reach rock bottom!

I'd like to offer a complete refutation of the articles central argument. The author's contends the following:

“All this was Mohammed’s teaching at first. In the later Qur’an there is much that doesn’t agree with this – warlike, hating, misogynist, and sectarian conflicts but this is the core of it, from the beginning of Mohammed’s teaching. Always there remains the description of Allah, as the Compassionate, the Merciful.
The later extensions to Islam came, as Mohammed took the sword and Islam was spread by it, after he and his new teaching was persecuted and he fled to Medina. ”

Of the teachings of the Prophet that the authors cites as being of the virtuous “early teachings” is the following versus from the Qur’aan

"Allah loveth not the aggressor. The true Muslim is a man of peace, but he is right to defend himself when attacked. Fight for the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but not as the first one to attack. Allah loveth not the aggressor."

cont..

cont..
In fact, this verse appears in the Qur’an 2:190 and is in fact an “early Medina Sura” (source Yusuf Ali’s famous translation and commentary of the Qur’an, p16). In other words it was revealed AFTER the Hijra and so contrary to the authors thesis that such teachings only appeared before the Hijra (when Muslims migrated from Mecca to Medina to escape persecution). It is similar to another verse occurs after the Battle of Badr and so once again after the Hijra and so is NOT part of the “early teachings” as defined by the author.

“But if the enemies incline towards peace, do you also incline towards peace. And trust in God! For He is the one who hears and knows all things.” (8:61

cont..

Even more ironically, the author has takes the following statement from the Prophet’s Last Sermon and places it among the “early teachings” (ie. pre Hijra)!

"For all Muslims are the children of Allah and among them there is no distinction of race or color or tribe."

Here is the statement in full:
“All mankind is from Adam and Eve. An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab; a white has no superiority over a black, nor does a black have any superiority over a white; [none have superiority over another] except by piety and good action."

The author talks about how “misogynist passages forgot his early freedom for women”. Again from the Last Sermon of the Prophet (months before he passed away):

“O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under a trust from God and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste.”

In fact, the Shariah requires that the husband cater for all the needs of his family, irrespective of the wealth of his wife. His wife could be the Duchess of Alba, and still it is the man’s responsibility to support his wife and he has no claim over her wealth. How is this misogynist!

cont..

cont..

To reinforce the point, consider the wording of the covenant issued after the Prophet met with a delegation from the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt. Sinai (628 C.E..)

“This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.

Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.

No compulsion is to be on them.

Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.

No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.

Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.

No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.
The Muslims are to fight for them.

If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.

Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.

No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world)."

This covenant was made after the conquest of Mecca in the period that the author claims Islam was "spread by the sword"!

Was Islam spread by the sword? Read the “The Oxford History of Islam” and you’ll find your answer: a categorical NO. How then was Islam spread? I refer you to Prof. Thomas Arnold’s “The Preaching of Islam: A History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith”

cont..

There are no "murderous" passages in the Bible that compare with the Koran, Valerie. There is nothing that says "slay the idolators wherever ye find them" or "smite them about their necks", cut off their finger tips", cut off an arm and a leg from opposite sides of the body."

Your miserable attempt to equate Islam with Christianity is a joke.

Your intent is to claim that young jihadis are just misreading the Koran, so the is nothing wrong with Islam that could not apply to other religions. They are not misreading the Koran at all. They are doing exactly what Mohammad did himself by killing and raping infidels, and taking their female children as sex slaves.

I just wonder:

Do LEGO and Grateful agree on the FACTS, such as whether or not Muhammad killed and raped infidels and took their heir female children as sex slaves? Or has he ever instructed: "slay the idolators wherever ye find them" or "smite them about their necks, cut off their finger tips, cut off an arm and a leg from opposite sides of the body."?

Anyone who does so is evil and as we have ample evidence, we have every right to condemn those who do so presumably in Muhammad's name, but until we ascertain that the above was the case regarding Muhammad himself, until proven guilty, we have no right to condemn Muhammad, peace be upon him, for those crimes.

Grateful, what a mountain of sugar coating. What Islam is is what Islam DOES both in every country where it rules and in every case where it has even temporary ascendancy whether it presents itself as Boko Haram kidnapping and enslaving schoolgirls en masse or al Shabab singling out non-Moslems for execution in a Kenyan supermarket or Taliban throwing acid in the face of a little girl for going to school or ISIS systematically shooting captives in Iraq or Moslem terrorists murdering infidels in a Bombay hotel or Algerian Moslems surrounding a village and cutting everyone’s throat or Moslem FGM artists maiming children – the list goes on. These Moslems are not just rogues, they are religiously pursuing their cult for Allah. Even when they had temporary ascendancy in Egypt they hastily inflicted a theocratic constitution on the country, thankfully soon overthrown. Daily the news media are full of the depredations of Moslems pursuing their Koran-based dream of domination over and punishment of infidels.

They secure the aquiescence of thoughtless Western apologists by their practice of “taqiyya” and “abrogation”. Read about these at http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2010/10/twelve-tactics-of-taqiyya.html and http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2008/09/definition-of-abrogation.html . Islam has the more objectionable features that make decent people hate fascism. Grateful and anyone else, if you’re up for some serious brainwork and not on the lookout for facile “outs” read Ibn Warraq’s account of a speech by philosopher Umberto Eco describing the anatomy of “eternal fascism” and its relationship with Islam, with meticulous attention to Chapter and Verse. It’s at http://www.newenglishreview.org/Ibn_Warraq/Islam,_Middle_East_and_Fascism/.

Examples of “facile outs” (either true but irrelevant or straight untrue)

*What’s in the news media is lies.
*Most Moslems are good people.
*Islam is a race and it’s racist to diss it.
*Can’t blame Islam for fundamentalism.
*Christians do wicked things too.
*This stuff is Islamophobia.
*This stuff is right wing (or left wing – take your pick).

The Islam that Ibn Warraq targets is Wahhabiism, it is not traditional Islam.
What is traditional Islam? For those interested, a good example of the teachings of traditional Islam is the following website of Sh Nuh Ha Min Keller: http://untotheone.com/. the Shaykh is a graduate of Chicago university and has publish several translations and commentary of traditional Islamic works which you'll find prescribed reading in Islamic courses in Western universities (including Australia). The website is provides segments from his lessons since about 1998 that have been arranged by topic and indexed alphabetically. Courses in traditional Islam, can also be found here: https://qibla.com/. Many of the teachers are his students. Given the context of the discussion you may find the following series of talks of particular interest: "This is Jihad?": http://untotheone.com/public/this-is-jihad/

For those who like to see in the actions of ISIS and co. the manifestation of the true teachings of Islam, let me provide you with a precise statement of just how Muslims have been instructed to respond to such a group. It is not an instruction from modern Muslim leaders but an instruction from our Prophet himself. It comes in the form of a hadith.

A hadith is a report of what the Prophet said and/or did. This hadith has been recorded but until now has not received prominence becausse its chain of narration is not as strong as other hadiths. However, it is a prophecy and as the hadith scholar explains if an event occurs that concurs with the hadith then that in itself can be seen as evidence in favour of its authenticity. The scholar, Ustadh Abdul Aziz Suraqah, writes:

"Understand that the bulk of apocalyptic literature is riddled with weak narrations and even forgeries. Nevertheless, if a narration with a weak chain speaks about a future event and that event plays out exactly as recorded in the narration, then the narration can be strengthened. Whether or not this narration is sound according to the standards of hadith-authentication can be left for the scholars to discuss, but read this narration and consider it in light of what is going on in the world today. Allah knows best."

cont..

cont..

The hadith itself is as follows:

"Nu’aym b. Hammad records in his Kitab al-Fitan (The Book of Tribulations):
“It is related on the authority of ‘Ali (may Allah ennoble his countenance): ‘When you see the black flags, remain where you are and do not move your hands or your feet (It’s a common phrase meaning: “Stay put and don’t get involved in the fighting”). Thereafter there shall appear a feeble folk to whom no concern is given. Their hearts will be like fragments of iron. They are the representatives of the State (Ashab al-Dawla). They will fulfill neither covenant nor agreement. They will invite to the truth, though they are not from its people. Their names will be agnomens [i.e., Abu So-and-so], and their ascriptions will be to villages. Their hair will be long like that of women. [They shall remain so] till they differ among themselves, and then Allah will bring forth the truth from whomever He wills.”

Source: http://splendidpearls.org/2014/07/04/isis-and-the-end-of-times/

Ustadh Abdul Aziz Suraqah then identifies the following list of of similiaries between the group described by the Prophet and ISIS

1. Black flags: ISIS use black flags.
2. Feeble: They are newcomers to the fight in Syria and relative nobodies till they took swathes of land that was taken by other fighters.
3. Hearts like fragments of iron: Watch any of their videos and judge for yourself.
4. Ashab al-Dawla: They call themselves, the Dawla (State).
5. Breaking agreements: They broke agreements and refused Shariah arbitration.
6. Invite to the truth, though not from its people: Yes, they’re Khawarij (Separatists).
7. Their names will be agnomens: Of course, they’re a bunch of Abu Fulans.
8. Their ascriptions will be to villages: Villages here could be read as cities; most of them are al-Iraqi, al-Misri, al-Maghribi, al-Tunisi, etc.
9. Long hair: See Abu Ibrahim and the other assorted characters."

