This intelligent, reasoned and articulate article should be required reading for anyone attempting to understand and comment on the recent events in a Sydney coffee shop.

Junaid, perhaps you're right. Perhaps it was just a strange coincidence that the guy was a Muslim, nothing to do with the Muslim belief system?

Perhaps IS are just misinterpreting Islam too? The Koran doesn't say anything about killing unbelievers, right?

Perhaps it's all just a terrible misunderstanding.

Right?

Saw a quote in the paper the other day, by the Muslim who was sentenced for killing a British soldier. The judge who told him he's betraying Islam. "I'm not betraying Islam." he replied "You don't understand Islam."

It just happens they all somehow interprate islam in their own way.
AU is forever going to be sus of the islamic nation.

You are so right Junaid, this symbolic violence will continue till people with 'vision' can see 'the true color'

Isn’t this the Junaid Cheema that considers a child holding a sign calling for critics of Islam to be beheaded a mere mistake? Isn’t this the writer that says that anti-Muslim attitudes are ‘intolerable’ and ‘insane’ – the product of hate and fear. Isn’t he the one that uses statistics to ‘prove’ that Muslims are responsible for just a miniscule part of world terror? These references are from an OLO article in 2012, before ISIS, before Boko Haram, before the recent attacks in the UK, Canada, the US – not to mention the ever present atrocities in Muslim societies (including Muslims killing children this week)

Perhaps Mr Chemma would care to explain why a non-Muslim should not be offended by the slander, hate and violence in the Quran directed at infidels? Perhaps he would also explain to us why we should trust a people that consider a man like Mohammed to be a great moral example when all of the hadith and early Islamic histories (written by Muslims) tell us he attacked his neighbors for 10 years, killing, looting, raping captives, torturing and enslaving men women and children?

No, he blames Australia and the West. He calls us intolerant and bigots but like all Muslims he ignores the actions of Muslims. To him, morality is for others, Muslims have faith, expressed in the black and white banner proclaiming their love for a barbaric god that delights in brutal torture and a man that is quoted in the hadith saying “I am made victorious with terror”. Mohammed, Cheema and the vile sheik share that belief, morals not required.

As with all Muslims, Mr Chemma never calls for Muslims to change, to be tolerant and change their societies, to condemn the hate and violence in the Quran, to condemn Mohammad’s attacks on his peaceful neighbors. No, it is always the non-Muslims that are wrong, that must change and accept the goodness of Islam and Muslims without criticism or questions.

Rather than a case of suspending rationality, mistrust and dislike of Islam is a matter of common sense and basic moral principles

We may, I suspect, get a similar article (with name changes) after the next terror episode staged by a Muslim in Australia.

Perhaps there won't be one?

Wanna bet?

generally those who are fundamentalist secularist get it wrong. For decades the abc/progressives have deceitfully and willfully misrepresented Christ and His teaching. Now they want to label and demonise anyone disagreeing with their heretical view of Islam. Well I suppose all truth is relative to the secularist so who says what the monster in Martin place did was wrong. Oh that's right moral relativism only applies to justfying ones own perverted views and behaviour.

One day I hope that mass media will start publishing productive pieces like this rather than throwing petrol on the fire.

Not a bad piece

Dear bigots
The author has referred to those lunatics that call themselves Muslims spreading terror as a cancer to humanity, infinitely stupid, heretical and blasphemous - not sure what more you want short of more blood.

Seems you resort to filthy ad homonym tactics and red herrings, because you have no real argument. You attempt character assassinations by purposely misinterpreting the author's previous articles and cutting and pasting fabricated stories that 99.99 % of Muslims overtly discount. The coincidence is not the murky background of the killer, was he Shia, was he Sunni or a self confessed practitioner of black magic. What is certain is that he was deranged, he was a criminal and he was publicity hungry. The coincidence is not that he called himself Muslim (this time) but the coincidence is that the Perth hostage crises lasted for only moments and the 2011 Adelaide siege which claimed more blood barley touched our TV screens and has now become a distant memory, this tragedy will be a political football for votes and foreign policy. It would be stupid to ask good Anglo Australians to apologies for the deranged killer of the 2011 Adelaide Siege, but you have no problem putting an entire religion on trial for the crimes of a deranged convict, who changed his religion as often as one changes socks.

theHypocrisy,

He changed his religion did he?

Reference please.

theHypocrisy

Does the Koran sanction the killing of unbelievers, or not?
Does the Koran sanction slavery and the rape of slave women, or not?
Did Mohammad marry a six-year old girl, or not?

Left-wing apologetic garbage. The author spends the vast majority of the article making out he and his wife and others of the same religious affiliation are the real victims here. What about those in the cafe? They got one sentence. Can the left ever stand back for a moment and not stick their metaphysical victimhood theories into everything?

The term 'bigot' is thrown around so recklessly that it is meaningless. Bigot does not mean = anyone who disagrees with my own views. It simply means intolerance. Perhaps you're a bigot for not tolerating their views.

The hostage taker in the cafe was a criminal and should have been be treated as such. He met the fate he deserved.
And, at the same time, the person who insults and harasses a lady because of her dress should be held accountable.

Hatred tends to spread like wild fire, destroying everything it touches....that is human history.
Wild fire is checked by fire walls; the fuel free spaces, wherefrom fire travels no further.
Responsible behavior is not to become fuel for the fire of hatred.

Mr Cheema, you mention that your wife was abused by a 'shell of a man'. What happened? Was she praying? Did someone enter your home or approach your wife in a mosque? Did you report it to the police? Note that abuse of others, particularly women, is a serious crime in some societies, if not others (I am thinking of a certain verse). I will not condone abuse by anyone, even of Muslims, even of people that say that Mohammad is wonderful even after you point out how he disparages a pregnant woman split open for offending him or has another killed when nursing her child because he didn’t like her poetry.

So a man that abuses a pregnant wife is bad, a shell of a man, but a man that gloats over a woman split open is a great moral example to all who want to see Allah’s paradise (notice the reference to the Quran…).

What I am trying to say is that when it comes to Islam, Muslims take off their brain and hide it in the closet. Likewise, they never apply to themselves the moral principles they demand of others. They never ask why Islam is perceived as a source of violence or why Islamic societies (all very difference, sharing only a religion) suffer from most of the same problems. Muslims never doubt and never ask questions, so they cannot change, and so the hate, violence and terror continue.

But then again, Muslims believe Islam is perfect so it must be the fault of those evil infidels. It must be a mistake; it must be that Muslims are provoked by the terrible false criticisms. Who knows, maybe saying unkind words to a woman wearing a veil (shawl?) or saying that Islam is a death cult is much, much worse than shooting children, putting a bomb among spectators at a marathon or killing people in a café.

TheHypocrisy - Would that be moi? Oh dear, how inconsiderate of me to cite the author’s previous articles. And of course, Muslims, all Muslims, as we know, do not take the Quran seriously, and as for the hadith, well, any Muslim (at least 99.9999%) will tell you that they are just fabrications about the life and sayings of their prophet, which are also totally extraneous to Islam and its teachings. It is a fact that Muslims never mention Mohammed and to them he is just another illusive, insignificant figure outside of the precepts of Islam.

In fact the extensive literature on his life and actions is totally preposterous and misinterpreted. For example, the campaigns undertaken, listed here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad) were in fact missions to deliver flowers to his adversaries. Nothing says “love” and “peace” like an early morning incursion on a sleeping village to relieve them of their worldly goods, their silly freedoms and even their dreary lives. These are a small things compared to the privilege of sacrificing themselves to enrich and amuse the faithful, even if the flowers were somehow misplaced.

It is possible, I suppose, to think that the portrayal of nonMuslims in the Quran and hadith may contribute to the silly impression that Muslims have different values and cannot integrate into Western society. Yeah, nothing says promotes peace and respect for others like calling them “lower than animals” and telling the faithful not to be friends, but to be harsh to them and attack them wherever they are. Dear me again, I must be quoting from some writings… Oh what can it be?

And yes, an entire religion should not be condemned for the crimes of a single man, but maybe, who knows, it is proper to consider the beliefs of that religion, the character of its idols and most of all, the fact that everywhere that religion dominates, hate, discrimination and violence flourish. Maybe that is just an eerie coincidence, or maybe not.

Mr Sheema has produced a miserably worded article defending his co religionists, who's religious beliefs compel them to defend those among them who wish to engage in hostile and murderous acts against western civilians.

The importation of Muslims into western countries has been a social and economic catastrophe. They are nothing but trouble, and that trouble is increasing in direct proportion to their growing numbers. Muslim countries are renowned for their violence, and Muslim suburbs in western countries fit that bill also. Muslim suburbs are notorious for their high rates of serious criminal behaviour, welfare dependency, and "troubled" schools where teachers (especially female teachers) are routinely threatened.

Australians flee these once peaceful suburbs and go and live in others to get away from the people that Mr Sheema defends. His mention of Cronulla was another misrepresentation of the facts. Everyone in Sydney who is not a Muslim or an ABC luvvie knows that the riot was caused by the behaviour of young Muslim men, who routinely acted aggressively on the beach and insulted young Australian women lying on the beach on their bikinis.

Islam is a dangerous religion who's declared intention is to take over the world and turn the entire world into something resembling the shambles of the middle east. Mr Sheema might consider that infidels such as myself do not consider that scenario to be desirable.

The Lindt café attack was just another Muslim attack on western societies which will get worse and worse, until we in the west realise that these people are our enemies, and we forbid the importation of any more of them into our once peaceful societies.

If we can condemn Nazis as a group, than why is it we can not do the same for Muslims?

http://www.theage.com.au/world/sydney-siege-iran-says-it-requested-extradition-of-gunman-man-haron-monis-in-2000-20141217-128qoi.html

The Iranian Govt wanted Monis extradited in 2000 for serious crimes yet our Govt protects him and virtually ignores his action.

George Brandis' new fascist laws gives immunity to our intelligence agencies to commit crimes and even legalises assassination.

The Black and White flag lives in infamy with the Swastika, Hammer and Sickle and other Fascist banners. Monis is just another storm trooper of Islam.

Anyway, it wasn't an ISIS flag that that terrorist forced people to hold up: it was an al Qa'ida flag. So there.

And anyway, it's common for that 'shahada' to be printed on Muslim flags - the Saudi flag is green with that shahada across the top.

With a sword underneath. After all, Islam is a religion of peace: so obviously that's the sword of peace.

And anyway, look at all the flags of nominally Christian countries with weapons on them. Like ........ um ......... um ........

Imperialist b@stards !

Joe

Thanks for that article Arjay. It really does go to show that our government, immigration policies and the courts and prison system, all or some of the above need to toughen up. Despite being made aware by the authorities of this mans home land, who wanted him back to face criminal charges, they allowed him into our country and even granting asylum. He, as we have read and heard, had continued to commit crimes. Violent crimes and ones displaying hatred toward Australians. It is clear now that Australian Authorities, back in 1996, made a highly unprofessional decision. I imagine he had been granted citizenship (not sure) and with asylum could not be deported, so released back into our society. There are no doubt a few others like himself who were not thoroughly screened (so as to be deemed non threatening and suitably willing and able to integrate and respect our laws) and bring with them their hatred and extremist attitudes.
The Govt cant go back and fix their mistakes unfortunately, and there will be growing concern and fears over who else is a possible threat to us. Surely to God, the seriousness of taking some control, no, total control over who they allow into our society must be top priority. Before granting asylum or citizenship it must be proven that they are unquestionably genuine. Backgrounds checked and cleared. Fully aware of what may be acceptable in their country, could be considered a crime by our laws and punishable accordingly. Extremist behaviors not tolerated and will lead to deportation.

Nice one Loudmouth :)and McCackie

I looked on in disbelief as the ABC tried to paint the issue as one of Muslim women being victimised. WTF? Excuse me?

People react to Muslim women with fear and loathing because they understand that by their religious attire they express their support for a belief system that believes in killing innocent people.

The ABC of course asked the Grand Mufti, and he of course said the whole thing has nothing to do with Islam. How nauseatingly typical of theABC. The question is not whether the Grand Mufti says it's okay to kill unbelievers, it's whether the Prophet Mohammed says it, and unfortunately he does, and it's in the Koran, which Muslim publicly women affirm by their hijab.

The apologists then go on to criticise Christians who have killed and persecuted, and rightly so, although strictly speaking irrelevant. However the difference is, when Muslims kill unbelievers, they are doing what Mohammed told them to do; when Christians kill anyone, they are doing what Jesus told them not to do.

Then it is said that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceable people. However that's because they are *not* following the dictates of their religion, not because they are.

The West's traditions and laws of religious toleration grew out of the abysmal experience of the Reformation and Counter-reformation, and the cruel and bloody religious wars that toleration finally put an end to. It was relatively easy for Christians to make that obvious change to a better society, because, unlike Mohammed, Christ explicitly told his followers not to persecute and kill people, even at law; and because of the 18th century Enlightenment's revolution of rationality.

(cont.)

Islam has neither of those advantages. ISIS's idea of moral excellence is Mohammed's supposed humanity in saying that slave children should not be sold separately from their slave mother, until they reach puberty. How very enlightened of him.