So next time you hear agnomens with ascriptions to places, such as Abu Mansour Al Australi or Abu Asma al-Australi, you'll know that these are a people who have gone against the warning of their Prophet knowingly or unknowingly.

Dear Yuyutsu.

If I am reading you right, your claim is that Mohammad has been slandered. He was a really nice bloke. A pacifist/ warlord who conducted 58 successful military campaigns to spread Islam by force, but who was just kidding really. He didn't mean to hurt anybody by leading armies and conquering other places for his religion. It was all just pretend. His religion was all about peace, love and mung beans, and that was what was in the Koran. All of the violence in the Koran to spread Islam was in there only because his followers rewrote the Koran after Mohammad's death to be a violence endorsing religion. We should not judge Mohammad as a monster because he was never subject to a western style criminal trial.

Yeah, sure.

Of course, you don't have any evidence to support your bizarre premise, other than your conviction that holy men must be really nice guys because they talk to God. And since Mohammad was a holy man who talked to God, then he must have been a nice guy. God would not talk to a psychotic murderer who married and screwed little girls and who beheaded anybody who did not convert to his religion, would he? Therefore, Mohammad must have been defamed.

Yeah, that makes sense. And of course, since you can't bring any evidence to support your wacky premise, you seriously think that the onus is upon me to disprove it. And if I can't disprove it, then it must be true.

Cuckoo. Cuckoo.

It just goes to show how debilitating religious thought can be to the human ability to think rationally and logically.

Since no-one who has made the accusation that Islam was 'spread by the sword' has come forth with any serious scholarly that would support their position, we can presume they have none. Perhaps they are too embarrassed to disclose the source of their views!

The following is from a leading scholar of the History of Islam, John Esposito. His credentials? He just happens to be editor of the Oxford History of Islam. this is what he has to say on the issue:

"Driven by the economic rewards from conquest of richer, more developed areas, united and inspired by their new faith, Muslim armies proved to be formidable conquerors and effective rulers, builders rather than destroyers. They replaced the conquered countries, indigenous rulers and armies, but preserved much of their government, bureaucracy, and culture. For many in the conquered territories, it was no more than an exchange of masters, one that brought peace to peoples demoralized and disaffected by the casualties and heavy taxation that resulted from the years of Byzantine-Persian warfare. Local communities were free to continue to follow their own way of life in internal, domestic affairs. In many ways, local populations found Muslim rule more flexible and tolerant than that of Byzantium and Persia. Religious communities were free to practice their faith to worship and be governed by their religious leaders and laws in such areas as marriage, divorce, and inheritance. In exchange, they were required to pay tribute, a poll tax (jizya) that entitled them to Muslim protection from outside aggression and exempted them from military service. Thus, they were called the "protected ones" (dhimmi). In effect, this often meant lower taxes, greater local autonomy, rule by fellow Semites with closer linguistic and cultural ties than the hellenized, Greco-Roman élites of Byzantium, and greater religious freedom for Jews and indigenous Christians. Most of the Christian churches, such as the Nestorians, Monophysites, Jacobites, and Copts, were persecuted as heretics and schismatics by Christian orthodoxy."

Source: John L. Esposito, Islam: The Straight Path. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988 (1st edition).
reproduced here: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~vika/TeachPort/islam00/esposito/chapt2.html

if those practising Islam today are in total denial what hope have we of a truthful history from them.

"In the later Qur’an there is much that doesn’t agree with this – warlike, hating, misogynist, and sectarian conflicts but this is the core of it,"

And how do we decide which bit of the Quran is "core" and which bits we can ignore? Since all of the Quran is the Quran, you must bring something external to it to make this judgment. And since you are judging the Quran by an external standard, it is clear that it is that standard that constitutes what you really believe.

Exactly the same as christians and the bible. I used to be one.

"And how do we decide which bit of the Quran is "core" " - PaulMurrayCbr

This touches another facet of the way Moslems and Western apologists seeking protection for Islam's quest to rule the world and close down dissent duck and weave.

To these

*What’s in the news media is lies.
*Most Moslems are good people.
*Islam is a race and it’s racist to diss it.
*Can’t blame Islam for fundamentalism.
*Christians do wicked things too.
*This stuff is Islamophobia.
*This stuff is right wing (or left wing – take your pick).

add

**The core message of Islam is what one chooses

Here's a simple criterion for identifying the core message:

Islam is what Islam does when free of restraints. For example when it dictates the legal structure of a state, or when it otherwise has people at its mercy such as in a terrorist operation or a beheading or a stoning or simply in the life of a suburb or a household where it holds sway. Its recorded chapter and verse are protected by taqiyya and abrogation -- qv.

LOL...what a rant!
I think with some people there are personal issues playing out. Not the most intellectually engaging conversation I've had. Take care

So this past week:

* a couple of suicide bombers in northern Nigeria, killing eighty random people in a market-place;

* 28 people taken off a bus in Kenya and shot;

* more than fifty fisherman on Lake Chad (north-eastern Nigeria) captured and had their throats cut;

* a bombing in eastern Afghanistan, with fifty-odd killed;

* Ismaili Muslims beheaded by IS in Syria;

* a couple of men beheaded on suspicion of being gay;

* fifty-odd tribesmen lined up and shot near the Syria-Iraq border.

Common factor ? Islam, the religion of peace and love.

So what will it be this coming week ? More of the same ?

What does it all mean ? A reliance on terror as a means to bring people into line, to make them submit to the religion of peace.

Call me an Islamophobe IF this IS Islam, but the sooner this scourge is wiped out, the better. Is it Islam, Grateful, or some perversion of it ?

Joe

Loadmouth,

Clearly it is a scourge that needs to be wiped out and a perversion of Traditional Islam. You will find agreement with your views in the following article: "Making the World Safe for Terrorism" written 30 September 2001 (Sh Nuh Ha Min Keller): http://untotheone.com/articles/articles-by-sheikh-nuh/making-the-world-safe-for-terrorism/

What I thought was a very accurate piece of investigative reporting into the ideological roots of this movement was produced by RN's Rear Vision program: "The history of Saudi Arabian links with Islamic extremism" (22 Oct 2014) http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rearvision/5830592

Also see the article by David Gardner of the Financial Times, "Saudis have lost the right to take Sunni leadership" (August 7, 2014): http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ab1b61c4-1cb6-11e4-b4c7-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3KHGSN7jX

But you don't need to read or listen to any of these to see that this movement is a perversion of Islam. Just ask: Who are they are killing and what are they destroying? The answer is Muslims, christians, Yazizi's, anyone who opposes their ideology. what are they destroying: shrines of Muslims, Christians, etc..where are they doing it? In the heart of the Muslim lands! and this is only possible if these communities had survived Muslim rule for the previous 1400 years. If ISIS is representative of traditional Islam then these communities would would have been annihilate long ago.

It makes no sense, for example, to say that the destruction of the Tomb of Jonah in June of this year represents an act sanctioned by Islam. ISIS is not invading non-Muslim territory by territory that has been Muslim for 1400 years!

So a little bit of clear logical reflection will tell you that ISIS must be a gross perversion of Islam. It is only with the Wahabbi movement that they were destroyed. The Wahabbi movement arose in the Arab peninsula in the early 1800s. their main victims have ben Muslim(http://www.sunnah.org/history/Wahabism_explained_Imam_Abu_Zahra.htm). Parallels are normally drawn between the Wahhabis and an earlier sect that had its origins at the time of the Prophet called the Kharijites. The Prophet had an encounter with one of them, condemned them and warned against them (http://www.sunnah.org/aqida/kharijites1.htm).

cont..

cont..

A second point is illustrated by the role of the Kurds in the conflict with ISIS. The majority are sunni Muslim and there is a large population of shia. As we know the Yazidis and Zarostrians have lived within the Muslim community and its only with the advent of ISIS that they are being persecuted. So obviously ISIS, and the Wahabbi movement in general, are a perversion of Islam

cont..
I suppose another point to make about your list of crimes, is that have you thought of making a list of similar crimes perpetrated against Muslims? Do you think the lack of any such reports in the mainstream media means that there are much fewer?

The questions are rhetorical of course but hopefully they stimulate some reflection on what the real agendas are.

How did ISIS get all those US made armaments? Who was sponsoring the smuggling of weapons from Libya? And how convenient is it for US geopolitical strategy to have a pretext to intervene militarily in Syria? Is it Afghanistan-revisited? And if so should the US be put on the US Department of State's list of states sponsoring terrorism?

As for those involved, the 'collateral damage', well they're just Muslim right...and you know.. well, the're always causing trouble anyway, and want to take over the world right? Not like the Kurds..go Kurds!

I guess what I'd really like is for people to stop being so gullible and reflect a bit. Most of us just want to get along and perhaps learn a bit from one another.

That's my rant for the day :-)
all the best

Hi Grateful,

You suggest " .... I suppose another point to make about your list of crimes, is that have you thought of making a list of similar crimes perpetrated against Muslims? Do you think the lack of any such reports in the mainstream media means that there are much fewer? "

Well, yeah !

Has the US beheaded any children lately ? Lines up captured soldiers and shot them ? Cut the throats of fifty-odd fishermen ? Raped and enslaved perhaps thousands of women ? Driven minorities up a mountain with the intention of exterminating them ?

When that happens, just let us know :)

Until then, stop trying to find excuses for atrocities.

Joe

Dear Grateful,

Please allow me to be upfront:

I have a great interest in restoring and establishing the innocence and reputation of just one man: Muhammad the prophet, peace be upon him.

All other related issues, such as the innocence and reputation (or otherwise) of historical and contemporary Muslims in general and/or of their internal divisions, are simply beyond my sphere of interest: not that it's unimportant or uninteresting, but I personally cannot afford the time to go into all that just for the sake of general knowledge.

Given that as a Muslim, you are interested (so I assume) in restoring the innocence and reputation of Muslims in general; or at least of some of the Muslim divisions/denominations, you could well ask "Why should I help Yuyutsu? What if I could only demonstrate that Muhammad, peace be upon him, was innocent and peaceful, but am unable to demonstrate that any contemporary Muslims are?".

All I could reply is, that if it so occurs that you can only establish the proven innocence and non-violent reputation (of which I am privately convinced, but have no generally-accepted evidence) of Muhammad, peace be upon him, but not of Muslims in general or any divisions thereof, then publishing this information should cause all lovers of Muhammad to change their violent ways (those who are already violent) or drop their passive/potential support to violence otherwise. I think this would be a great outcome.

Can you help me?

Responding to Loudmouth on behalf of the Moslem cult, Grateful trotted out one of the many weasellings-out peddled by Moslems and non-Moslem apologists to dismiss accounts of the depredations towards humans in their power, of Moslems pursuing Islamic beliefs, in the absence (even if temporary) of imposed restraints. A bit like the way a visit to Poland in 1942 would show the real message of Mein Kampf. Grateful wrote:

“I suppose another point to make about your list of crimes, is that have you thought of making a list of similar crimes perpetrated against Muslims?”

OK, how many bombs did the girls kidnapped in their Nigerian school to be enslaved, or the Yazidis hounded in their mountain refuge, or victims of Saudi Arabia’s religious thought police dragged to a public square in Riyadh to have their heads cut off, or Malala Yousafzai in the crosshairs of a Moslem hero’s rifle, drop on Moslems? How many rockets did they fire at them? It’s such disgusting crimes against people who haven’t an imperialist bone in their bodies that makes decent people, when they can see through the curtain of taqiyya and abrogation, despise Islam and its mission to enslave the non-gullible (aka infidels) with its Sharia cult.

The whole racket started as other supremacist tyrannies have started, with a murderous “prophet” with dreams of conquest and enslavement lying about a spook in the sky who had supposedly dictated his “Mein Kampf” to him.

I made the point earlier that Islam, the true Islam, is what Islam does when free of restraints. Our Moslem’s only response was a content-free, reasoning-free sneer.

I wonder if he’ll have a more substantial response to Yuyutsu’s request for demonstrable evidence that the progenitor Mohammed was innocent and peaceful?

Hi Jules,

In the past day or so, the Taliban have killed six random people in one attack; Boko Haram is accused of killing between fifty and one hundred and twenty random worshippers in explosions in a mosque in Kano, after the Emir there condemned Boko Haram - Muslims killing Muslims randomly. Probably today, there will be other random attacks in Baghdad or Kirkuk or Nairobi or Sana'a or Kano or Mogadishu.

Ransom killings this week by the US:

* beheadings of non-American children: 0

* kidnapping, rape and enslavement of non-American women: 0

* shooting of captured non-American soldiers: 0

* cutting the throats of random non-American fishermen: 0

Yes, Grateful, it's not really a close contest, is it ?

I wonder if the Islamo-fascists especially target Muslims who criticise Islamo-fascism. And who does the dhimmi-'Left' aim THEIR criticisms at - the Islamo-fascists or the 'moderate' Muslims ?

And is it a sign of the weakening, or unravelling, of the Islamo-fascist cause when they have to resort to terrorising other Muslims by blowing up mosques ? Should the dhimmi-'Left' lice start looking for different scalps to infest, different masters ?

No, most likely not. Yet.

Joe

Loudmouth and Jules
Let's test your view of Islam with a small exercise. Reconcile your depiction of Islam with the follow events in Nigeria
http://www.smh.com.au/world/at-least-120-dead-in-nigeria-mosque-attack-20141128-11wk58.html
And try to write in a more polite manner.

Loudmouth you write
"In the past day or so, the Taliban have killed six random people in one attack; Boko Haram is accused of killing between fifty and one hundred and twenty random worshippers in explosions in a mosque in Kano, after the Emir there condemned Boko Haram - Muslims killing Muslims randomly. Probably today, there will be other random attacks in Baghdad or Kirkuk or Nairobi or Sana'a or Kano or Mogadishu."

When the terrorists kill Muslims you show no compassion for the victims or interest in why they are being targeted. You explain it as Muslims randomly killing Muslims. To actually admit that the victims are victims just like other non Muslim victims would completely undermine your personal conviction that our religion is fascist. Not only are these Muslims victims of adherents of an extremist ideology but they are tainted by you as adherents of this pervert ideology.
It pointless trying to use reason in the face of such entrench bigitory. Only you can deal with this issue. I sincerely wish you success.

No problem reconciling my depiction of Islam with the event in Nigeria. An evil cult doing evil in service to Allah against people in its power. Islam is as Islam does. The worshippers were victims of Islam in two ways - firstly because of their indoctrination and secondly because of their murder at the hands of scum that took their religion more seriously than the worshippers did and acted on it.

Since the days of the murdering "prophet" the world has seen a vast Enlightenment in morality, philosophy, science, justice and human rights. At their own choosing, the Enlightenment is not available to those indoctrinated in a mission to enforce the superstitions and the diktats of the Moslem cult or any other theocratic cult on human beings whether they identify as believers or not. Islam can't embrace the Enlightenment as it can't renounce Sharia and jihad.

Islamic theocracy in action

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/11261473/Watch-Pakistani-actress-Veena-Malik-faces-26-year-prison-sentence-for-blasphemy.html?WT.mc_id=e_3719619&WT.tsrc=email&etype=frontpage&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_FAM_New_TEST_V2_2014_11_29&utm_campaign=3719619

At least they didn't cut the actress's head off. Yet.

Hi Grateful,

You suggest that " .... When the terrorists kill Muslims you show no compassion for the victims or interest in why they are being targeted."

But I did write:

"I wonder if the Islamo-fascists especially target Muslims who criticise Islamo-fascism."

By 'random', I mean that the innocent people killed are not known to, or specifically targeted by, the Islamo-fascists: if they appear to oppose such fascism, they they'll do.

My heart goes out to all those 'moderate' Muslims who oppose, perhaps secretly, the doctrines and actions of the fascists. Ultimately, the conflict with fundamentalism, all Islamic fundamentalisms, has to be resolved within Islam: the dogma that none of it can be ever criticised or modified since it is supposed to the literal word of Allah (even if first written by him in Syriac or Aramaic rather than Arabic), the right of a Muslim to abandon his or her beliefs - basically the right to question, which is so fundamental to the Enlightenment - still has to be fought for and won within Islam.

As long as the right to question, modify, and re-interpret the bits and pieces of the Koran - even to disbelieve any of it - is denied at point of death, then Islam will remain bogged down where Christianity was five hundred years ago, pig-ignorant and benighted.

So 'moderate' Muslims have my full sympathy: they have a very hard and long row to hoe yet. I hope a start can be made within my lifetime, most likely by a multitude of young women following Malala Yousefzai's courageous example. Perhaps even some Australian feminists may take time off to offer some sort of support for their Muslim sisters.

Joe

“Moderate” Moslems distressed by being lumped together with real (i.e. Koran-faithful) Moslems remind me of the plaintive letters to newspapers from Roman “Catholics” lamenting that the Roman church wouldn’t “let” them use contraceptives. The answer to a religion that can’t accommodate reform (as reform would destroy its basic objective) is simple. Apostasy. Junk the cult. My own wife, once indoctrinated like millions of others, junked the theocratic Roman cult along with all religion before I first met her, and has never looked back. There is absolutely no moral obligation on believers in a cult to try to reform it. There are many prominent apostates from Islam, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Salman Rushdie. Their apostasy is a living example to others.

A couple of cautions here:

#1. Islam is not the only source of injustice to Moslem populations. Zionism, imperialism, Sino-fascism, Serb racism, Burmese chauvinism all bear down on Moslems who can only be applauded and supported for striking back - at those imposing the injustice, not at people who are not doing so.

#2. Apostasy is hazardous in countries in which Islam is well entrenched such as Britain, Europe, the Arab world, some ex-Soviet lands. Australia is heading that way and it is in our interest to oppose the trend. The way forward is to absorb and uphold the individual rights flowing from the 18th century Enlightenment and the 20th century war against fascism. To uphold them in particular against throwback individuals and cults that seek to reverse them. Like Islam.