Those who embrace Islam embrace the teachings of a mass murdering thieving slaving rapist; and the best we can hope for, apparently, is to have them living in our midst and not acting on their belief system, which is what we've got – or had until - now.

But is that really the best we can hope for? Can Muslims really not see and do better than that? Must they be forever the moral imbeciles in modern global society? I don't see why Australians should not be calling on Muslims to *re-think* their belief system. Mohammed may not renounce you for your beliefs - but I do.

I call on Junaid Cheena and his wife to publicly renounce Islam.

The fact about the culprit, “just another convicted felon” rightly called by the Author , wanted for crimes in the country of his origin and involved in some 40 crimes in Australia, is that he represents none other than the Criminal Mind which motivated him. Trying a faith as a culprit, for the act of a criminal mind, is a tendency we need to watch against. Few of the responses in this post confirm the fears the Author appears to have.

Without trying to make it a debate, I will restrict my post to that great soul known as “Muhammad”, who too has been spoken of disrespectfully. Knowing that the Australians are rational people who prefer facts over slander, I draw your attention to the fact that a detailed view of the history, not the one-liners thrown around, provide the insight one needs.

Fortunately there is a wealth of literature, mostly by Westerners, discovering this wonderful person. It is happening since about a century now after a long period of misinformation that flooded the post-crusade Europe. You may want to start with Karen Armstrong’s “Muhammad”- a 256 page book by someone who does not prescribe to any religion.

As an alternative to your own study, let me share with you, for starters (will post more, if discussion progresses), what Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881) had to say (in his book: Heroes and Hero Worship)

“The lies which well-meaning zeal has heaped around this man (Muhammad) are so disgraceful to ourselves only. …. How one man single-handedly, could weld warring tribes and wandering Bedouins into a most powerful and civilised nation in less than two decades …A silent great soul, one of that who cannot but be earnest. He was to kindle the world, the world’s Maker had ordered so”

NC, rather than read the hadith (Bukhari, Muslim, Abu-Dawud, Malik, etc..) or the early histories (Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sad, Tabari, Kathir, Hisham, etc…), all written by Muslims, you use modern sanitized versions to make your point. How scrupulous and honorable!

The fact is that a large part of the original accounts are about Mohammad’s ruthless wars on his neighbors. If you lived within 800km of Medina in the 7thcentury, you could expect Mohammad to attack your village, loot, kill, rape, torture if required to find booty and then the captives, -- men, women and children – would be divided among the Muslims as slaves.

A few quotes from these sources:

Narrated Humaid: Anas bin Malik said, "Whenever the Prophet went out with us to fight against any nation, he never allowed us to attack till morning and he would wait and see: if he heard Adhan he would postpone the attack and if he did not hear Adhan he would attack them." (Bukhari Volume1-Book 11-Number 584)

How many a township have we destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them. (Quran 7:4)

…Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy). (Bukhari 4:52:220)

And there is this jewel: Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: “A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet… So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet was informed about it” – and it was fine and dandy with him (Abu Dawud 38:4348). And don’t forget Asma bint Marwan, a nursing mother killed by Mohammed because of her poetry

This “wonderful” person, this noble example, Mohammad, committed all kinds of atrocities, massacred whole tribes, tortured people, raped women, and even beat his wife – that is what all Islamic sources say.

How about a little honesty, NC?

NC,

He stuck an Islamic flag in the window. He called himself a sheikh. He had recently proclaimed his allegiance to ISIS. He used the usual psychotic cop-out, when the police responded to his murder of two hostages: "See what you made me do !"

This raises questions: do Muslims, i.e. devout Muslims, have a concept of guilt ? Only of being victimised ? Do they think they can do no wrong, it's just the world picking on them ?

Do they have a concept of compassion for non-believers ? Silly question. But does the Koran have anything in it comparable to the Good Samaritan story, i.e. compassion for one who is not one's own ?

I suppose, as a kaffir, much of this is not my affair. It will be up to Muslims to clean out the psychotics from their midst before they do much more damage. They owe that to their fellow Australians.

Joe

Another thing, NC, when Muslim radicals, ISIS, the Taliban, Boko Haram, etc. cite scripture to justify their actions, they refer to the Quran, hadith and usually Tabari -- not Armstrong or Carlyle.’

But maybe your approach has its merits. We can have Armstrong’s and Carlyle’s writings on the subject translated into Arabic, Urdu, Pashto, Hausa, Swahili and then drop thousands of them into the camps of those mistakenly referred to as ‘terrorists’. Then, who knows, in two or three weeks, Ahmed might just be saying something like this to Omar: “Hey man, we were doing it wrong, ever since those new revelations arrived we now know that Islam promotes peace and tolerance”.

I think it is worth a try and maybe there will be a Nobel in our future. No, wait, you can have it all yourself. Peace at long last may be at hand and it was your idea and you deserve credit.

Kactus and JKJ have done an excellent job of summing up the truth and pointing out the roots of the problem. Their posts on this thread should be required reading at the ABC.

How the apologists continue to believe there is not a Muslim/Islamic problem is beyond belief. Any bets on them also blaming the latest Taliban attack in Pakistan on the West? Oh wait, the Taliban are not really Muslims either, they are just calling themselves Muslim.

I agree NC and thank you for sharing

If I want a medical opinion I will go to a doctor not a chimney sweeper.
Respected historians and social scientists unequivocally stand in awe and humility of that great soul. No wonder he is still honoured in the most powerful buildings in this world, even though they are on different sides of politics- the author mentioned the US Supreme Court and US congress.

Your right Australians are very decent people, but what your dealing with here is a blood thirsty medieval mob. They use outdated oral traditions out of context rejected by authentic Islam and fail to even quote correctly the verses of the Quran, how they managed to slip the word "raid" and "terror" into 7:4 is beyond any decent Australian, but I don't think your dealing with decent Australian's here.

My faith in this nation tells me it's probably one or two individuals changing their nicknames - Australia is too great to be represented by such chimney sweepers and if you wrestle with a chimney sweeper you are bound to get dirty.

Still nothing to refute the arguments in the article just red herrings and character assassinations

theHypocrisy

What would you accept as refuting the arguments in the article?

Facts - the dude was raised in islam and used its language and symbols to generate the self image he wished to project.
Also facts - he is not representative of mainstream Australian islam nor even organised/radical/extreme groups claiming islam as the justification for their brutality and murder. He is an outsider. He's not "a muslim" and he's not "a muslim terrorist". He's a (dead) nobody.
Also also facts - the rhetoric and anger and division and 'us v them' fear that has been knowingly generated by certain political and media groups ABSOLUTELY contributed to his mindset.

He was, in totality, a failed human who used a gun and a flag to get attention. His level of adherence to islam is utterly irrelevant. He represents that religion in the same way as the KKK represents Russian Orthodox Christianity... ie not in the slightest

Hi Camo,

So perhaps he should have tattooed "terrorist" across his forehead ? What else do you need - he swore allegiance to IS, he forced hostages to hold up an Islamic flag which proclaimed 'there is one god and Muhammad is his messenger etc.' or whatever. He had the usual disregard for the lives of others, and like terrorists everywhere, instantly shifted the blame for whatever he was doing onto others, the police in this case.

Yes, he was also a criminal, perhaps having murdered his first wife, and having molested dozens of women. Yes, he was a complete scumbag. He lived off the welfare system as 'disabled' when he wasn't disabled at all.

But he was still a terrorist. He used terror to try to get his way. He was indiscriminate about who was taken and who was shot, the lives of others meant nothing to him.

So what else do you need ?

Joe

Is this the right forum for serious discussion on history and theology? I don't think so.
Kindly consider an analogy. If we find some food on the road side, do we put it in our mouths? Certainly not, as we not know its source. How are we then, expected to put in our minds, the information coming from people masked by the pseudonyms?
I will rather go to the primary source or to the authors I can trust and in so doing will attempt to see the other side's view too, then I'll have the satisfaction of putting in my mind what I can trust. The assertion that Islam preaches more violence than other religions should be given that treatment. Start with comparison of Quran with Bible; the old testament. This is a well documented subject, by scholars of comparative study of religions.
Now, what is this forum discussing? A despicable act ...which must be condemned unconditionally, of a person with a history of mental instability and violent behavior. Based on that act, we are being told that the entire community...the whole religion and its followers...over a billion of them, be condemned. This would be considered a sane advice, if we were to apply it universally. And if we were to apply it universally, who would be left in this world, un condemned? None but our selves because we are a superior race....the Aryans. That is racism and Nazi approach; that breeds perpetual distrust and destruction. And first victim of this destruction is the mind beholding hatred
Please stop this holier than though approach and be realistic as:-
" We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better."

Seen few comments. Familiar, quite familiar, in fact.

Criminals live in every society and within all creed and conviction systems. If people try to extend their crimes to the creeds of their societies, the description will produce books that the largest of the libraries will fail to hold.

I will continue with the focus of my post of the 18th, where I recommended a book by Karen Armstrong and presented a quote from Thomas Carlyle.

Today, I draw your attention to a book entitled “Muhammad: His Life based on Earliest Sources”, by Martin Lings (1909-2005), a Shakespearean scholar.

Today's quote from George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), who needs no introduction. In his book ‘The Genuine Islam’, he too resented the “lies heaped around (Muhammad)”, as did Thomas Carlyle. The two learned men guided their societies out of the-then prevalent misinformation about Muhammad that few posts here are still trying to spread.

George Bernard Shaw observes:

“I have studied him – the wonderful man in my opinion, far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Saviour of Humanity”

Please notice that George Bernard Shaw was one of the earlier scholars who challenged the image of ‘anti-Christ’ assigned in his times to Muhammad. “Saviour of Humanity” is the title he has instead, for Muhammad.

He goes on to say:

“I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion, which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence, which can make itself appeal to every age”

And:
“I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today”
And:
“I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness”.

@Joe

I need proof that he was anything other than a standard issue abusive jilted father/husband with a history of violence. There are sieges and hostage situations and kidnappings and murders regularly undertaken by these evil men against innocent people. Rarely against strangers, granted, but not "rarely" full stop.

That this particular individual used symbols of a faith that disowned him does not link him to that faith, nor does it link that faith to his actions. As for calling him a 'terrorist' - that is laughable and counter productive. By doing so you merely give credence to his false - and failed - personal hunt for glory.
Was Martin Bryant a terrorist? Julian Knight? Craig Minogue? Keith Faure?

"Mr Happy man" is the title of a short video clip on YouTube. It is about Johny Barns of Bermuda.
I think the world needs more like him and pray that I have the ability to be good and loving to my fellow human beings and other creatures.
I think majority would join me in this prayer.

theHypocrisy - Yeah, I wonder how I got the words ‘raid’ and ‘terror’ into Quran7:4. Maybe I made the verse up – you know what the Quran says about those evil, deceitful, untrustworthy infidels. Oh wait, what is all non-Muslims, including Australian nonbelievers, the ones you call “decent”. So which is it? Decent (you) or “lower than animals” (Allah)?

By the way, have you ever heard of Pickthal? To humour you I submit some translations:
Yusuf Ali: How many towns have We destroyed (for their sins)? Our punishment took them on a sudden by night or while they slept for their afternoon rest.
Pickthal: How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them.
Khalifa: Many a community we annihilated; they incurred our retribution while they were asleep, or wide awake.
Mohammad Asad: And how many a [rebellious] community have We destroyed, with Our punishment coming upon it by night, or while they were resting at noontide!

So Hypo, feel better now? Notice anything? From these 4 translations and all others I checked, it seems that Allah and Muslims are bragging about attacking villages of non-Muslims by surprise and killing them. Now why would anybody use the words “raid” and “terror” in that context?

As to changing my ‘nickname’, the first thing I do everyday when I awake is to think of a new name to use. You are so clever.

So you refuted my arguments, did you? I must have missed that post. I pretty much try to quote or reference the Quran and hadith, in case you haven’t noticed, so please tell me exactly what passages are incorrect, distorted, invented, refuted. Hypo, you should understand that Islam’s own writings are a gold mine for any critic of Islam, followed closely by the behavior of Muslims. If you want to play the ‘old out of context’ or ‘bad translation’ game, I am good with that too.

Also, have you ever notice the inconsistencies in Quran translations and how they add words to make it nicer?

Camo,

Proof:

* He proclaimed that he was a Muslim, of the pro-IS variety:

* he swore allegiance to IS;

* he forced hostages to hold up an Islamic flag;

* he called himself a sheikh;

* he used the standard no-guilt excuse so beloved of terrorists and psychopaths, that the police made him do it;

* for all I know, he had 'there is no god but Allah' tattooed on one ball, and 'and Muhammad is his messenger' on the other;

* he used terror, indiscriminate taking of hostages in a random and easy place for taking hostages, random killing of defenceless hostages - standard tactics for terrorists.

That does it for me. What might do it for you ?

Evidence is there, it smacks you in the eye. Your prejudice would deny, come hell or high water, any evidence. So what's the point of engaging with you ?

McAdam,

Amazing logic ! So the acts of a terrorist are somehow the work of Nazis and racists ? Just a little psychotic :) Perhaps you should see a shrink, not that that would do much good.

Joe

Hi Joe,

Just popped in to this thread and saw your questions posed: "This raises questions: do Muslims, i.e. devout Muslims, have a concept of guilt ? Only of being victimised ? Do they think they can do no wrong, it's just the world picking on them ?" Yes.

This is a very important factor you raise - they have no concept of guilt. Nor do they have the Golden Rule of "Love Thy Neighbour". It's made me think more about the Catholic Guilt. They have a very different mentality to the West with its Christian roots. Good Samaritans in Islam - definitely not to Non Muslims.

BTW, I sent you a timeline of Muslim invasions in Europe - there are plenty of reasons for the Crusades. Posted on that thread of Valerie whatshername. I found it somewhere and can't vouch how accurate it is, but will do for now.

NC,

Sorry, looks like you are wrong about George Bernard Shaw.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/ads-for-islam-misquote-shaw-from-bogus-book/story-fn59niix-1226676192844?nk=7ba115166f01f0d18fde4f0376cfb897

"The advertisements quote Shaw proclaiming the prophet Mohammed was "the saviour of humanity" in a book he is supposed to have written entitled The Genuine Islam.

But International Shaw Society treasurer Richard F Dietrich said he had compiled a complete list of Shaw's works, which did not include the book.

"I think The Genuine Islam is bogus," he said. In his writings, Shaw described the religion in a 1933 letter to Rev Ensor Walters as "ferociously intolerant"."

"You spoke on Philosophy of Peace, but as a Muslim it would have been more appropriate if you had delivered a lecture on the Philosophy of War, for Islam doubtless was spread at the point of the sword," Shaw is quoted as having said"

[Deleted for abuse.]

The Camo,

"If I called myself the god of Australia would it make it so? [No]
If I covered myself in the southern cross and sang waltzing matilda while I took hostages does it make me a representative of Australia?[No} Does it make me an Aussie Terrorist?{No} Does it make all Australians kidnappers/murderers?"[No]

but then all Australians do not subscribe to a belief that their religion says that it is OK to murder in the name of their god, whereas Moslems do, not out loud but tacitly by being followers of Muhammad and by believing and proclaiming that the Koran is the immutable word of God.
Monis was a Moslem, he publicly proclaimed that he followed ISIS, what more do you want?

He was a Moslem terrorist.

[Deleted for abuse.]

Camo, you can ignore the facts and pretend all you like that Islam had nothing to do with it, but it just means you're wrong, simple as that. Just because you don't like reality, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's you who's an abject fcking retard for trying to pretend that reality doesn't exist. The fact that the guy was a sociopath doesn't mean Islam was not involved - so was Mohammed in case you haven't noticed.

"The fact that the guy was a sociopath doesn't mean Islam was not involved"

Yes. It actually does. That is the entire point.

Camo,

He acted in the name of Islam, whether Muslims like it or not: that was his rationale, his be-all and end-all. Yes, he was filth, yes he was a psychopath, anc yes he was using terror and claiming to act in the name of Islam.

As a kaffir, I can't say whether or not he actually WAS acting in the spirit of Islam, whether he had complete sanction to murder from the Koran - Muslims may know if this was so, if they know their Koran.

As for your earlier spew about Australians, I can't make out what you are getting at: who is saying they are the god of Australia ? Of course if you wrapped yourself in the flag, it doesn't make you representative of Australia. Neither did Moson 'represent' Islam when he ordered an Islamic flag to be put up in the window - but he certainly wished it to be known that he was Muslim, and that he supported IS, didn't he ? Otherwise, why did he bother ?

What he did has no bearing on other Muslims, unless they come out and support his vile actions. What he did, does not suggest that all Muslims are terrorists, or kidnappers or murderers, only those who carry out such acts, whether here or in Syria or Iraq. If so, then yes, they are vile people. If they were honest enough to come out in support of IS, then yes, they are vile people, who would support the machine-gunning and beheading of children, the rape and enslaving of women. How much worse do those mongrels have to get ? Set up giant mincing machines ? Gas ovens ? T

Totally uncivilized animals.

Joe

I like the article and what I say next is not a critique -The same way the Muslim community as a whole does not want to be judged by their extremist counterparts, I would ask that the western community as a whole particularly in Australia is not judged by the bigots.
It seems troubling that the author feels like they are being forced to pick sides (even though they said they were not going to it seemed that they did). I would hope to think we are all on the one side, Muslim Australians along with all other Australians and we can work together to stamp out bigotry on both sides. We are all here together and the only way to go forward not backward is to be good mates. It does seem religion was a factor in the choices the gunman made, although the group known as IS (agree bad name)has their own brand of religion.

Camo

According to your theory, the fact that Mohammed was a homicidal maniac who claimed God told him to do it, automatically excludes any question of Islam being relevant to anything he or his followers does?

All it means is that you're saying what you know is untrue.

DonMega
Ditto.

The bigots are those who are trying to pretend that the whole thing had nothing to do with the Muslim religion, and that Australians are all one big happy team, and that anyone pointing out that both these claims are untrue, are "bigots".

The word bigot actually has its origin in "By God". It refers to those who believe that their religion justifies them in intolerance. You've got it back-the-front.

You can't have it both ways. Muslims can't say on the one hand that they believe in Mohammed and the Koran, and then say on the other hand that they don't believe in killing and enslaving unbelievers, because that's what the Koran teaches, and Mohammed taught by example.

It's no use saying Muslims don't agree with their "extremist" co-religionists, as if that label solves the problem for you, because Mohammed happens to be the first among them.

It's no use saying most Muslims don't kill or enslave people, because all that means is that they're not doing what they believe in.

There's no way out of it by weasel words, which is all you, the Muslims, the politicians and the media have to offer.

According to your dopey theories, the fact that ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taliban, the Muslims decapitating Christians in South-East Asia in recent years, and this guy in the cafe, all claim motivation by Islam, is all some kind of strange coincidence, some kind of mystery, nothing to do with Mohammed and the Koran or the Muslim wrong.

You and Camo are wrong, simple as that. No-one can be as dumb as you're pretending to be. That's is just straight-out intellectual dishonesty on your part. There's no other explanation. It's you who are intolerant bigots.

"HATE THY NEIGHBOR"
Some friends are suggesting.
It is an unwise suggestion. As unwise as it would be to bring petrol cans to the house on fire.
There is too much violence in the world. Middle East is burning already.
Whose interest would be served to bring that fire home to Australia?
Australia is an island of peace and harmony...one of the most livable places....keep it that way.
Constant care and effort would be required to maintain that peace and harmony.
And the way forward is, with tolerance of diversity and LOVE FOR THE NEIGHBOR.

Loving thy neighbour is a great idea, and I'm all for it.

However
a) you got that idea from the Christian religion
b) other religions don't necessarily share it, and Islam definitely doesn't share it
c) reality doesn't cease to exist because you don't agree with it or like it
d) the Muslim religion definitely does preach killing and enslaving of non-believers, people who deny it are lying or ignorant, Mohammed practised it big time, the Koran teaches it, and the fact that Muslims throughout the world are currently involved in conspicuous killings of children, beheadings of people of other religions, and other gross abuses is NOT SOME KIND OF STRANGE COINCIDENCE.

We need to recognise and deal with truth. Trying to deal with a truth that you don't like, by pretending it's not true, is not just idiotic, it is morally culpable. Sensitivity towards others is fine and great, but it does NOT justify pretending what is untrue.

The appropriate thing to do is to call on Muslims to recognise that their belief system is abusive and fundamentally inappropriate to social harmony in a global society, praise them for not practising it, and call on them to re-think and renounce it, not to respect them for it or pretend that it doesn't exist or is somehow okay.

[Deleted for abuse.]

The fact you get emotional and abusive about it, doesn't mean that the facts of Islam don't exist.

" Which bit of islam?"

*Anyone* who embraces the faith of Islam embraces the teachings of Mohammed and the Koran, you fool. It is vastly idiotic, to use your phrase, to deny it.

Its vastly, astoundingly, obviously stupid to suggest that anyone embracing Islam does not embrace the killing, enslaving and rape of unbelievers that Mohammed and the Koran preach. The fact that you don't like people pointing out what Muslims believe in, doesn't mean they don't believe in it. If they don't believe in it, they should renounce Islam.

You can deny it exists all you like. All it means is that you're a lying idiot.

No doubt many thinking Muslims do in fact disagree with the teachings of their own religion, but are reluctant to openly renounce it because they fear being killed by their co-religionists.

Moron Camo,

" .... linking this guy to every other follower of islam is vastly idiotic."

Of course. Whoever said otherwise ? Straw man argument.

Do you think we are all idiots out here, or children ? That we fall for the dumbest of 'arguments' ?

This terrorist was an idiot, perhaps psychologically unbalanced, but a terrorist. Perhaps all terrorists are psychologically unbalanced, I don't know, or care really: if they are terrorists, i.e. commit terrorist acts, then they deserve what follows.

But to the extent that they declare allegiance to some fascist rubbish like IS, then they are declaring allegiance to a pre-civilized, primitive set of ideas - 'ideology' is perhaps too sophisticated a term to describe it - that may have been common a few thousand years ago, but has no place in the modern world.

And for those on the dumb-dumb-Left: every political position is, in a sense, in the 'middle' - there are political positions to the Right and Left of it. Your difficult task is to distinguish between the two - in other words, to every established political position (such as democracy, capitalism, equality before the law, liberalism, etc.) there is a reactionary response and a progressive response.

For Christ's sake, don't confuse the two.

Joe

While we're on the subject of how to respond to Islamo-fascism, I must commend the letmeridewithyou or whatever campaign: yes, let's keep our friends close and our potential enemies closer. I don't ascribe to that interpretation however.

Seriously, I really doubt that there has been any upsurge in vicious and vile attacks on defenceless Muslim women anywhere in Australia - that's an almost archetypical beat-up of fascist apologists, posing as Left do-gooders.

I take the bus into town most days of the week and I've not only NEVER seen any vile attacks on Muslim women, not even sideways looks, but I've not noticed any reservations on the part of Muslim women, they seem as relaxed and comfortable - to coin a phrase - as they ever were. People stand up for them on the bus, there are occasional smiles - which I hope there will be more of now - and I get the idea that any hypothetical attacks on Muslim women would be quickly stomped on, perhaps literally.

So please, let's bury this bullsh!t once and for all: the vast majority of Australians are happy and relaxed about riding on the buses with anybody. Perhaps it's the non-bus-riding Greens and pseudo-progressives (who haven't ridden on buses since their student days) who are trying to whip up a non-existent 'problem'.

Actually, I really love being on the bus: you see so many Australians besides affluent Anglos: students, pensioners, and always Australians from clearly many different origins. We are One, AND we are Many. May it always be that way: WE ARE ONE. A lady in a nikab engaged some of us fellow-passengers in a spirited conversation about nothing in particular, with the odd jokes, it was a great way to pass the time. Beautiful eyes ;) [Sorry dear, when you're beautiful, you can't hide it.]

I deplore all attempts to divide Australians on some trumped-up issue, even more so in a beat-up over some scum-terrorist murdering people in Sydney, my home-town.

Joe

I sure would answer the questions raised about Islam, as the answers to these over a thousand year old questions exist and have been amply given to the satisfaction of hundreds of millions of rational thinking human beings, only if I knew the genuineness of the person raising these questions again; on this occasion.
Two things need clarification first; real identity of the person to assess his/her suitability for this theological discussion and satisfaction that the person raising the questions is not peddling the material fed to him/her with ulterior motives? And second, is this a correct precedence that action of a confirmed mentally unstable person is to be taken as representative of the entire community and is it fair to put the entire community on trial for this reason?
A comment about the ulterior motive. I can be wrong here, and I hope I am, I just try to put two plus two and they don't add up. I am puzzled as to who in Australia would fuel this fire of hatred which sure can result in more hatred and unrest and possible harm, like the author cited harassment of a lady. Who, in his right mind, can think that intolerance and mutual suspicion is beneficial to peace, harmony and tranquility of Australian society? .Keep in mind the current example of Ferguson Missouri, USA.
Yes it is understandable that there are people who must portray Muslims as subhumans, deserving to be exterminated...to justify keeping them in cage of Gaza, in order to grab their land and bombing them at will ..as is the bombing done today.
Yes the commandment of loving thy neighbor is from the same God who revealed it to Jesus and before that to Moses and possibly to the Messengers before Moses. After all, it is one God of the whole mankind and of all creations. His message is the same for all.
He says Love Thy Neighbor. Any one now telling us to Hate Thy Neighbor for the reasons he/she feels he/sheknows better, is claiming to be wiser than his/her God.

Jardine,

Dealing with Muslims is frustrating. Fifty years ago in school I used to debate, but nothing is like talking about Islam with Muslims. Facts and logic don’t matter. Words mean nothing. Facts are fluid and standards are applied arbitrarily. A source is good when they use it but weak or unreliable when I use the same. The more I studied Islam, the more it became a matter of WTF, as they say.