Thank you, Jules, I couldn't have said it better :)

Regards,

Joe

EmperorJulian,

When I did some study on Islam and the West, the tutor liked using Bernard Lewis references as he considered him an authority on Islam. At the end of the course we were all negative about Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis
In Lewis' view, the "by now widespread terrorism practice of suicide bombing is a development of the 20th century" with "no antecedents in Islamic history, and no justification in terms of Islamic theology, law, or tradition."[44] He further comments that "the fanatical warrior offering his victims the choice of the Koran or the sword is not only untrue, it is impossible" and that "generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom, until the rise of secularism in the 17th century."[45]

Fr Samir, a Jesuit Scholar of Islam also states what is occurring now is unprecedented. He also says the same about Secularism.

Here is an explanation by a native Egyptian Jesuit who takes into account recent history and the growing extreme secularism in the West; poor education in Islamic countries . Exacerbated by the West’s meddling in the middle east.
http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/father-samir-on-isis-what-they-are-doing-is-diabolical/%23ixzz3CCHeuFxw#.VAboCz0ayc0

Hi Constance,

That telephone interview with Father Samir has so many insights, especially his conclusion:

"I don’t like to say this word, but, in a way, what they [ISIS] are doing is diabolical; it’s something the world has never seen in history. We’ve seen a lot of cruelty, but this is a planned cruelty. This is why I think there’s no future for them in the long term. But in the short term, they will win more and more, and we have to stop them. Now."

Thank you.

Joe

Hi Joe,

It's the best analysis I've read which actually takes into account the whole picture.

I really cannot understand why people are determined in remaining ignorant of Islam. We live in strange times.

Nothing is black and white. You are the only person who has commented on it (apart from Yuyutsu who said he loved it). I've posted it three times now.

Thanks.

Hi Constance,

Another day, another bombing. Three, I think, all in the name of a fictitious being, the ultimte cop-out for psychopaths, killing randomly - i.e. without knowing or caring to know who they are killing - in the name of a Good Cause. Sacrificing Others for One's beliefs. Sounds like the Old Left. No, that's cruel.

But in the light of the Victorian elections, I was thinking - in my old-fashioned sort-of-Marxist way - of the class shifts in the last forty five years [bear with me :) ] in Australia, and perhaps in most of the world too. It occurred to me, in my dotage, that the working class has never ordinarily favour revolution - reform, yes but never revolution. Then who has ? Who has fervently championed the revolutionary sacrifices of others, for the eventual Common Good ? Why is this uncannily like the rationale of ISIS, with differ3ent gods, and different sacrifices ?

Let's see, is there a pattern ? Marx trained as a economist and philosopher I think, Lenin as a lawyer, Stalin as a priest, Mo as (I could be wrong) a university lecturer. What do they and more contemporary would-bes, and say, the Greens, have in common ? They are not working-class. Ah, they are all in the professional classes.

And lo and behold, yes, the massive growth of the professional classes coincided with the decline of the working class in Australia, around 1970-1975. Migrants then pushed their kids to go to uni. The Whitlam 'reforms' benefited the middle-classes enormously, allowing them to reproduce and enhance their social position.

Perhaps, similarly, in the Middle East, the petty-bourgeoisie (i.e. the middle-classes) pushed their kids to go on to university and, hopefully, positions of power in the bureaucracies, and the promise of family affluence. But perhaps, in stagnant economies, too many would-bes have been chasing too few jobs.

Hence, the development of an ideology of 'quick-fix', revolutionary change, cutting the Gordian knot of reaction, etc., not necessarily for the Greater Good, but for their Own Good. Hence, frustration of these goals turn people towards Islamism......

[continued]

So is Islamism, Salafism, ISIS, the ideology of sections of the eternally-frustrated petty-bourgeoisie in the Muslim world, who think that they have simply found an alternative way, a much quicker way, to affluence and power ?

And by extension, have most 'revolutionary' theories, everywhere, always been the impatient expression, not of working people, but of people above the humdrum world of drudge-work, people who think they work with their minds, never with their hands, people who are - 'really' - born to rule in the modern world.

That would explain much of the 'Left', the Greens, etc.

Just trying to understand.

Joe

Hi Joe,

I'm rather busy at the moment. Hope to reply to your post by tomorrow.

Interesting topic.

Hi Constance,

Yeah, as an old Marxist, I'm intrigued in the links between classes and ideologies, and the Gramscian turn in Marxist theory after about 1925-1930 - after any working-class revolution in Italy (and anywhere else in Europe) had obviously failed, and Gramsci, in prison, and perhaps without realising it, was 'turning' away from it towards some other would-be revolutionary class, and of course found his own - the professionals.

And his new version of Marxism would be one whereby capitalism and democracy and all their institutions would be eaten away from the inside - the 'march through the institutions'.

Ever since, rebels (a better word) in the professional class have been focussing on tearing -down, not on reforming or building, with a sort of out-of-this-world ideology which they never think fully through, but which characteristically advocates doing away with something without much thought to its genuine, feasible replacement: away with energy generation, production, and most certainly mass comfortable living, i.e. the institutions of modern society. Hence frustration with any 'materialist' objections. Hence a preference for sweeping change in the here and now. Hence pseudo-revolution.

So fifty-odd workers have been massacred in their sleep in Kenya last night by al-Shabaab. Is ISIS and its affiliates the archetype Gramscian broom which will sweep away all modern 'corruptions' ? Along with all the post-Enlightenment institutions ?

Or am I drawing much too long a bow ?

Joe

Hi Joe,

Yes, Marx was apparently to be a filthy slob who had servants. You were a Marxist when you were young ,naïve and ideological? I guess a lot of us were – I did read about Marx but never found it ideologically sound.

Post Enlightenment institutions? I think that’s a bit of a furphy, actually. You mean there was nothing worthwhile going on before? Now we have the humanists with their secular fundamentalists. Moderation gets dismissed.

Problem is the lack of spirituality. When man flock to these Atheist gods like Marx, Stalin and Mao (and CEO’s) is the problem. Man creating their own gods. I agree with Stephen King (author) who recently said, we are now living in the Dark Ages.

Now we have a dog eat dog world where we have become slaves since Enlightenment. Slaves to work and mortgages, due to the Protestant work ethic. Usuary use to be sinful under Catholic theocracy. There is a great book called “How to be Free” by Tom Hodgkinson who reckons life was more humane and fair in the middle ages. And more community orientated. Monasteries looked after the poor. Peasants, Tom says paid little rent and sometimes no rent and only worked on the fields for a few months of the year with plenty of celebrations of holy days (holidays) in between. Working in the fields and usually a creative other occupation. Sounds pretty rich to me. I really am not pontificating but seeing no one else is… But, who cares! There is plenty of contempt of Christianity around these days.

Since the coming of the so called Enlightenment where Humanism appeared and Secularism ensued and now we have problems with Islam. Is it a coincidence?

Cont....

….Cont

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/evolution-and-the-american-myth-of-the-individual/?action=click&contentCollection=Europe&module=MostEmailed&version=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article
“Consequently I find it more than ironic that American individualism today — which many link closely with Christian fundamentalism — is self-consciously founded on 17th- and 18th-century ideas about human beings as inherently self-interested and self-centered individuals despite the fact that what essayists like Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau wrote back then about the “natural state” of humankind at the beginning of history was arguably never meant to be taken as the gospel truth.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
“Debates[edit]
Historian Keith Thomas says the Enlightenment has always been contested territory. He says that its supporters:
hail it as the source of everything that is progressive about the modern world. For them, it stands for freedom of thought, rational inquiry, critical thinking, religious tolerance, political liberty, scientific achievement, the pursuit of happiness, and hope for the future.[152]
However, he adds, "its enemies accuse it of 'shallow' rationalism, naïve optimism, unrealistic universalism, and moral darkness."
Thomas points out that from the start there was a Counter-Enlightenment in which conservative and clerical defenders of traditional religion attacked materialism and skepticism as evil forces that encouraged immorality. By 1794, they pointed to the Terror during the French Revolution as confirmation of their predictions. As the Enlightenment was ending, new generations of Romantic philosophers argued that excessive dependence on reason was a mistake perpetuated by the Enlightenment, because it disregarded the powerful bonds of history, myth, faith and tradition that were necessary to hold society together.”

Cont..

....Cont

“Many others like Voltaire held that without belief in a God who punishes evil, the moral order of society was undermined. That is, since atheists gave themselves to no Supreme Authority and no law, and had no fear of eternal consequences, they were far more likely to disrupt society.[177] Bayle (1647–1706) observed that in his day, "prudent persons will always maintain an appearance of [religion].". He believed that even atheists could hold concepts of honor and go beyond their own self-interest to create and interact in society.[178] Locke considered the consequences for mankind if there were no God and no divine law. The result would be moral anarchy. Every individual “could have no law but his own will, no end but himself. He would be a god to himself, and the satisfaction of his own will the sole measure and end of all his actions”.
Cont...

“[The Enlightenment] stands for freedom of thought, rational inquiry, critical thinking, religious tolerance, political liberty, scientific achievement, the pursuit of happiness, and hope for the future,” writes Constance, quoting throwback historian Keith Thomas.

And presumably, Constance, you don’t.