My experience with Muslims is between the unbelievable and bizarre. It is incredible how much they will do to ignore what the Quran and hadith say. I have had Muslims who wouldn't read passages in the Quran aloud, because, I suppose, they didn't want to hear it from their own lips. When asked to explain a ‘difficult’ verse, it is just excuses.

The fact is that "good" Muslims are either ignorant or in denial as to the hate and violence that permeates their dogma. They don't even want to know. To them, Islam is what they say it is, what they want to believe it is, not what the Quran and hadith say or even what Muslims do. It is in their minds. The problem is therefore that good Muslims have no problem with the hate in the Quran or Mohammad’s violence. Guess what that means!

Reason and logic also fail. If asked why a supposedly good, all-knowing god would leave passages in his scriptures that some followers would use to justify the evil they do, including child marriage and murdering young victims of rape (for not having the 4 witnesses), you get a blank stare.

The bottom line is that, for Muslims, the only real sin is unbelief. Allah himself performs barbaric torture on unbelievers, not for murder, or for stealing, lies or rape, but because of unbelief. None of that silly “confess your sins, repent and sin no more” of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Islam has rituals and routines, but little morality.

Muslims cannot change and they cannot be honest. They make excuses and blame others. The future will not be nice. Blood will flow.

kactuz

your experiences ring true to a number of people I know who have had similar experiences. My experience has been similar. Muslims who are ignorant of the Koran are some of the nicest people I have come across. Even some involved in the people smuggling industry (sanctioned by Rudd and Gillard) are the lovliest guys (fishermen trying to make a better life for kids). On the other hand I have met and talked to some who hold to the beliefs of the Koran. They lie, treat women shockingly (that's being nice) and are serial welfare cheats.

McAdam, About your “Two things”, actually three:

1. suitability for theological discussion
I don’t have a degree in theology, but I have read the Quran (uffa!) and hadith and early histories. I am also very familiar with the Bible and the classics of the Western tradition. None of this is needed to discuss an ideology or the behavior of people.

2. probability of ulterior motives. That is for each person to know. The only things that matter are are issues and facts. If asked about motive, I would say that I am worried about our future and probable conflicts, and that I think one particular group is causing trouble. Take it or leave it.

3. making one person as representative of an entire community. That is wrong. Period. However, patterns, statistics and facts can indicate a problem and should cause one to ask questions. The idea that “it is wrong to stereotype” is foolish. Everybody stereotypes and very often stereotypes have an element of truth, but not always. The lone sheik is not indicative of all Muslims, but the fact that Muslims almost everywhere they dominate discriminate against and persecute non-Muslims is damning.

Facts are facts. If I say that Muslims accept the Quran as the perfect word of god and Mohammad as a messenger and a great noble example, those are true. If I say that the Quran is full of hate and violence and that Mohammad did many evil things, those too are true (if words mean anything and if moral standards are universal).

If you are against generalizations, then you would condemn the Quran. Are you aware of the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of verses that vilify and slander non-Muslims in the broadest terms? Is it OK for the Quran to generalize about entire communities but wrong for us to hold Muslims accountable for their actions and beliefs? Who knows, quien sabe, maybe those quranic verses and the actions of Mohammad explain the intolerance of Islamic societies, the endemic violence and the integration problems of Muslims immigrants. That is just a wild guess, of course.

McAdam,

Muslims, Jews and Christians do not worship the same God as their respective definitions differ.

The God of Christianity is a Trinity, the very idea of which is blasphemy to Jews and Muslims.

God, as such, did not bid us to love our neighbour, that is a teaching of Christ.

The reference to the quote from Sir George Bernard Shaw, I presented in my post of the 19th, is from ‘The Genuine Islam, Vol 1, No: 8, 1936’.

There are dozens of similar views on Muhammad from the learned men of conscience from the west and elsewhere. The views will show those still engaged with the vicious campaign of misinformation in this age that their statements, in the worlds of Thomas Carlyle (my post of the 18th), are “disgraceful to (themselves)” only.

Those who have carefully studied the life of Muhammad with an unbiased mind have only one response to him: An absolute respect. The fact shows up even in the secular take of rational minds like Karen Armstrong who is regarded as a current authority on history of religions. Her book “Muhammad” sits on the Amazon website with following introduction:

“Muhammad's story is more relevant than ever ……..Countering those who dismiss Islam as fanatical and violent, Armstrong offers a clear, accessible, and balanced portrait of the central figure of one of the world's great religions.”

Here is another view of an unbiased mind, Annie Besant (1847-1933), a British Socialist from page 4 of her book entitled “The Life and Teachings of Muhammad”.

“It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher.”

On the main subject of this discussion, I note with comfort a sensible advice in today’s post (by DonMega).

“I would hope to think we are all on the one side, Muslim Australians along with all other Australians and we can work together to stamp out bigotry on both sides.”

Yes, bigotry on both sides must be stamped out.

Continued

Continued from previous post……

The peripheral issues in the first post of today took up most of the space I wanted for the focus of my posts, hence the second post of the day.

This view about Muhammad is from Lamartine (1790-1869), a French writer and poet. The reference is from pages 276-77 of his book “Histoire de la Turquie, Pans 1854, Vol. 11”.

“If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modem history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislation, empires, peoples and dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then-inhabited world; and more than that he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and souls.... His forbearance in victory, his ambition which was entirely devoted to one idea and in no manner striving for an empire, his endless prayers, his mystic conversations with God, his death and his triumph after death-all these attest not to an imposture but to a firm conviction which gave him the power to restore a dogma. This dogma was twofold: the unity of God and the immateriality of God; the former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not; the one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the other starting an idea with the words. Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images; the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?”

So NC have you converted to Islam or were you borne a Muslim? If you truly believe that which you have posted then there is no greater person or prophet than Muhammad and you really have no excuse for not being a follower. If you are not a follower of Islam you must either be a hypocrite or just playing devil' advocate (no pun intended).

Whilst Lamartine's description of Muhammad is very flattering it does include a particular phrase that could hint at the problem many of us feel he created... "restorer of rational dogmas". The Quran may be a lot of things but rational is a big stretch.

Is the reason you are spending so much time defending the Prophet because you cannot defend the questionable passages in the Quran? Muslims tell us the Quran is pure and comes directly from of Muhammad's teachings because it is in the original language he spoke (actually that's debateable but you can't tell a Muslim that and survive); Muslims believe the verses have not been polluted or interpreted. So it follows that the more violent and questionable verses are indeed Muhammad's words. Why is it these defender's of Muhammad haven't addressed the violence in his teaching/Quran?

Can you please provide us with your understanding on any of the passages from the Quran that Kactus shared with us. It's my understanding the verses in the Quran are not there for the followers to cherry-pick, the whole Quran is the message, right?

An intelligent and insightful article, this is the sort of writing and opinion that should be in the papers to balance the fear mongering that has become the norm - disappointing to see comments taking personal shots at the author instead making a reasoned debate about this though am I wrong to have expected better? If we scratch under the surface of the stories that the media feed we see unfounded claims of beheading plots in sydney to justify police raids that the media were prearranged to 'accompany' them on, a Young man shot at point blank range and no one questions it... It seems that claims of 'terror' all over the front page and the media frenzy happens only when people involved are Muslim.The question has to be why..

NC,

Truly amazing that so many great minds can be so wrong, but then they didn't have the benefit of 9/11 or of the school children murdered in Pakistan only a few days ago

Wonder what they would have thought about Muslims forceably closing girls schools?.

MikMik asks "It seems that claims of 'terror' all over the front page and the media frenzy happens only when people involved are Muslim. The question has to be why"

Could it be because 99.9% of the terrorists and terrorism related violence in the world is committed by Muslims?

Can you provide us with even one example in Australia over the past five years where a person held hostages, threatened violence, made political demands, whilst displaying an Islamic flag that involves a person that isn't a Muslim?

Why do you pretend the Sydney siege wasn't a terrorist act? How does that improve your life? The perpetrator certainly believed he was demonstrating on behalf of Islam.

ConservativeHippie,

Yeah, but how do you know he wasn't a atheist pretending to be a Muslim ? Year after year ? Calling himself a sheikh but actually being a atheist ? Switching from Shia to Sunni but really being a atheist ?

That just shows what utter b@stards atheists are. Yeah.

And how do we know that the murder of 130 children in Pakistan, and the kidnapping this week of hundreds of children and murder of forty-odd people in Nigeria, and bombings in Afghanistan, wasn't the work of atheists ?

See what complete b@stards atheists are ?!

And they pick on fascist Muslims ! Always ! Like we're the only ones ! B@stards !

Joe

"The future will not be nice. Blood will flow." Says a critic of Islam. In fact all hate in this thread...please do go through it again..comes from critics of Islam and then they insist Islam and Muslims are hateful. That is bigotry

Any one who says there is more violence in Quran than Bible, Old Testament is ignorant or is guilty of bigotry.

Then it is said "making one person as representative of an entire community. That is wrong. Period" and in the same breath a barrage of slurs is unleashed on Islam and Muslims, on account of the same incident; that is bigotry.

Is it the the dilemma of human psychology, at play here ; what you can't forgive in others, in fact are your own weaknesses, get rid of them.

Thank you Is Mise for pointing out following:-

"Muslims, Jews and Christians do not worship the same God as their respective definitions differ.
The God of Christianity is a Trinity, the very idea of which is blasphemy to Jews and Muslims.
God, as such, did not bid us to love our neighbour, that is a teaching of Christ."

Let me share with you my humble understanding on the subject. "My understanding" is all that I can share, for only a fool can claim encompassing God in totality.

Yes, the respective definitions of Muslims, Jews and Christianity differ. That does not make different gods for them but understanding of the same God differently. Rumi has illustrated the mutual squabbles on this subject by equating it with men arguing about the shape of the elephant, based on their own respective experience of touching a different part of the same elephant in the dark and then after having come out in the open, insisting on their respective definitions of shape of elephant.
Our dogmas and definitions change with time. Jews at one point in their history were polytheist. That did not not mean that gods had become many. God remained one, it is that they thought differently, at that time. Similarly Christianity has changed its stand on universe being geo- centric and recently on evolution. Not that those facts have now changed, it is that their understanding by Christianity has.

In my humble understanding it is the Same One God the Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in. It is just that their understanding may differ.

About the neighbor. Good neighborly relations, along with the integrity of family unit are at the heart of any orderly social life. Ninth and tenth commandments of Jews deal with being good to neighbors. So, in my understanding good neighborliness is emphasized in all three religions.

May God forgive me, if I have erred in narrating the understanding that I think I have done truthfully and in all sincerity.

Thanks for reading this post

Dear rational people,

No matter which side of the fence you sit on, we can all agree this man was deranged.

If a deranged man says he is Jesus, the rational thing would be to say, "no you are not Jesus".

So if a deranged man says what I am doing is Islamic, wouldn't the rational thing to say be, "no this is not Islamic".

To believe a deranged man's claims isn't rationality it's insanity.

So which side of the fence do you sit on?

Claiming to be a person you are not is different to claiming you hold an ideology. Deranged or not, people can hold ideologies.

Yes Kactuz, well said:

<<The fact is that "good" Muslims are either ignorant or in denial as to the hate and violence that permeates their dogma. They don't even want to know. To them, Islam is what they say it is, what they want to believe it is, not what the Quran and hadith say>>

You nailed it.

The first reference on Muhammad in today’s post is from W Montgomery Watt (1909-2006), a Scottish historian and a Professor at the University of Edinburgh. Watt's comprehensive biography of Muhammad namely “Muhammad at Mecca (1953)” and “Muhammad at Medina (1956), is considered to be the classic in the field.

While bringing this extra-ordinary life to the eyes of the westerners, among many aspects, he did touch on the ones being pointed out in this discussion. His observations from a close view of history:
1. “To propose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves”; and
2. “None of the great figures in history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad”.

Here is what he says in “Mohammad at Mecca”, Oxford, 1953, p 52:

“His readiness to undergo persecution for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement all argue his fundamental integrity To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad.”

Encyclopedia Britannica, in its early versions (1768), addressed the-then prevalent misinformation:

“(Muhammad was) the most successful of all religious personalities of the world…… a mass of detail in early sources show that he was an honest and upright man who had gained the respect and loyalty of others who were like-wise honest and upright men”

Michael H. Hart, while ranking Muhammad at the top of the world’s most influential persons in his book “The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History” (1978), had to address the misinformation under discussion here.

“My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level.”

NC,

Appeals to 'authority' don't count for much - anybody could drag bits and pieces out of the written corpus to justify any dictator.

The facts are that Muhammad was a rapist (he raped Aishya at nine years old), he commanded people to be killed brutally who annoyed him, he launched unprovoked wars whenever he thought he could win. In short, he was uncivilized trash, not much different from people like Hitler or Saddam or Gaddafi.

If he existed at all, of course :) Perhaps he was mythical, a vehicle for fable and parable, like Christ, to personify the mores and doings of the illiterate desert people of those days. After all, the Koran wasn't written down for a hundred years after his death, there were competing versions of it floating around, and perhaps still are.

Back to topic: if someone declares that they are acting in the name of an ideology and can cite evidence for that from their favourite book, as IS can and does, then it is possible that their thuggery and barbarity actually does have the sanction of their book. What they assert, they can demonstrate. So it would have to be up to other Muslims to cite other bits and pieces for THEIR point of view, and to show that IS are in reality just a bunch of uncivilized thugs.

If they could also cite bits and pieces, then it would become clear that there are major differences and inconsistencies in the Koran: Pre- and Post-Medina versions of Islam are therefore very different, with the later verses regressing to a backward brutality befitting desert tribes, but extending that reactionary outlook to the entire world, as they knew it. And learning nothing from anybody else in the process and currently trapping a billion and a half people in pig-ignorance.

Joe

NC you must be the perfect cherry picker, or do you simply prefer to select the writings of one person to use to form your opinion for you? In passing, have you ever formed your own opinion on something, or do you simply prefer second hand?

You say "Michael H. Hart, while ranking Muhammad at the top of the world’s most influential persons in his book “The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History” (1978), had to address the misinformation under discussion here".

It is a no brainer to see Muhammad is an influential person on the history, in the same way as Genghis Khan, Hitler, Stalin, or Mao Zedong were influential.

Only an academic would then tell us that these people earned our respect, & should be admired or revered by people in general.

I believe it is perfectly fair to he is entitled to be cursed by all, for the fact that his infamy did not die with him.

Come on NC, declare your affiliation with Islam.

And as I've asked you previously.... what do you have to say about the violent passages in the Koran that are Muhammad's message? If those passages are not Muhammad's message then all of Islam is a sham.

McAdam,

Learn to read, I said that one incident does not an archetype make, but many make a pattern. You think there is no pattern of Islamic violence and intolerance in our world?

What would happen to me and many of us ‘critics of Islam’ here (Jadine, Runner, Lego, Loudmouth, Hippie, Constance, Hasbeen, etc..) if we were in a public square in an Islamic society, saying what we have written here? Stupid question, see link:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2828845/Relatives-Christian-couple-beaten-Pakistani-mob-burned-death-say-d-legs-broken-stop-fleeing-wife-wrapped-cotton-d-burn-faster.html#ixzz3MTbvzEfN

So 1500 people, Muslims, urged on by Imams, drag a couple into an oven, for a RUMOUR of blasphemy. I guess that is the “neighborliness” emphasized by Islam and expressed so well in Quran 48:29.

Or how about this: You must be very proud, McAdam, defending the weak and powerless against the tyrants that seek impose their hate on those wonderful, kind, blameless Muslims, and who, oh horrors, accuse them of following their scriptures and the example of their prophet.

In fact you may have noticed that not only are Islamic societies the most benevolent, tolerant and prosperous in the World, but also known for their peacefulness and love of reason. In fact it isn’t for nothing that millions of Westerners, Africans and Asians have left their countries and rushed to Islamic paradises, even taking small boats across perilous seas, to live in Islamic societies where the ideals of mercy and liberty flourish under the teachings of Islam. This benevolence, tolerance and freedom is all due, of course, to the strict adhesion to the tenets of Islam and the example of its prophet. Right?

See, when you throw out facts and logic, everything is easy. Never think, never ask questions!

Oh, BTW, how can the god of Jews, Christians and Muslims be the same when the Quran says Mary is part of the trinity (one of three, Quran5:116) that Christians worship? Obviously Allah and Mohammad know more about Christian doctrine than even Christians. I look forward to the Pope apologizing and replacing the Holy Spirit with Mary in all liturgies.

Yes, my dear Roman, I nailed it, but it is a very big nail.

theHypocrisy,

What evidence is there that Monis was deranged?
His beheavior seemed sane enough if taken in the context that he was following the precepts for dealing with infidels as laid down by Muhammad

"So if a deranged man says what I am doing is Islamic, wouldn't the rational thing to say be, "no this is not Islamic".

No it wouldn't, one would need to analyze what he was doing and then compare what he was doing to Islamic teachings and if he were a Muslim then that fact would need to be taken into account also.

"To believe a deranged man's claims isn't rationality it's insanity."

I'm sure that you don't really mean that, the deranged can be very rational and, moreover, appear to be quite normal.

"So which side of the fence do you sit on?"

The side that says that Islam is a political movement that has no place in a democracy.

It has been claimed that:
"Quran says Mary is part of the trinity (one of three, Quran5:116)"

The actual translation of 5: 116 is as follows:-

116. And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah ? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden ? (Translation by Pickthal)

The loose expression that God of Jews Christians and Muslims is different, can mislead the reader that the followers of these religions believe in existence of more than one God....that would negate the monotheism for which these religions are known. In fact the followers of these three religions worship the same one God, as there is none other than that there is. The difference is in perception of the same God. And difference in perception arises from the very nature of God.
God, as a concept is beyond human faculties. Any explicit explanation will raise the difficulties being experienced. Rumii's illustration that I mentioned earlier appears spot on.
This is how it appears to me, but if some one feels differently, it is his/ her prerogative.

It has been implied that violence is exclusive to Muslims. Please consider example of USA as reported by CNN -The list of the 25 deadliest single day mass shootings in U.S. history from 1949 . 32 killed - April 16, 2007 - Blacksburg, Virginia. 27 killed - December 14, 2012 Newtown, Connecticut. 20 children, ages 6 and 7, and six adults, 23 killed - October 16, 1991 - In Killeen, Texas, 21 killed - July 18, 1984 - In San Ysidro, California,18 killed - August 1, 1966 - In Austin, Texas, wounded at least 30, 14 killed - August 20, 1986 - Edmond, Oklahoma,13 killed - November 5, 2009 - Fort Hood, Tx.13 killed - April 3, 2009 - In Binghamton, New York, 13 killed - April 20, 1999 - Littleton, Colorado. 13 killed - September 25, 1982 - In Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, 13 killed - September 5, 1949 - In Camden, New Jersey, 12 killed - September 16, 2013 - Washington Navy Yard 12 killed - July 20, 2012 - Twelve people akilled and 58 wounded at Aurora, Colorado.12 killed - July 29, 1999 - In Atlanta, 10 killed - March 10, 2009 - In Alabama,9 killed - March 21, 2005 - Red Lake High School, Minnesota. 9 killed - June 18, 1990 - In Jacksonville, Florida, 8 killed - October 12, 2011 - Seal Beach, California. 8 killed - August 3, 2010 - Manchester, Connecticut 8 killed - January 19, 2010 - Christopher Speight, 8 killed - March 29, 2009 - In Carthage, North Carolina8 killed - December 5, 2007 - In Omaha, Nebraska, 8 killed - July 1, 1993 - In San Francisco, 8 killed - September 14, 1989 - In Louisville, Kentucky8 killed - August 20, 1982 - In Miami,
Note: These are incidents of shooting only. Incidents of other form of violence are not included here.
Similar statistics for other countries can be referred to.
Clearly, it is false to claim that violence is exclusive to Muslims. Saying so, at this juncture to fan inter communal rift, is injurious for the peaceful Australian society

@McAdam, Sunday, 21 December 2014 2:48:12 PM

That is the well-worn fallacy of faulty comparison.

Your previous post was suss too. This one,
McAdam, Sunday, 21 December 2014 2:25:18 PM

If you cannot lie straight in bed why should anyone bother to entertain anything you have written? The opposite becomes the case, readers suspect you are only interested in deceiving them and you are up to no good.

McAdam where do come off saying "It has been implied that violence is exclusive to Muslims"? Please provide one quote from anyone in this thread that supports this ridiculous statement.

No one has ever said that, insinuated that or even mistakenly posted something that implied that. Are you stupid or just trying to deflect the conversation away from the truths you don't want to accept?

McAdam,

That's called a 'straw man' or 'Aunt Sally' argument: nobody has said that violence is exclusive to Muslims, so you are putting up an easy target, only to easily knock it down. Anybody can do that, it really is quite childish.

Burt where Muslims have been involved in violence, then yes, they have been involved in violence. If they have committed violent and vile acts in the name of Allah, then they have committed violent and vile acts in the name of Allah. Whether Allah would approve is up to Muslims as a whole to work out.

But everybody else is entitled to say that yes, they were violent and vile acts, and they seem to have been carried out in the name of Allah.

Were the acts of Monis carried out in the name of Allah ? Did he put an Islamic flag up in the window ? Did he make his motives clear ? Yes, he did.

Did those Pakistani Taliban not only shoot Malala in the face, intending to kill her, and doing it in the name of Allah ? Yes they did.

Did they murder 130 children in the name of Allah ? Yes, they did.

Did Boko Haram, this week, murder fifty-odd people and kidnap hundreds of women and children, in the name of Allah ? Yes, they did.

Has anybody killed anybody this week in the name of Christ, or Buddha ? I don't think so.

Cop it.

Joe

MacAdam,

"The loose expression that God of Jews Christians and Muslims is different, can mislead the reader that the followers of these religions believe in existence of more than one God....that would negate the monotheism for which these religions are known. In fact the followers of these three religions worship the same one God, as there is none other than that there is. The difference is in perception of the same God. And difference in perception arises from the very nature of God."

As I pointed out earlier the God of the Christians is a Trinity, three persons in one God. This is not a single God as is the God of the Muslims and of the Jews.
To Christians He is God the Father and He has a Son, the Christ (who is also God) and the third person is the Holy Spirit (who is also God).
So if the Christian God (3 in one) is not different to the other Gods then I'll eat my RM Williams.

Jesus Christ, NC, are you seriously claiming that Mohammad was a nice bloke?

Yep, Mohammad did undergo persecution for his beliefs, so did Hitler. Der Fuhrer got banged up in prison for his beliefs, does that make Hitler a virtuous person? Ivan Milat honestly believes he can kill people for fun, I suppose you could say that jailing him was a form of "persecution".

Mohammad was a warlord who conducted 58 successful military campaigns against Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, pagans, Buddhists and Hindus. He was successful because he had the bright idea of telling his warriors that they would go to heaven and screw 72 virgins forever if they died in battle for him. It worked a treat.

Once in power, he beheaded anybody who crossed him, just like ISIL. He had women stoned to death. He invented a religion where women were chattels like a sword or a camel. He instructed his followers to murder non believers in the most cruel ways, take their land and possessions, and to take their females as sex slaves. His "religion" is very similar to the Indian "Thugee" religion (from where we get the word "thug" from.) He "married" a six year old girl and consummated the marriage when she was 11 years old.

The strife prone failed religion that he left behind is the primary reason why Muslims are becoming the most hated people on planet Earth. It is a religion which has failed it's people socially and economically, and it seeks to blame everybody else for it's failure. It's adherents will not objectively examine it's beliefs and suggest it must reform itself, because it is a religion which orders the murder of those who dare suggest reformation.

Mohammad was a psychopathic, murderous, misogynistic paedophile who, like so many Muslim leaders, robbed, raped and murdered his way to the top. And you have the absolute effrontery to come on OLO and claim that he was a virtuous man?

Even your own supporters must be looking askance at you for that one. Thank you for helping out your opponents.

HATE against Muslims is being spread in this forum. Please see following . quotes extracted from many:-
" why Australians should not be calling on Muslims to *re-think* their belief system.
I call on Junaid Cheena and his wife to publicly renounce Islam."
"these people are our enemies, and we forbid the importation of any more of them into our once peaceful societies."
"If we can condemn Nazis as a group, than why is it we can not do the same for Muslims?"
"Islam is a dangerous religion who's declared intention is to take over the world"
"Those who embrace Islam embrace the teachings of a mass murdering thieving slaving rapist"
"99.9% of the terrorists and terrorism related violence in the world is committed by Muslims"

HATE destroys. And it's first victim is the beholder; it destroys his/her ability to stay rational and impartial. Example of irrational thinking is the quoting of incidents manifestly in name of Islam, and then concluding that all Muslims...should be condemned. It is said, Malala was shot and 132 school children were massacred in Pakistan and the recommendation implied is that all two hundred million of Pakistanis be condemned, even though, they have risen up as a nation as a whole against these criminals and are finishing them through national effort of their armed forces, law enforcement and civil society.
If we were to condemn entire communities and countries for the crimes of a few deranged zealots, who will be left un condemned in this world?

Finally, what is the point that we set out to discuss? An evil act by the criminal must be condemned .......but evil must be suppressed and not spread.

Please remember HATE is harmful;........ to you.

Mr. McAdam

Question: Why, instead of quoting modern writers on Mohammad, why don’t you quote Mohammad himself. Certainly there must be a few verses somewhere that preach tolerance and love? I mean if you look hard and ignore the hundreds and thousands of verses in the Quran and hadith, you will find a few that seem to proclaim brotherhood and peace. After all, Muslims everywhere use those few verses to show that Islam is really a peaceful enterprise.

Maybe there is a “Sermon” on the Camel”, similar to the Sermon of the Mount, but superior, of course. I am sure there was such discourse, and if it only had been recorded, it would have had verses like “I will cast love into the hearts of the enemy”, “The believers are kind to each other and even kinder to the unfaithful”, and “infidels are wonderful people, higher than animals” or something like that.