Throwbacks have nothing to offer but obedience to invented celestial “sirs” and their self-proclaimed terrestrial servants to restrict the individual from reasoned moral conduct and free participation in society. This throwback stream we see in Islam and for that matter in all coercive cults rejecting the “pale cast of reason” in favour of the rule that comes out of the barrel of a gun (and before that a sword). Throwbacks bearing swastika flags and thousands of tanks, warplanes, warships and guns sought to drive the world back hundreds of years, but humanity won a victory that has never ceased to be opposed by the Counter-Enlightenment, aka the Revolt Against Reason. It’s not “God who punishes evil” but evil people who rattle a “God” under our noses that punish dissent from their eternal quest for power over others in the evil people’s own interests. No “God” tortured heretics, burned witches, suppressed truth-telling, slaughtered unbelievers, enslaved humans especially women, just evil people. Decent philosophers like Immanuel Kant have applied reason to explore the principles of morality to supersede those sirs who claim that reason is theirs to exercise while the common herd must be made to do as the sirs tell them. Indeed the Counter-Enlightenment is not a true Revolt Against Reason as such but an attempt to filch its power from the people. It’s a plea for power for the few over the many, a hostile finger appearing under the door. Fancy seeing it crop up in a forum set up allow people to exercise their reasoning.

Hi Constance,

Those Enlightenment values have been attacked from Day One, and before - most of Isaiah Berlin's work is, one way or another, a fascinating chronicle of the struggle against the Counter-Enlightenment (and sometimes I have thought of Marx as having, against his own opinion, many counter-Enlightenment notions, not least the notion of a contented Heaven on Earth, something like Hodgkinson's return to the simplicities of life of a peasant or feudal serf.

But I suspect that we have to defend those Enlightenment values with all our might, they are under threat from so many quarters, even (why do I say 'even' ?!) within the Left. Ultimately, that's all we have. The rest is bankrupt illusion.

Joe

EmporerJulian,

Firstly, Why do you have such an AUTHORITARIAN name?

“freedom of thought, rational inquiry, critical thinking, religious tolerance (within reason), political liberty which is not adverse), scientific achievement, the pursuit of happiness, and hope for the future,” Exactly, very important except you missed "Creativity"! BUT most importantly, REAL FREEDOM.

But I think you really mean an odd mix of Protestant corporate enslavement and pompous lefty shite.

Hi Joe,

Peter Vexatious has been writing some interesting things on OLO on Judges and the legal fraternity and legal history that goes way back pre Enlightenment. There are far too many lawyers in the world. All is corrupted.

When it was once possible to have a train driver as a Prime Minister is impossible now. I think there are too many people going to university, and too many Marxist thinking academics.

Gillard catered for them (the professional class), I’ll call them Bourgeoisie (over institutionalised), or CAREERISTS. Once upon a time, there were “vocations” – much more virtuous.

With Islam, it’s a mixed bag. Islam is more cult ideology than a religion. The Islamists are either uneducated or educated. The Sep 11 terrorists were, engineers etc. What about all the other incidences of Muslim individuals – like the US military psychologist, the Boston attack by the two brothers, etc. They do not like where the Western is going or gone and have trouble coming to terms with Secularism. I hate to repeat myself, but what the heck. Gay marriage and all that is completely anathema to them. Islamism has been slowing growing and still growing. It is a very alpha male culture - you said it - a lot of frustration, then they become walking time bombs. And women are only considered objects of desire – nothing else. Japan limits Muslims in their country; I read somewhere the Vatican warns Western women what to expect if marrying Muslims and living in the Middle East. They have to forget their previous life and escape is difficult. So they must be hidden as they are a threat. A lot of Muslims hold contempt for Christians but much worse for Non Believers. I’m always personally hearing more and more worrying incidents/anecdotes. Plus the daily news stories and also what I see in my workplace, and I know people. A lot of these people don’t read anything outside their own (tribal) culture. And what do they create?

Cont..

…Cont

Islam is more cult ideology than religion. And, they have no sense of guilt. And what ‘s exactly wrong with guilt - right and wrong? They have a different mentality to the West with its Christian roots.

Remember, there is always more than one version of history and there are plenty of accepted myths out that are continually perpetuated. People in general are lazy or too over-worked and have no time to check the facts. The point Tom Hodgkinson makes in his books – be idle, instead of the busy busy. And reflect, dream, be creative. He has an online magazine called “The Idler”.

We are the slaves in this over corporatized world and any dignity is minimised. Rerum Novaram, Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical supported workers and espoused dignity. Consequently, his model was used in several countries.

There is a great article which Michael Thompson, a Labor Elder wrote during the Guillard years. I’ll try and find it. He was criticising the Labor Party which has lost its soul.

As Peter Vexatious says, Christ was the greatest social engineer ever and it was his teachings which initiated the Western concepts of law.

Pope Francis visit: Turkey's Christians face tense times

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30214805

“Honesty is the most offensive thing in the world since the dawn of mankind” (John Lydon).

I’m going to be offline for over a week after today.

I think Constance has demonstrated that his or her[1] avalanche of words is true to the throwback tradition of not even following the practices of normal people in pursuing a thread of rational argument. For example I had transcribed word for word what Constance suggested through a quotation of the throwback historian Keith Thomas [2], summed up the Enlightenment - and added my presumption (stated as such) that she did not share these values.

Her response has hardened my presumption into certainty. Having asked about my pen-name, she then proceeded to doctor her original quotation of Thomas, to wonder why I missed “Creativity” and “real freedom” (I didn’t, Thomas did) and claim without any substantiation what she “thought” I really meant was “an odd mix of Protestant corporate enslavement and pompous lefty shite.”

Yes, Julian was a Roman emperor, described by Gore Vidal as counter-attacking the religious cult cobbled together in a deal between the crafty authoritarian tyrant Constantine and some rogue sects of the early Christians to bury Christianity beneath imperial power (and go to war against Christians who sought to stay with Christianity). The result, masquerading as “Christian”, persists to this day having (in league with hereditary tyrants) murdered its betters by the thousand over the intervening centuries. I chose Julian’s name as a pen-name, first as simple “Julian”, and then, cornered by the fact that “Julian” was already taken, added “Emperor”.

As for “real freedom”, without disclosing what she meant that term could only be likened to the Communist Yarra Bank spruiker who declared: “Look at those capitalists driving their posh cars home to dine on strawberries and cream. When the freedom comes you’ll all be doing that.” A voice called out “But I don’t like strawberries and cream”. “Comrade”, the spruiker growled, “when the freedom comes you’ll do as you’re bloody told”

[1] Constance being a traditional female name I’ll use “her”.
[2] “[The Enlightenment] stands for freedom of thought, rational inquiry, critical thinking, religious tolerance, political liberty, scientific achievement, the pursuit of happiness, and hope for the future".

...Cont

Julian (I'm not going to call you Emperor this time),

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/engl_258/Lecture%20notes/reformation.htm

Why is the Reformation Considered "Conservative"?

The Reformation was:

"a) Anti Neo-Classical/Scholastic: Opposed to Scholastic application and study of Greco-Roman texts. For example: Anti-Copernicus: should read the bible, not the stars and Aristotle (a Greek), to understand the nature of the universe (Note that Catholic church was teaching Copernicus' (1473-1573) mathematical methods, despite their geocentric implications, but by the time of Galileo (1564-1642) the Church responds to conservative criticism of Scholastic principles); should find all Truth thru Faith, not Reason.

b) Anti-Neo-Classical/Humanist or Anti “Neo-Paganism”: Opposed the re-emerging Greek belief the actions of the body naturally and properly expressed the humanity of the soul (see Michelangelo for example; anti humanist original goodness of man (vs. original sin).

c) Anti-Franciscan poverty: Opposed to the emerging Franciscan-Catholic belief that adherents should imitate Christ and avoid worldly possessions. Instead see wealth as evidence of God's favor. (note that the Vatican was also of course opposed to this radical idea; all of Francis' original followers were burned alive; yet the idea could not be so easily squelched)

d) Pro-Aristocracy and Anti-Egalitarian/Democratic: While Protestants challenged traditional Catholic power structures, the movement normally also maintained close allegiances to relevant national powers; power is not taken from the Papal Church-State to be given to "the people" but rather it is given to emerging Protestant Church-States. Luther will align himself with the German aristocracy, and Calvin will establish an actual Puritan theocracy, serving as the model for soon to emerge Puritan/pilgrim colonies)."

Hi Constance,

What was the comparative state of Islamist thought and notions of human rights back in the sixteenth century, and how much has it developed up to the present ? At all ? Not necessarily in a progressive direction, anyway, although Julian, I'm sure, could find something 'progressive' in the development of ideas over those five hundred years.

I remember glancing at a book, thirty -odd years ago, (by Sternberg ? Steinberg ?) which suggested that the original peoples of the area around Palestine were all pretty much the same people, 'Abiru/Abr', some with towns and villages, and some still out in the desert. Some of the desert people envied their cousins in the towns and eventually, around 1000 BC, invaded 'Palestine' and either absorbed or exterminated (more likely the latter, in all traditional societies) the townspeople. Later, of course, they devised their own foundation myths, perhaps around 500 BC. I think that was Sternberg/Steinberg's thesis. Sounds plausible.