Actually, there was a “Battle of the Camel” in which Aisha watched Muslims slaughter each other by the thousands soon after your prophet’s death.

Oh by the way, the “ill ride with you” campaign was based upon a phoney, made up event.
(“Confession time. In my Facebook status, I editorialised. She wasn’t sitting next to me. She was a bit away, towards the other end of the carriage…. She might not even be Muslim or she could have just been warm!”)
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/how-illridewithyou-began-with-rachael-jacobs-experience-on-a-brisbane-train-20141216-128205.html

So the whole episode was imagined to make Muslims seem to be victims of hate and racism was made up, and Australians to be evil, violent racists, and this even before the real victims were buried.

Words fail me.

To HATE-BRIGDE:-

You want me to renounce my religion.

What should I become, instead; I ask you.
Don't say Atheist, because if you did, I would know you were not being honest, atheist are against religion, you are against Islam.

Please propose your preferred religion and tell me how is it relatively more rational and less violent.

Caveat :-
Let me remind you of the Commandment of God, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."

God and His messengers deserve to be revered. Those who believe in them should revere. And those who do not believe in them should be mindful that they do not hurt the religious sentiments of those who believe
An honorable person would be mindful of this fact.

Note well this from McAdam:

<<God and His messengers deserve to be revered. Those who believe in them should revere. And those who do not believe in them should be mindful that they do not hurt the religious sentiments of those who believe>>

Not too far removed from what some of his fellow faithful have been saying:

http://tinyurl.com/n2qt7a5

From McAdam's last post:

To HATE-BRIGDE:-

You want me to renounce my religion.

And there it is - the truth and reason for the defence of Muhammad finally came out.

McAdam no one has asked you to renounce your religion but if some of the comments have made you start to question it, that's a good thing. Anything we believe in has to be able to stand up to scrutiny.

McAdam,

You're right: "HATE destroys. And it's first victim is the beholder; it destroys his/her ability to stay rational and impartial."

So on a spectrum from 'Love' to 'Hate', where would you put the killing of 130 children ?

But then you deliberately twist any rational commentary:

"Example of irrational thinking is the quoting of incidents manifestly in name of Islam, and then concluding that all Muslims...should be condemned."

Who ever has said or written that ? I certainly don't believe that to be true. There must be millions upon millions of Muslims who would never hurt anybody. Do I have to repeat that before you will drop your stupid and dishonest interpretation ?

Who ever has said or written that all crimes committed by Muslims can be attributed to ball Muslims ? I certainly don't believe that to be true. There must be millions upon millions of Muslims who would never hurt anybody.

"It is said, Malala was shot and 132 school children were massacred in Pakistan and the recommendation implied is that all two hundred million of Pakistanis be condemned ... "

Is that how your mind works ? If you were not Muslim, would you condemn all Muslims for the acts of a few ? As an atheist, I wouldn't. But if and when people commit crimes in the name of a god, such as the attempted murders in France in the last couple of days, then we must call it as it is - an attempted crime in the name of Allah.

If crimes are committed here in Australia, or in Pakistan, or in Nigeria, or in Syria, or in Yemen, or in India (the Mumbai killings), and those crimes were committed in the name of Allah, then what else is anyone to think than that they were committed in the name of Allah ? What Allah thinks off it all, I wouldn't comment, that's for Muslims to do, the millions upon millions of Muslims who would never dream of committing such vile acts in the name of their god.

Joe

K. S. Ramakrishna Rao, a non-Muslim, in his book entitled “Muhammad: The Prophet of Islam” (1989) observes that presenting truth in this day and age is not a challenge:

“because we are not generally fed now on that (distorted) kind of history and much time need not be spent on pointing out our misrepresentations of Islam. The theory of Islam and sword, for instance, is not heard now in any quarter worth the name. The principle of Islam that “there is no compulsion in religion” is well known.”

The message for those still engaged in spreading misinformation about Muhammad is that TRUTH IS OUT.

The following (readily available) are few of the long list of references which attest this TRUTH.

1. Encyclopedia Britannica
2. Thomas Carlyle
3. Sir George Bernard Shaw
4. Karen Armstrong
5. W Montgomery Watt
6. Lamartine
7. Mahatma Gandhi
8. Edward Gibbon
9. Simon Ocklay
10. Bosworth Smith
11. Annie Besant
12. Michael H. Hart
13. Edward Montet
14. Dr. William Draper
15. Arthur Glyn Leonard
16. Philip K. Hitti
17. Washington Irving
18. James Michener
19. K. S. Ramakrishna Rao
20. Professor Jules Masserman

Muhammad has lived in full blaze of history:

• More people have written about him than about any other individual in the human history;
• Microscopic analyses of all aspects of his life have resulted in immense respect of him by the scholars, historians and institutions.

As a humble student of this great life, I can address misunderstandings about him, but the query has to be from a rational mind open to facts.

Unfortunately, some of the posts (language included) of the peddlers of misinformation here leave no ambiguity about their mission of whipping hatred ONLY.

Do I expect anything from them which is remotely rational: NO!
Do I produce these quotes for their consumption: of course NOT; or for their response: NOT at all.

These are the primary search tools for rational minds who want to discover truth for themselves, which is quite easy about Muhammad in this day and age, as observed by Mr Rao, above.

Continued ….

Continued from the last post

Today’s quotes on Muhammad:

Bosworth Smith (1784-1884) – American Protestant Episcopal bishop and writer in his book entitled “Mohammad and Mohammadanism”, London (1874), writes:

“He was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without Pope's pretensions, Caesar without the legions of Caesar: without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue. If ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by the right divine, it was Mohammad, for he had all the power without its instruments and without its supports.

Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)- hardly needs an introduction, in a weekly paper entitled “Young India”, writes

“I wanted to know the best of one who holds today’s undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind .. I became more that convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his mission…

Professor Jules Masserman (1905-1994) –Professor at the University of Chicago in Time Magazine (15 July 1974) in an article entitles “Who were History’s Great Leaders”, writes

"People like Pasteur and Salk are leaders in the first sense. People like Gandhi and Confucius, on one hand, and Alexander, Caesar and Hitler on the other, are leaders in the second and perhaps the third sense. Jesus and Buddha belong in the third category alone. Perhaps the greatest leader of all times was Mohammed, who combined all three functions. To a lesser degree, Moses did the same."

@ NC

<<Who cherry picked a quote from Gandhi to try and show that Gandhi thought that Islam was the best thing since sliced naan>>

Gandhi was probably being diplomatic --trying to hold the disparate parties together--THE COLD HARD UNDIPLOMATIC TRUTH IS TENS-OF-MILLIONS OF HINDUS AND BUDDHISTS WERE MASSACRED IN AN ATTEMPT TO CONVERT THE SUBCONTINENT TO THE RELIGION OF PEACE.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Quotations_on_Islam_from_Notable_Non-Muslims

Adolf Hitler quote:

"You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion [Islam] too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

"Winston Churchill warned Neville Chamberlain that Nazism was hell bent on world conquest and that Hitler's peace posturing was a thin charade. But Neville Chamberlain would not listen and Hitler laid waste to countless lives and damn near took over the world."

Winston Churchill quote on Islam:

The River War: An Historical Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan (1899), by Winston Churchill, concerning his experiences as a British Army officer, during the Mahdist War (1881–99) in the Sudan.

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die: but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.

Cont.....

...Cont

...Churchill quote:

It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Quotations_on_Islam_from_Notable_Non-Muslims

“Muhammad ibn Zakariy&#257; R&#257;z&#299; (865 – 925 AD) was a Persian physician, alchemist, chemist, philosopher, and scholar.

If the people of this religion [Islam] are asked about the proof for the soundness of their religion, they flare up, get angry and spill the blood of whoever confronts them with this question. They forbid rational speculation, and strive to kill their adversaries. This is why truth became thoroughly silenced and concealed.””

Wole Soyinka[edit]
"Akinwande Oluwole "Wole" Soyinka (born July 13, 1934) is a Nigerian writer, poet and playwright. In 1986, he became the first African to be awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. In 1994, he was designated UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador for the promotion of African culture, human rights, freedom of expression, media and communication.

“England is a cesspit. England is the breeding ground of fundamentalist Muslims. Its social logic is to allow all religions to preach openly. But this is illogic, because none of the other religions preach apocalyptic violence. And yet England allows it. Remember, that country was the breeding ground for communism, too. Karl Marx did all his work in libraries there.
. . .

We should assemble all those who are pure and cannot abide other faiths, put them all in rockets, and fire them into space.
. . .
A virus has attacked the world of sense and sensibility, and it has spread to Nigeria.
. .
The assumption of power over life and death then passed to every single inconsequential Muslim in the world-as if someone had given them a new stature...Al Qaeda is the descendent of this phenomenon. The proselytization of Islam became vigorous after this. People went to Saudi Arabia. Madrassas were established everywhere.”

Muslim dad wants one of Abbott's daughter's to die&#8207;

http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/you-let-my-girl-fly-off-to-die-jihadi-amira-karroums-father-blames-australian-government-for-daughters-death/story-fnii5s3x-1227154629432

LEGO,

That’s interesting about the “Thuggies”. It reminds me of the origins of the gypsies in Europe who have Indian origins. Indians fled to Europe because of Muslim invasions in India.

Aisha was 9years old, not 11.

The Christian concept of GUILT is of high importance as it does not exist in Islam.

HATE BRIGADE, You wrote:-
"Quran says Mary is part of the trinity (one of three, Quran5:116)"

Quran does not say so; what you wrote is a lie.

You quoted translation of the verse,from Quran, which is wrong again.
I posted the actual translation of the verse, you quoted.
And did not see a confession of mistake or apology for a lie.
Honorable behavior should have resulted in one of the two.

So much for the authenticity and credibility of your scholarly discourses on Quran and Hadith.

Or is it that I should brace for an other barrage of abusive language now, for what you have shown so far is, that only things you have, in addition to Hatred, is Lies and Abusive Language.

McAdam,

Check out 5: 116:

"5:116 And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah ? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden ?"

So Allah, Jesus and Mary were considered by whoever wrote that bit of the Koran to all be gods ? Three gods ? Well, two and a goddess, with Allah being a sort of senior god. Of course, we've only got Allah's word for all this, or rather Muhammad's word of what Allah said, or rather somebody else's version of what Muhammad said Allah said.

It's interesting that Jesus, presumably a Christian, uses the term 'Allah', for his god. Perhaps the authorities should allow non-Muslims in Malaysia to use that term too ? After all, if it's good enough for Jesus .....

Constance,

Yes, it seems a stereotypical Muslim has a very strong sense of shame and blame, and hurt, but not much of a sense of guilt, of having ever done anything wrong or hurtful to others. That article:

http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/you-let-my-girl-fly-off-to-die-jihadi-amira-karroums-father-blames-australian-government-for-daughters-death/story-fnii5s3x-1227154629432

is a beautiful example of that, and also of the low level of morality, i.e. sense of good and bad, rightandwrong - that someone would want somebody else, indiscriminately, it really wouldn't matter who, to suffer as much as a relative or friend has suffered.

No, McAdam, that attitude is barbaric: innocent people shouldn't suffer, and most certainly more innocent people shouldn't have to suffer because one innocent person - really this girl, going off to fight for IS, is innocent ?! Let's just assume that, anyway - may suffer. Or more likely, one innocent person must suffer because the parents of this stupid girl will suffer if she gets herself killed. Do you understand how backward, how barbaric, that logic is ?

Joe

Are NC and McAdam the same person? They certainly think alike and dodge the pointed questions the same; but NC seems a little brighter.

For the umpteenth time - NC and/or McAdam will you please explain how the Koran ended up with so many references to hate and justification for killing off the non-believers if Muhammad was such a peaceful prophet.

Every other religion and philosophy offers the opportunity to evolve with the times except Islam. Why is it that it's impossible to question or modify any aspect of the Islamic dogma.

Asking these simple questions is not a sign I hate Islam; I am not a Muslim hater but I do worry what the world will become if at some point in time the Muslims rule given the state of the countries they currently rule. Is that a fair consideration?

@ Conservative Hippy

<<Are NC and McAdam the same person? >>
You will find that whenever Junaid Cheema writes an article NC and McAdam will sudden appear on the scene as part of his support crew.

HATE BRIGADE,
The stick of "terrorism" with which you have beating Islam and Muslims with, is fabricated; with lies.
Please see and hear the 67th U.S. Secretary of State confess. Here is part of transcript::
"the people we are fighting today..we funded.
.lets go recruit these mujaheddin ..lets get some, come from Saudi Arabia and other places..importing their Wahabi Brand of Islam.
Lets be careful what we sow, because we will harvest.
...So we then left Pakistan, we said OK fine, you deal with the stingers that we have left all over your country, you deal with the mines..."http://youtu.be/LNB4jtFrg1E

So, the HATERS of your victims, the bullet that pierced the skull of Malala Yousafzai, or even the bullets and bombs that slaughtered 130 School children, and explosives which continue to kill innocent civilians in Afghanistan, could have been funded by you.
Any Guilt?

Was this the last Frankenstein that the west created? Is the factory closed for good? or is it still churning out new models of the monster? We will never know...or may be another Secretary of State makes similar confession......decades later.

So, the HATERS, have you any guilt for murder of millions for the WMDs which never existed? Guilt for plundering and ruining a country and the whole region?

So, HATERS, does your conscious prick for the crimes against humanity, committed in Guantanamo, the U.S. Congressional Committee has unearthed now and the brutalities committed in Abu-Ghareeb and elsewhere that surpass the barbarianism of all times, that some other committee may unearth later?
Any shame, on the holocaust unleashed on the people already subjected to apartheid in Gaza and Palestine?

You have displayed so far, the ability to look a fact right in the eye and then deny it exists. You are so shameless that you continue to insist that your interpretation is in fact translation of Quran.

I am done pleading with you for good neighborliness, for you are the incorrigible lot
If you are happy basking in the cesspool of your lies, slurs, and hatred, wish you good luck there

(Revised for Typos)

HATE BRIGADE,
The stick of "terrorism" with which you have been beating Islam and Muslims, is fabricated; with lies.
Please see and hear the 67th U.S. Secretary of State confess. Here is part of the transcript::
"The people we are fighting today..we funded.
.lets go recruit these mujaheddin ..lets get some, come from Saudi Arabia and other places..importing their Wahabi Brand of Islam.
Lets be careful what we sow, because we will harvest.
...So we then left Pakistan, we said OK fine, you deal with the stingers that we have left all over your country, you deal with the mines..." http://youtu.be/LNB4jtFrg1E

So, the HATERS of your victims, the bullet that pierced the skull of Malala Yousafzai, or even the bullets and bombs that slaughtered 130 School children, could have been funded by you.
Any Guilt?

Was this the last Frankenstein that the west created? Is the factory closed for good? or is it still churning out news monsters? We will never know...unless a similar confession......decades later.

So, the HATERS, have you any guilt for murder of millions for the WMDs which never existed? Guilt for plundering and ruining a country ....and the whole region?

So, HATERS, does your conscious prick for the crimes against humanity, committed in Guantanamo, the U.S. Congressional Committee has just unearthed and the brutalities committed in Abu-Ghareeb and elsewhere that surpass the barbarianism of all times?
Any shame, on the holocaust unleashed on the people already subjected to apartheid in Gaza and rest of Palestine?

You have proven to have, the ability to look a fact right in the eye and then deny it exists.
You are so shameless that you continue to insist that your interpretation is in fact translation of Quran.

I am done pleading with you for good neighborliness, for you are the incorrigible lot.
If you are happy basking in the cesspool of your lies, slurs, and hatred, wish you good luck there

"Lets Be Careful What We Sow, Because We Will Harvest."
(Incidentally, this is the crux of Torah)

Tell us McAdam, do you have any sympathy for the Yadzidis and Christians currently fleeing the Middle East? Why are Muslims the only victims?

>>>>>>>>

When I did a course on Islam and the West, Bernard Lewis was often quoted as a reliable reference for his objectivity. The tutor was an Pastor and journalist. He said among other negative Islamic with nonchalance that Muslims fake inter-faith dialogue as nothing in Islam can be questioned. It is only for appearances sake.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Quotations_on_Islam_from_Notable_Non-Muslims
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis

Bernard Lewis, FBA (born May 31, 1916) is a British-American scholar in Oriental studies, and political commentator. He is the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. He specialises in the history of Islam and the interaction between Islam and the West, and is especially famous in academic circles for his works on the history of the Ottoman Empire.

Lewis quoted:
"The golden age of equal rights [in Spain] was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam. The myth was invented by Jews in nineteenth-century Europe as a reproach to Christians.[20]

There was a time when scholars and other writers in communist eastern Europe relied on writers and publishers in the free West to speak the truth about their history, their culture, and their predicament. Today it is those who told the truth, not those who concealed or denied it, who are respected and welcomed in these countries. Historians in free countries have a moral and professional obligation no to shrink the difficult issues and subjects that some people would place under a sort of taboo; not to submit to voluntary censorship, but to deal with these matters fairly, honestly, without apologetics, without polemic, and, of course, competently.

Cont.....

McAdam,

If the US has been guilty of committing crimes, then they should be brought to book over them. Your quote from decades ago doesn't mitigate that guilt. Guilt should be exposed when people commit crimes.

Was Monis guilty of committing crimes ? That seems clear enough. Has IS committed crimes in Syria and Iraq, or Boko Haram in Nigeria and Chad and Cameroun, or the Taliban in Pakistan ? That seems to be so: they are guilty of crimes. They too should be brought to book over them.

Ideology does not excuse guilt. You can heave the word "HATE" around all you like, but you too must face up to the fact that dreadful crimes have been committed in the name of Allah, usually justified by reference to the Koran. Were those crimes justified ? Were those references to the Koran justified ? That's partly up to Muslims to determine, but in the final analysis, those crimes are everybody's business.

I have no doubt that the vast majority of Muslims are appalled and disgusted by the crimes in the name of their god. Perhaps they can also justify their disgust at those crimes by reference to the Koran.

Which interpretation will you concur with ?

Joe

Dr. John Andrew Morrow, a professor, research scholar, and author published a book entitled “The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World” (published by Angelico Press, 2013). In this book he traces the origin of slurs historically thrown on Muhammad (repeated in posts here) and found these accusations to be “dishonest, prejudiced and not based on sound scholarship”( Craig Considine , Ph.D. candidate at Trinity College Dublin).

Compare the findings of Dr Morrow (and there are heaps of such findings and still growing from the community of academic researchers) with an over a century old observation of Thomas Carlyle where he held these “lies” to be a “disgrace” only for those who propagate these lies.

Compare it further with the observation of Annie Besant (1847-1933), who said “It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet”.

In today’s world, it is impossible for a scholar to subscribe to these lies and still be counted as a scholar by the intellectual community. This can happen in the cover of an assumed name with no fear of accountability for statements.

Here are few more references for the truth seekers.

Armstrong, Karen.Muhammad: A Western Attempt to Understand Islam. London: Gollancz Victor Ltd., 1992.
Arnaldez, Roger. Dialogue Islam-Chrétien et Sensibilities Religieuses. Islamochristiana, 1, 1975.
Kerr, David. Christian-Muslim Studies, Islamic Studies, and the Future of Christian-Muslim Encounter. Eds. Yvonne Y. Haddad and W.Z. Haddad, W.Z. Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1995.
Forward, Martin. Muhammad: A Short Biography. Oxford: Oneworld, 1997.
Jomier, Jacques. How to Understand Islam. London: SCM, 1989.
Lindblom, J. Prophecy in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Basil Blackwel, 1962.
Moyer, J.A. "Prophecy, Prophets." New Bible Dictionary. Eds. J.D. Douglas, et al. London: Inter Varsity Fellowship, 1962.
Vroom, Hendrik. No Other Gods: Christian Belief in Dialogue with Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Wessels, Antonie. A Modern Arabic Biography of Muhammad: Islamic Culture. Netherlands: E.J.Brill, 1972.

Continued ...

@ McAdam & co

Here is the real crux of the issue.

If you and your associates see any report or rumour denigrating the West--and every lefty rag or blogspot is stuff full of it-- you grab it with glee and are out shouting about it.

So we get:
Bad bad USA <<recruit[ing] …mujaheddin… from Saudi Arabia and other places..importing... Wahabi[ism] >>
Bad bad USA <<stingers …mines… [in Pakistan]>>
Bad bad USA <<[funding] the bullet that pierced the skull of Malala Yousafzai,>>
Bad bad USA <<crimes against humanity, committed in Guantanamo>>

However out of context or simplistic the information –you accept it without question

But should anything detriment re Islam be presented –however well documented –you dismissed as <<HATE>>

Informed and validated by such a sub-culture -- is there any wonder that people like Monis think they are on the side of right and justice!

WHEN WILL WE HAVE A COMMISSION INVESTIGATING THE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY COMMITTED ON BEHALF OF ISLAM?

And yes, one (often) reaps what one sows. What are successive Australian governments sowing on our behalf by allowing adherents to a creed whose avowed MODERATES, even, are so one-eyed and full of imagined injustices?

WAKE UP AUSTRALIA

SPQR,
Normally, I consider this a futile exercise to address peddlers of the misinformation. But, I have interacted with you in July-August this year and you mention my name in your post.

In my good-faith attempt to correct your error, I requested you to provide reference for your quote of Quran. You lied for the second time and repeated the assumed quote. Finally on July 31, you were forced to confess the misquote – pretty much like another misquote McAdam has established yesterday, and that proved to me the yours was not an error but a plain dishonesty.

It soon became clear that your motivation was an unconditional support for a country which stands totally isolated in the world because of its deeds. Your goal: demonise Muslims because of their religion to justify worst type of atrocities against besieged civilians.

You provided an opportunity to bring forth the facts including a catalogue of views of men of conscience from all over the world including the support base of you country.
The evidence piled up. After more than 40 pages of (total) discussion you and your associates saw that the facts presented were simply too overwhelming to face.

So, you disappeared after your last post of 16 Aug, of course along with your associates. Four of my posts from 16 to 18 August remain unanswered days before the thread was closed.

Now again with your typical red herring, you come out with a statement that you cannot support by any source other than hat sites and flimsy references devoid of research worth the name.

This time too, I plan to continue with the task of presenting real reliable references on the topic I am pursuing.

Fortunately, there is more material available on this subject that I can keep posting for weeks. This is the first unintended positive of your campaign of misinformation.

The second positive lies in the total lack of quality in your content and the foul language you and your associates use. This makes the argument crystal clear to the rational mind who remains the focus of my posts.

McAdam/NC,

Nobody is demonising Muslims. Nobody has to - in their name (are you prepared to repudiate their claim ?) dreadful crimes are being committed by terrorists, in Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Yemen, Kenya. Obviously, those crimes have been committed by a tiny minority of Muslims, the vast majority of whom would, I'm sure, repudiate those crimes.

Of course, the guilt of those criminals, who use indiscriminate terror to get their way PRECISELY because they are in such a tiny minority amongst a vast majority of law-abiding and peaceful Muslims, is obvious to anyone. They are guilty of crimes which civilized people probably thought would never occur again, such as the beheading of children, the rape and enslavement of women and girls, the execution of unarmed prisoners.

Such guilt must, sooner or later, be punished, wouldn't you agree ?

Joe

NC,

<<Normally, i consider this a futile exercise to address peddlers of the misinformation>>
Hahaha Judging by your posting history you must have spent a lot of time treating with pedlars of misinformation because you are now retailing a lot of their merchandise.

<< So, you disappeared after your last post of 16 Aug,>>
On my part i normally disengage with persons who exhibit signs of acute retention deficiency and keep repeating the same old much debunked gunk over and over and over again. I am not a medical profession so i cannot offer them the help they need.

<< I requested you to provide reference for your quote of Quran>>
Once again you totally misrepresent my citation --but it is characteristic of you and your confederates to do that. I invite anyone who wants to acquaint themselves with the facts of the matter to go back and view the discourse for themselves and make their own decision about who was reasonable and who was unreasonable. And i suspect with the exception of you ,and McAdam --and your much "deleted for abuse" ally above, who had the foresight to rebadge himself. Most would view my position more favorably than yours.In fact i positively encourage people to go back and review how you ranted and use it as a measure of what we are in store for if you and your ilk ever get the numbers --very commissarish --or Mullahish --not a lot of difference in the two!

I am not going to wade through all your repeat waffle –it should pretty apparent to all (but the abovementioned three) that you are spam –like just repeating the same old one-eyed speil.

Have a nice day :)

NC,

Dr John Andrew Morrow?

http://craigconsidinetcd.com/2014/02/09/interview-on-scholars-spiritual-journey-into-islam-and-the-life-of-prophet-muhammad/

Yes, he may be a bit biased considering he claims to be a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad! Gee, his name is a tad bit deceptive.

…..Cont/Bernard Lewis (Scholar on Islam and the West)
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Quotations_on_Islam_from_Notable_Non-Muslims

"Those who enjoy freedom have a moral obligation to use that freedom for those who do not possess it. We live in a time when great efforts have been made, and continue to be made to falsify the record of the part and to make history a tool of propaganda; when governments, religious movements, political parties, and sectional groups of every kind are busy rewriting history as they would wish it to have been, as they would like their followers to believe that it was. All this is very dangerous indeed, to ourselves and to others, however we may define otherness - dangerous to our common humanity. Because, make no mistake, those who are unwilling to confront the past will be unable to understand the present and unfit to face the future.

During the first formative centuries of its existence, Christianity was separated from and indeed antagonistic to the state, with which it only later became involved. From the lifetime of its founder, Islam was the state, and the identity of religion and government is indelibly stamped on the memories and awareness of the faithful from their own sacred writings, history, and experience.

...it is the duty of those who have accepted them [Allah's word and message] to strive unceasingly to convert or at least to subjugate those who have not. This obligation is without limit of time or space. It must continue until the whole world has either accepted the Islamic faith or submitted to the power of the Islamic state."