Meanwhile, the desert people continued as before, picking up garbled bits and pieces of outside ideas and stories, Jewish, Greek and eventually Christian, in Hebrew, Syriac and Aramaic, on top of their own traditions and languages. Along came Mohammad and his successors and, to justify their aggressive burst out of the desert, laying waste wherever they needed to, they cobbled together all those bits and pieces, regardless of time or sequence or rhyme or reason, into a book called the Koran, eventually written in Arabic. Of course, its underlying thrust relied on its solid traditional origins - in old-fashioned Leftist terms, the most reactionary and backward foundation possible.

Traditional people everywhere go on about the 'magic' of secret words, which are never to be changed, not one iota. So it is with the rational for the Koran. So how - since the sixteenth century (or even a thousand years before that) - could a single ignorant word, or idea, or precept, or belief, or assumption about the cosmos, be changed ?

[TBC]

[continued]

That may be the dilemma of this century - how can a reactionary set of beliefs undergo change, even just to acknowledge the modern world on which the 'people of the Book' depend just like everybody else ? How long can people live one life and prattle about another ?

My hopes are with the women, and with education. With no working class worthy of the name in any Muslim country (except maybe Turkey), any dream of some sort of Left revolution is just a fantasy: if it won't happen here now, so it's not likely to ever happen in any Muslim country.

So perhaps, brave women like Malala Yusufzai and Malalai Joya and Shirin Ebadi and so many other women who put our 'feminists' so much to shame, will have to bear the brunt of the inevitable reactionary and violent counter-action.

Whose side will people like Julian and John Bilger be on, I wonder ?

Joe Lane

Loudmouth I don’t have any problems with whose side I’m on. The side of the three people you listed, together with others who represent a possibly more hard-nosed though no more courageous conservatism, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ibn Warraq and Raymond Ibrahim and Geert Wilders.

Conservatism? Yes, a much abused term employed to take advantage of the fact that it has two meanings in existential conflict: Conservation of self-serving authority vs. conservation of gains for individual liberty already upheld in the Enlightenment and the wars against fascism. The human rights which the above heroes uphold are nothing new or progressive but are already in place all around the world – and in conflict with throwbacks. Islam, through its Taliban mouthpiece, has described Malala Yusufzai as “a soldier against Islamic society”. Too bloody right she is whether she sees herself that way or not. The world needs millions of soldiers against the vile religion that underpins Islamic society. In the civilised parts of the world that means against the uncritical bridgehead that Islam has planted.

A spearhead of religious or racial supremacism is its radical wing – al Qa’eda warriors or lunatics like Netanyahu. But the underlying enemy of the Age of Reason is the supremacism itself, not just the spearhead. It includes the religious (faith-based) roots. The world can’t afford to wait until the supremacists change their minds, the best that can be struggled for is to make them keep out of the way while people exercise and defend and consolidate the liberties which have been bequeathed to us.

Thank you, Julian, I apologise, I have got you all wrong, I think.

Yes indeed, the world needs far more heroes like Malala - and I would have thought that, in the West and especially in Australia, they would have come from the Left, or at least left-liberals, or even conventional liberals, people who stuck up for human rights, the rights of women ? Am I just hopelessly old-fashioned ?

Isn't that what the Left is supposed to stand for, the rights of the defenceless ? I really don't understand where the Left stands any more. Surely not for fascism ? Quite disgusting.

Joe

Julian,

I did have a prior page which some how didn’t get sent yesterday prior to that sole post and I did not save it. Damn. Now to recall my thoughts

It was talking about how since the Reformation, came Humanism then Secularism and consequently some extremes. Thanks for that Julian.

Apparently even witches were treated okay until the reign of Elizabeth I - Middle ages not so dark afterall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendle_witches

http://listverse.com/2008/06/09/top-10-reasons-the-dark-ages-were-not-dark/

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/engl_258/Lecture%20Notes/how%20reformation%20leads%20to%20enl.htm

This will have to do for now. I’ve got stuff going on.

AND now we have frickin ISIS siege in Sydney. There you go.

Julian,

Oops, and as a consequence, with strong Secularism (& Post Christianity) and now the problems with Islam.

So this post was suppose to precede my post yesterday and now written hurriedly. Oh well, as long as I get something out.

Yes, Julian, conservatism is about preservation and why didn’t the West do that instead of proceeding with the Enlightenment (with the delusion of progressions - only divisions!) and stick with its original roots. Politically I’m pretty conservative, and the closest description I’ve found is South Park Conservative (classically liberal and a right to offend). We should have preserved the original Christianity we had before the so called Enlightenment and the escalation of the individual leaving community behind. Seems to be a big difference between Humanism (Protestant) and Humane (Catholic/humanity). Catholic does mean liberal after all.

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/engl_258/Lecture%20Notes/how%20reformation%20leads%20to%20enl.htm

How come you haven’t mentioned other positives like art and philosophy and beauty in general? And science was already happening. Look at Friar Roger Bacon. And he was not alone Pre Enlightenment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bacon
Bacon's Opus Majus contains treatments of mathematics and optics, alchemy, and the positions and sizes of the celestial bodies. He even predicted the future of modern transport. And the Vatican to this day has Astronomies at home and the US. After all it does reach for the Stars!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIV_of_France

http://richard-hooker.com/sites/worldcultures/ENLIGHT/PRE.HTM
Louis XIV and his and France’s own enlightenment.
“The Reformation had led to a series of violent and terrifyingly cruel wars of religions; states erupted into civil war and thousands of innocents met their deaths in the name of national religions. Absolute monarchies were originally proposed as a solution to these violent disorders, and Europeans were more than willing to have local autonomy taken away in exchange for peace and safety.”

Cont...

And now the Moslems are on the rampage while we suckers cosy up to them and define them by their sugar coating. Meanwhile they are safe from violence in their mosques and their "communities". And the pay-off from importing them is already in place - the pollies in a huddle to plan more police state legislation, more power and resources to ASIO and related securocrats. Expect new surveillance over the Internet for as start. Hope for a new crusade against Islam in favour not of yet another religion but in favour of the liberty that has been wrested from its enemies over many centuries. Backlash now!

As for the securocrats, they know who the jihadists are, they know who are heeding the call of the Koran, so how about rounding them up and chucking them out of the country after two or three decades of harsh incarceration?

....Cont

"The two centuries that bracket the Enlightenment saw the development of absolute monarchies and more tightly-centralized national governments; the growth of the absolute monarchy is regarded as many historians as the origin of the modern state. Europe consequently saw the gradual erosion of local power and autonomy and the rise of national legislation and civil bureaucracies. Because this growth in absolute and centralized power of the national government and the monarchy, this age in European history is generally called the Age of Absolutism (1660-1789). It begins in the reign of Louis XIV, and ends with the French Revolution."

Peter Vexatious has been saying a bit about this and the actual importance of a Monarchy. He seems to know a lot about Western Legal history.

“If you are against God, you are against Man.” In other words, if man create their own Gods (for eg. the rise of CEOs and their repulsive salaries etc) in all forms, heaps of problems will ensue. Man must look above themselves. Otherwise, what really is there? And please do not bring Islam into this, it is not a religion. More political cult. Mohammad was a ruthless warrior and all the rest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England
I forgot to bring up Henry XIII. Not a virtuous start for the COE. Syphilis infected and obese who wanted to be rid of a few wives. He got away with his first annulment but the Church would not accept his second request to rid another wife. Then after rejection soon became cruel and tyrannical. It seems Henry would have made a model Muslim man.

Bring EXPULSIONS of the past back. The Catholic Church I'm sure had warranted reasons for doing so in order to PRESERVE and PROTECT themselves in getting rid of the rubbish. Bring back classical liberal conservatism. As we have been hijacked by nutters, Muslim and all the Non Muslim luvvies.

130 kids killed in Pakistan by the adherents of the religion of peace. I suppose anybody will do, when you're pissed off with someone else. Ernie, the fastest milkman in the west, was content to just kick the horse of his rival, the pie-man. Same logic: a bit psychotic.

So the question forces itself: are there psychotic elements in the Koran ?

Joe

Hi Joe,

Western feminists are extremists themselves. They certainly are not of any help to Muslimas. Just a bunch of hypocritical birtches who only look after themselves - that is middle class women. I don’t know if you’ve heard of Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Somali Ex Muslim. She’s good and has been warning the West for years of the evils of Islam. Also Wafa Sultan (Syrian American Ex Muslim).

Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y

http://www.politicalislam.com/measuring-extremism/
“So how many times have you heard this? Islamic State cuts off heads or they’re selling sex slaves in Africa and the apologists for Islam say, “Oh, that’s radical, that’s extreme, that’s not real Islam. I know some Muslims at work and they’re fine people; and besides that, it’s just a tiny minority that’s doing all those things.” So, in other words, “We don’t need to worry about it.”

What do they mean by extreme? Certainly cutting off heads falls in that category. But, you know there are other things that are extreme, like beating your wife, child brides, inbreeding (i.e., marrying your first cousin). Those are extreme things too. And what do all these extreme things have in common? They’re all in the Sharia. Because the killing of Kafirs (Jihad) is all in the Sharia, as well as child brides and inbreeding. So what we need to do here is to be able to measure not just radical killing, but all forms of radical ideas. In other words, we need to measure the Sharia. This has all been done for us. Pew Research has done a poll of some 38 nations, and what they did was they studied Muslims and how they feel about the Sharia. This is an in-depth study. Interestingly enough, 28% of all those Muslims who think that the Sharia should rule say that apostates should be killed. This is extreme. Killing somebody because they had a change of conscience and leave their religion—if that’s not extreme, what isn’t? And 28% is not a small minority.”

Cont...

...Cont

There was a bona fide survey undertaken a few years ago of British Muslims and their beliefs - over 30% believed converts from Islam and those committing blasphemy should be killed.

Forget the Left, Joe. Everything has changed and they have become traitors. Read Nick Cohen

Joe,

http://www.bigpicweblog.com/exp/index.php/weblog/comments/reasons_for_the_crusades

From commenter A.M. Whittaker:

Upon reflection, I could only wonder how the Crusades could come about; what sparked this reaction from Christians who are supposed to love their enemies and be committed to peace?

I shall list the various reasons…
1. 613 Persians capture Damascus and Antioch

2. 614 Persians sack Jerusalem

3. 633 Muslims conquer Syria and Iraq

4. 635 Muslims begin the conquest of Persia and Syria

5. 635 Arab Muslims capture the city of Damascus

6. 636-637 Arab domination of Syria

7. 637 Arabs occupy Ctesiphon

8. 637 Jerusalem falls to Muslim forces

9. 638 Caliph Umar I enters Jerusalem

10. 639 Muslims conquer Egypt and Persia

11. 641 Islam spreads into Egypt

12. 641 Muslims conquer Alexandria

13. 649 Muawiya I leads raid against Cyprus sacking the capital Salamis-Constantia

14. 652 Sicily is attacked by Muslims

15. 653 Muawiya I leads raid against Rhodes

16. 654 Muawiya I conquers Cyprus

17. 655 Battle of the Masts

18. 661-680 Mu?awiya moves capital from Mecca to Damascus

19. 662 Egypt falls to the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates

20. 667 Sicily is attacked by Muslims

21. 668 First siege of Constantinople

22. 669 Muslim conquest reaches Morocco

23. 672 Muslims capture the island of Rhodes

24. 674 Arab conquest reaches Indus River

25. 698 Muslims capture Carthage

26. 700 Muslims raid Island of Sicily

27. 711 Muslims conquest of Sindh in Afghanistan

28. 711 Battle of Guadalate

29. 712 Conquest of Andulusia

30. 715 Muslim conquest of Spain

31. 716 Muslims captured Lisbon

32. 717 Cordova becomes capital of Andalusia (Spain)

Cont....

...Cont

33. 719 Muslims attack Septimania in Southern France

34. 721 Muslims cross the Pyrenees

35. 722 Battle of Covadonga First defeat of Muslims by Christians

36. 724 Muslims raid southern France and capture Carcassone and Nimes

37. 725 Muslim forces occupy Nimes, France

38. 730 Muslim forces occupy Narbonne and Avignon

39. 732 Battle of Tours (Christian Victory)

40. 735 Muslim invaders capture Arles

41. 750 Abbasids move capital to Baghdad

42. 756 The Emirate of Cordova is established

43. 759 Pippin III ends Muslim incursions in France

44. 792 Hisham I calls for a Jihad Thousands heed his call to cross the Pyrenees to subjugate France. Many cities are destroyed

45. 813 Muslims attack the Civi Vecchia near Rome

46. 816 The Moors support the Basques against the Franks

47. 827 Sicily is invaded by Muslims

48. 831 Muslims capture Palermo and make it their capital

49. 838 Muslim raiders sack Marseille

Cont...

Useful timeline from Constance, who wants to repeat the expulsion of the Jews from Rome to protect the non-Christian Church of Rome. Goes to show that the best window on supremacist nutters is often held by rival supremacist nutters. Follow the Zionist Middle East Forum's excellent description of the current Islamisation of Turkey and re-establishment of the Ottoman Empire, and its brilliant articles on the real Islam by Raymond Ibrahim. Some URLs:
http://www.meforum.org/4925/turkey-improves-education
http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm
https://sites.google.com/site/islamicscripturesunveiled/Home/dhimm

Julian,

Non-Christian Church of Rome? Wow, heavy words, and another minute you espouse bringing back the Crusades who were apparently not Christian? Plus you think I’m a Commie. You are one confused and indoctrinated dude. And of course you have to detract from the real issue and bring up irrelevant contention and miss the whole point. All I’m doing is stating historical facts as history goes on being ignored. This does not help the real problem. Just goes to show you are unable to dispute facts, and demean possible resolutions on something so serious. Grow up.

It really is sad/e.

Enigma - Sadeness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFLRHPUWBI8

Enigma - Return To Innocence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk_sAHh9s08

Public Image Ltd - Rise
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv0efmUKP9s

Interesting you have not commented on Fr Samir’s analysis.

Hi Joe,

…Cont

50. 841 Muslim forces capture Bari (in Italy)

51. 846 Muslim raiders attack areas near Ostia and Rome. Some enter Rome and damage the Churches of St. Peter and St. Paul. The Leonine Wall is built to discourage further Attacks.

52. 849 Battle of Ostia (Christian Victory)

53. 850 Perfectus, a Christian priest in Muslim Cordova is executed ? one of the first of Many

54. 85111 young Christians are executed for insulting the Prophet Muhammed

55. 858 Muslim raiders attack Constantinople

56. 859 Muslim invaders capture Castrogiovanni slaughtering several thousand

57. 869 Arabs capture the island of Malta

58. 870 Muslim invaders capture Syracuse

59. 876 Muslims pillage Campagna in Italy

60. 879 The Seljuk Empire unites Mesapotamia and a large portion of Persia

61. 884 Muslims invading Italy burn the monastery of Monte Cassino to the ground

62. 900 The Fatimid Dynasty assumes control of Egypt

63. 902 The Muslim conquest of Sicily is completed when the Christian city of Toorminia is captured

64. 909 Sicily comes under control of the Fatimids

65. 909 The fatimid Dynasty assumes control of Egypt

66. 909 Muslims control all the passes in the Alps between France and Italy ? cutting off passage between the two countries

67. 920 Muslim forces cross the Pyrenees, enter Gascony and reach as far as the gates of Toulouse

68. 972 The Fatimids of Egypt conquer North Africa

69. 981 Ramiro III, king of Leon, is defeated at Rueda

70. 985 Al-Mansur Ibn Abi Aamir sacks Barcelona

71. 994 The monastery of Monte Cassino is destrpyed a second time by Arabs

72. 997 Under the leadership of Almanzar, Muslim forces march out of the city of Cordova and head north to capture Christian lands.

73. 997 Muslim forces burn Compostela to the ground

...Cont

74. 1004 Arab raiders sack the Italian city of Pisa

75. 1009 The Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem is destroyed by Muslim armies

76. 1009 Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah orders the the Holy Sepulcher and all Christian buildings in Jerusalem be destroyed

77. 1012 Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah orders the destruction of all Christian and Jewish houses of worship in his lands

78. 1012 Berber forces capture Cordova and order that half the population be executed

79. 1015 Arab Muslim forces conquer Sardinia

80. 1064 The Seljuk Turks conquer Christian Armenia

81. 1070 Seljuk Turks capture Jerusalem and begin persecuting Christian Pilgrims

82. 1071-1085 Seljuk Turks conquer most of Syria and Palestine

83. 1071 Battle of Manzikert

84. 1073 Seljuk Turks conquer Ankara

85. 1078 Seljuk Turks capture Nicaea

86. 1084 Seljuk Turks conquer Antioch

67. 1086 Battle of Zallaca

68. 1088 Patzinak Turks begin forming settlements between the Danube and the Balkans

69. 1090 Granada captured by Yusuf Ibn Tashfin

70. 1091 Cordova is captured by the Almoravids

Why are we always being told that the Crusaders were the aggressors when they were only defending?

Please watch the post I just sent of Dr Bill Warner on political Islam.
He mentions that when the Christian West lost their Classicalism and became hill billies they were then conquered by Islam. When weak, trouble follows. And this is what I see today. The West is in a psychological crisis as we are divisive.

Remember the Middle East was once just about all Christian including Algeria. Afghanistan even had a small Christian population but the Buddhists and Hindus were attacked and killed there by guess who. Taliban blowing up those Buddhists statues?

Today’s quote from Constance: “Non-Christian Church of Rome? Wow, heavy words, and another minute you espouse bringing back the Crusades who were apparently not Christian? Plus you think I’m a Commie. You are one confused and indoctrinated dude. And of course you have to detract from the real issue and bring up irrelevant contention and miss the whole point. All I’m doing is stating historical facts as history goes on being ignored. This does not help the real problem. Just goes to show you are unable to dispute facts, and demean possible resolutions on something so serious. Grow up.”

Last Monday’s quote from Constance: “Bring EXPULSIONS of the past back. The Catholic Church I'm sure had warranted reasons for doing so in order to PRESERVE and PROTECT themselves in getting rid of the rubbish”.

The Church of Rome was created in the fourth century between an ongoing imperial tyranny and some rogue sects in a deal which buried Christianity under the said imperial Roman tyranny. It has remained buried under one tyranny or another through centuries of murders of Jews and Christians (libelled as “heretics”), often by burning. Google Tyndall for openers. Or Inquisition maybe? Fortunately Christianity has managed to survive the Church of Rome and even to penetrate it. The reason this is fortunate is that elements of Christianity have had a positive moral influence through ages, even on the Church of Rome (buried under popery and black magic). Islam, in contrast, has no moral message.

By crusade against Islam I mean of course an unremitting moral, ideological crusade aimed at destroying Islam as an idea along with fascism, not the murderous military campaign (named “The Crusades”) which was against populations.

Julian,

Ha ha, , “Black Magic”, you get funnier by the minute. Tell me more about the black magic in the CC as I am not aware of this?

Are you a greedy corrupt banker? Usuary has brought about the debt ridden and slave-like society we currently live in, working our asses off and minimising dignity of the worker. Extreme capitalism that we have today and as life gets tougher. Thanks for that. And who is the only world leader who criticises all this greed, may you ask?

Looks like Peter Vexatious is right about lawyers and judges to allow people like Man Haron Monis to be let out on bail.
orum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16922&page=0#297474

What is it with literal interpretations by fundamentalists. I mean expulsions for people like Man Haron Monis, not the whole Muslim population. But I must say, I do quite like the perceived drama of an expulsion that would cause over-reactions from someone like yourself. Do you have any solutions to the Muslim problem?

God Only Knows - BBC Music
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqLTe8h0-jo

forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16922&page=0#297474

“Ha ha, , “Black Magic”, you get funnier by the minute. Tell me more about the black magic in the CC as I am not aware of this?”

Ans: Trans-substantiation. Exclusive to the Church of Rome. See http://www.webtruth.org/articles/theological-issues-23/transubstantiation-49.html and especially take on board final paragraph which lists many more offences against Christianity, truth and and plain decency by this outfit. (Also note evidence that Luther wasn’t dinkum).

Expulsions of the Jews were carried out in ancient Rome. This fits Constance’s December 15 paragraph: “Bring EXPULSIONS of the past back. The Catholic [sic] Church I'm sure had warranted reasons for doing so in order to PRESERVE and PROTECT themselves in getting rid of the rubbish” seems to refer to that historical period. Constance’s so-called “rubbish” to be “got rid of” would be Jews, not Moslems.

“Do you have any solutions to the Muslim problem?” Yes. Unremitting ideological crusade against Islam focused on its murderous history and the most egregious of the Koran’s calls to the faithful. Maybe start by referring to Moslems by their name, not by the word “Muslims” adopted by Western apologists under Moslem pressure as recorded at http://hnn.us/article/524 (a bit like the ABC caving in to the murderous Rangoon generals to call Burma “Myanmar”).

(addendum)

Solutions to the Moslem problem: To prevent it getting any worse, require as a condition of entry into Australia a pledge to respect and uphold the right of every individual to adopt, abandon, praise, decry, ridicule, proselytise for or against, obey or disobey, any religious cult, creed or authority. Breach of the pledge in any form including digital to result in expulsion from the country. That proclamation to be broadcast worldwide.

So that's black magic?

I'm not going to get into a cat fight with you and your prejudices. It looks like the expulsions in the past were to do with preventing GREED (Usuary and its excesses) in the Church.

Puritan fundies seem unable to grasp concepts of symbolism/mysticism/transubstantiation, only harsh literal translations. This is the problem. There are parallels with the different sects within Islam, like Sufism is the only (softer) concept of Islam which embraces mysticism, and unfortunately Sufism hardly gets an airing these days in comparison to Islam's more harsh and literal fundamentalists such as Sunni, Shia, Wahabism, Salafism which unfortunately is predominant today.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2006/lepanto-1571-the-battle-that-saved-europe#at_pco=smlwn-1.0&at_si=undefined&at_ab=per-4&at_pos=0&at_tot=1

"The clash of civilizations is as old as history, and equally as old is the blindness of those who wish such clashes away; but they are the hinges, the turning points of history. In the latter half of the 16th century, Muslim war drums sounded and the mufti of the Ottoman sultan proclaimed jihad, but only the pope fully appreciated the threat. As Brandon Rogers notes in the Ignatius Press edition of G. K. Chesterton’s poem "Lepanto": Pope Pius V "understood the tremendous importance of resisting the aggressive expansion of the Turks better than any of his contemporaries appear to have. He understood that the real battle being fought was spiritual; a clash of creeds was at hand, and the stakes were the very existence of the Christian West." But then, as now, the unity of Christendom was shattered; and in the aftermath of the Protestant revolt, Islam saw its opportunity."

"But the House of War was a house divided against itself. The Habsburg Empire was Europe’s bulwark against Islamic jihad, but its timbers were being eaten away by the Protestants who diverted Catholic armies and even cheered on the Mussulmen, whom they saw as fellow enemies of the pope in Rome."

??

The Truth About the Spanish Inquisition:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2003/the-truth-about-the-spanish-inquisition-2#at_pco=smlwn-1.0&at_si=undefined&at_ab=per-2&at_pos=0&at_tot=1
"This image of the Spanish Inquisition is a useful one for those who have little love for the Catholic Church. Anyone wishing to beat the Church about the head and shoulders will not tarry long before grabbing two favorite clubs: the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. I have dealt with the Crusades in a previous issue of Crisis (see “The Real History of the Crusades,” April 2002). Now on to the other club."

"n order to understand the Spanish Inquisition, which began in the late 15th century, we must look briefly at its predecessor, the medieval Inquisition. Before we do, though, it’s worth pointing out that the medieval world was not the modern world. For medieval people, religion was not something one just did at church. It was their science, their philosophy, their politics, their identity, and their hope for salvation. It was not a personal preference but an abiding and universal truth. Heresy, then, struck at the heart of that truth. It doomed the heretic, endangered those near him, and tore apart the fabric of community. Medieval Europeans were not alone in this view. It was shared by numerous cultures around the world. The modern practice of universal religious toleration is itself quite new and uniquely Western."

"Secular and ecclesiastical leaders in medieval Europe approached heresy in different ways. Roman law equated heresy with treason. Why? Because kingship was God-given, thus making heresy an inherent challenge to royal authority. Heretics divided people, causing unrest and rebellion. No Christian doubted that God would punish a community that allowed heresy to take root and spread. Kings and commoners, therefore, had good reason to find and destroy heretics wherever they found them—and they did so with gusto."

Cont...

...Cont

"One of the most enduring myths of the Inquisition is that it was a tool of oppression imposed on unwilling Europeans by a power-hungry Church. Nothing could be more wrong. In truth, the Inquisition brought order, justice, and compassion to combat rampant secular and popular persecutions of heretics. When the people of a village rounded up a suspected heretic and brought him before the local lord, how was he to be judged? How could an illiterate layman determine if the accused’s beliefs were heretical or not? And how were witnesses to be heard and examined?"

"Rather than relying on secular courts, local lords, or just mobs, bishops were to see to it that accused heretics in their dioceses were examined by knowledgeable churchmen using Roman laws of evidence. In other words, they were to “inquire”—thus, the term “inquisition.”"

"Rather than relying on secular courts, local lords, or just mobs, bishops were to see to it that accused heretics in their dioceses were examined by knowledgeable churchmen using Roman laws of evidence. In other words, they were to “inquire”—thus, the term “inquisition.”"

“Despite popular myth, the Church did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.”

“Following the most progressive law codes of the day, the Church in the 13th century formed inquisitorial tribunals answerable to Rome rather than local bishops. To ensure fairness and uniformity, manuals were written for inquisitorial officials. Bernard Gui, best known today as the fanatical and evil inquisitor in The Name of the Rose, wrote a particularly influential manual. There is no reason to believe that Gui was anything like his fictional portrayal.”

“By the 14th century, the Inquisition represented the best legal practices available. Inquisition officials were university-trained specialists in law and theology. The procedures were similar to those used in secular inquisitions (we call them “inquests” today, but it’s the same word).”

Cont...

...Cont

“The power of kings rose dramatically in the late Middle Ages. Secular rulers strongly supported the Inquisition because they saw it as an efficient way to ensure the religious health of their kingdoms. If anything, kings faulted the Inquisition for being too lenient on heretics. As in other areas of ecclesiastical control, secular authorities in the late Middle Ages began to take over the Inquisition, removing it from papal oversight. In France, for example, royal officials assisted by legal scholars at the University of Paris assumed control of the French Inquisition. Kings justified this on the belief that they knew better than the faraway pope how best to deal with heresy in their own kingdoms.”

“These dynamics would help to form the Spanish Inquisition—but there were others as well. Spain was in many ways quite different from the rest of Europe. Conquered by Muslim jihad in the eighth century, the Iberian peninsula had been a place of near constant warfare. Because borders between Muslim and Christian kingdoms shifted rapidly over the centuries, it was in most rulers’ interest to practice a fair degree of tolerance for other religions. The ability of Muslims, Christians, and Jews to live together, called convivencia by the Spanish, was a rarity in the Middle Ages. Indeed, Spain was the most diverse and tolerant place in medieval Europe. England expelled all of its Jews in 1290. France did the same in 1306. Yet in Spain Jews thrived at every level of society.”

Check out the website for the rest.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2003/the-truth-about-the-spanish-inquisition-2#at_pco=smlwn-1.0&at_si=undefined&at_ab=per-2&at_pos=0&at_tot=1