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Quotations_on_Islam_from_Notable_Non-Muslims

"Bertrand Russell:
Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872 – 1970) was a British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, socialist, pacifist, and social critic, who is considered to be one of the founders of analytic philosophy.

Bolshevism combines the characteristics of the French Revolution with those of the rise of Islam… Those who accept Bolshevism become impervious to scientific evidence, and commit intellectual suicide. Even if all the doctrines of Bolshevism were true, this would still be the case, since no unbiased examination of them is tolerated…Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of the world.[24]

Carl Jung:
Carl Gustav Jung (1875 – 1961) was the Swiss founder of analytical psychology. He created some of the best known psychological concepts and his work has been influential in psychiatry and in the study of religion, literature, and related fields.
We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. He is already on the way; he is like Muhammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with a wild god."

John Quincy Adams:
John Quincy Adams (1767 – 1848) was the sixth President of the United States. He was also an American diplomat and served in both the Senate and House of Representatives.

…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.[66]

NC McAdam, you write with the assurance and style of an educated person but fail miserably at distinguishing between the Islamists that are terrorising the world and the everyday Muslim person that no one on this site has a problem with. If anyone is lumping all Muslims into one basket, it's you.

You call us 'haters' for expressing opinions and raising questions that do not flatter Islam. How about answering the questions? By that I mean when someone points out a factual event that has taken place by a Muslim extremist or group, you go totally hysterical instead of explaining why you feel the event was justified or fabricated. Have you denounced the Taliban for killing 130 school children? Are the Taliban Muslims?

The more you try to defend your position the more you are appearing to be exactly 'one of those' that many of us see as the problem. You are not doing any justice for Islam or Muslim people with your tantrums.

ConservativeHippie,

"It has been implied that violence is exclusive to Muslims"? Please provide one quote from anyone in this thread that supports this ridiculous statement. No one has ever said that, insinuated that or even mistakenly posted something that implied that."

That's exactly the problem. No one is willing to come out on this page (or others) and truly state if they hate people of a Muslim background. It is a very easy way to "cop out" on this issue. If someone does hate the Muslim religion, why not say something? Be honest. If someone does hate Muslim people in general or the religion in general - please say so.

I won't make hateful comments on this topic - because I don't judge or stereotype each and every person living in Australia. For one I can't read every person's mind and two, every person is different.

It's much easier for some however, to be critical, because there is no book written relating to them as individuals, like a religion (which can be quoted from) - unless of course there is an author with a book to sell - let's say like Julia Gillard. So someone could quote from one of her books and attack her if they wanted to.

Finally in terms of leanings, I've got two types of choices - people like the (David Marr supporters) - or the Andrew Bolt crowd.

I don't want to be associated with either of these groups (so I can be independent) and it means I'm going alone, to push for fairness, a work hard for a living ethic and saying no to stereotyping.

I'm not going to be distracted by silly comments - and I'll gladly defend my credentials - because the victims in the recent Sydney case - along with other people affected by all types of extremist activities deserve better than a lot of the comments put down on these pages.

Dear ConservativeHippie, thank you for your mcomment:
"NC McAdam, you write with the assurance and style of an educated person but fail miserably at distinguishing between the Islamists that are terrorising the world and the everyday Muslim person that no one on this site has a problem with. If anyone is lumping all Muslims into one basket, it's you."

NC does appear a well educated and well read person to me too but I plead not guilty.

"Have you denounced the Taliban for killing 130 school children?"
Yes, I denounce them in the strongest possible terms.

"Are the Taliban Muslims?"
I hate to be the judge of any body's belief but am convinced that if they are Muslims, the are of the level of the "Hashashin". They were recruited and used by Hassan-e- Sabbah to terrorize the world for ulterior motives.
Taliban too were recruited and used for a purpose. Please refer to the "confession" I shared with you. Now some may think that, the act of creating and using the "assassins" was restricted to Soviet occupation of Afghanistan only and some on the other hand may be seeing that the act continues to be played out in the arena of the Middle East with reverberations,world over. It depends on the level of respective vision.

If I am the one who is lumping all the Muslims into one basket, then how come a lady from "the everyday Muslim persons that no one on this site has a problem with", gets harassed?

I respect your approach of isolating the criminals from the rest of the Muslims, with whom you say no one has any problem, but I will believe that statement to be sincere and true, when I see the discussion on Islam vanish from these pages and concentrated instead on condemning the heinous crime committed by the hostage taker and indiscretion of the zealot who harassed a lady for her dress.

Best regards

Hi McAdam/NC,

I fully agree with you, when you denounce the Taliban [and all other Salafists] in the strongest possible terms. I hope that your denunciation includes IS, Boko haram, al-Shabaab, the Afghan Taliban, al-Nusra, Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, and the various al-Qa'ida franchises across the Muslim world.

I'm glad that you are able to distinguish criticism from 'hate' speech: in any healthy society, criticism - as I hope you will agree - is a vital feature. We criticise our best friends, we criticise our children, in the hope that they will see our criticism as constructive and take note of their faults, or at least, in turn, argue about them. Criticism is thus a sign of human respect.

And I have enough respect for the people in the above-mentioned organisations to believe that they can think for themselves: they are nobody's puppets, not the CIA's, not even the Saudis'. They make up their own minds, and commit the most dreadful crimes against humanity, clear-eyed, knowing what they are doing.

So when they use the Koran to justify their crimes, it puzzles me: are they actually citing what is in the Koran ? Are there parts of the Koran which justify what they are doing ?

And are there other parts of the Koran which would denounce - as you rightly do - such vile acts ?

Are there contradictions in the Koran ? Which bits should we take heart from, and which bits should we denounce ? If it is the literal word of Allah, did he get it right in one part, but wrong in another part ?

Thank you, in any case, for your courage in speaking out against the vile crimes of the Pakistani Taliban.

Joe

Hi Joe,

Don't be fooled.

I recently found this man who has plenty of knowledge and insights of Islam at first hand. He has written an essay which won an award. He regrets modern British culture particularly and its demise which only contributes to the issues at stake.

essay:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_2_when_islam.html

He has consulted hundreds of oppressed Muslim women who have tried to commit suicide.

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

Anthony (A.M.) Daniels (born 11 October 1949), who generally uses the pen name Theodore Dalrymple, is an English writer and retired prison doctor and psychiatrist. He worked in a number of Sub-Saharan African countries as well as in the east end of London. Before his retirement in 2005, he worked in City Hospital, Birmingham[1] and Winson Green Prison in inner-city Birmingham, England.

Some of his statements:

"When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself."

"The root cause of our contemporary cultural poverty is intellectual dishonesty. First, the intellectuals (more specifically, left-wing ones) have destroyed the foundation of culture, and second, they refuse to acknowledge it by resorting to the caves of political correctness."

"He is an atheist, but has criticised anti-theism and says that "to regret religion is to regret our civilisation and its monuments, its achievements, and its legacy."

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/112823-our-culture-what-s-left-of-it-the-mandarins-and-the-masses
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12408994-anything-goes

Joe,
Good to hear your words “Nobody is demonising Muslims – nobody has to”.

Your concern about the tiny minority using (their perverted version of) Islam for their crimes against humans is thoroughly understood and totally shared by me, as is, I am sure, by the huge majority of the Muslim world. Muslim societies are mobilising to deliver them a death blow, which I am sure, is imminent now.
The discussion got to an unpleasant level, unfortunately, when crime of a deranged criminal were claimed to have been propelled by the teachings of Islam. Yes, there is a lot of material on this post to show that this sick attempt was in fact made.
Anyway, I regard your statement to be constructive, thanks.

ConservativeHippie,

Your post (of 23rd) indicates a genuine misunderstanding you may have of my position. Hence my responsibility for a good-faith effort to correct it, hoping that the harshness you exhibit will yield to acceptable communication.

My message to Joe must have provided answer to your question. Whatever the Taliban killing school children and their teachers may be, they can’t be Muslims, in my view.
I have no issues (in the context of this discussion) with anyone not implying the sickness I explained in the second paragraph of the message above.

SPQR,
I would not have addressed you if you didn’t.

If I didn’t address you, there was no reason for me to bring up my experience with you. And when I go over my experience with you, I must state facts, which is precisely what I did and would be willing to substantiate these facts from your posts, if you insist – that is.

Your plan of not going to wade through all your repeat waffle is ok by me. My response will depend on yours.

I wish good for you.

Continued …

Continued ….

The John Quincy Adams (d1848), quoted in a recent post, is a good example of a product of the environment that subject the history to distortions and errors.

The question is not about the existence of such ill-informed medieval images of Islam and Muhammad in the West. It is the distortions, however, which are in question.

I have personally seen books in the University of California Library which describe Islam and Quran (in medieval narrative) as something totally opposite to the real Islam and Quran. I am sure many other libraries would have similar books. A quote from such a reference is possible, but the question would be about its AUTHENTICITY.

Today, these medieval distortions are not being questioned by Muslims alone. There are legions of non-Muslim (mostly western) scholars busy demolishing these age-old misconceptions of Islam and Muhammad. A genuine research, quite in tune with the age of reason, has uncovered the facts. The facts are so well documented (thanks to the resources of this age), so vivid (thanks to the independent research) and so accessible to scholars as well as common readers (thanks to the age of information) that an independent scholar of this age cannot adhere to the medieval distortions and still maintain his/her reliability in the field of knowledge. Of course, negligible exceptions are possible here too – a minimum level of candidness is needed to see facts. But as we know, exceptions don’t form rules.

The fact of growing awareness of the facts can be observed in many of the quotes I have presented so far and will continue to show up in the quotes that will follow. This quote addresses part of the misconception John Adams had.

De Lacy O'Leary (1872-1957), British Orientalist who also taught at the University of Bristol in his book 'Islam at the Crossroads,' London (1923) observes that:

“History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.”

Hi Constance,

Don't worry, I don't think I'm being fooled. Although, if there is such a concept in Islam as 'Teqqia', the right or obligation to lie in a good cause', I'm aware that whatever NC/McAdam says could be nothing more than fluff.

Having been on the Left all my life, I'm fully aware of the 'principle' of lying in a good cause, if you are in a weak position [call it the Medina option] and coming straight out with all the 'honesty' and brutality you can muster when you get the chance [call it the Mecca option]. Fortunately, the Left has never had that chance and never will.

But the innovation of single terrorists (I don't like or agree with the term 'lone wolf': they believe they have an entire religion backing them so they are not 'lone') complicates matters: it uses the Mecca option when numbers are still at Medina-level: force and brutality befitting a group with power, real Mecca-level power, when the individual doesn't not have any real power except his individual brutality and weapons. 'Lone-wolf' fascists, if you like.

So, once a 'principle' such as teqqia is ever sanctioned, how does anyone know when someone is being honest and when they are lying ? The precautionary principle suggests that we be wary, not fully trusting.

IF teqqia is, in fact, part of Islam, then Muslims can't really complain at that response. If they completely repudiate teqqia (although, by definition, how could you tell ?) then maybe we could lower our guard. In the meantime, of course, we should maintain a sort of arm's-length friendship, and Muslims should expect nothing more.

Joe

Thanks for your response, Joe.

Yes, I'm always conscious of the code of Taqiyya.

I mentioned oppressed Muslim women, more like "girls". And Mr Dalrymple is very mad at the ineptitude (and hipocrasy) of Western feminists. So am I.

Muslim mentality is totally one-sided. The irony of immigration and diversity, is that Muslims are totally against diversity. It is there way or none. They can criticise anything outside Islam till blue in the face but we can't criticise them. They really do have "nerve", especially as minorities in any country.

I am so angry of the West's failings on ignorance, avoidance and worst of all, dishonesty.

Well, we are currently told that another attack is likely, and with the anti-Islamic protests in Dresden - 17,000 protesters, it looks like we have a long battle ahead.

The natives do get restless eventually when human nature is discarded.

Thanks Joe for your comments, which are mostly valid but appear a bit contradictory.

On one side, it is said ;
a) distinguish.. between the Islamists that are terrorising the world and the everyday Muslim person that no one on this site has a problem with." And " "Nobody is demonising Muslims. Nobody has to"

b) Then at the same time, questions are raised on " contradictions in Quran" and "Are there parts of the Koran which justify what they are doing ?" And
"Muslim mentality is totally one-sided".

If "a" is right then "b" is out of place and if "b" is right "a" is not honest.

I am not against the questions being raised about Quran and Islam, which in any case are mostly natural and the persons raising these questions have every right to do so. It is the occasion of raising these questions that makes me uneasy. Raising them in this forum, gives me the impression that all Muslims are being put on spot and all are being lumped together for the crime of one lunatic.

Please creat a separate occasion for a focussed discussion on comparison of religions to find out which of the religions is most rational and practical and least violent.

On this forum, we should avoid putting the whole Muslim Community on the spot by criticizing their religion....that is if we are honest about distinguishing between the Islamists that are terrorizing the world and the everyday Muslim person that no one on this site has a problem with.

Hi McAdam/NC,

I don't recall ever saying that the "Muslim mentality is totally one-sided".

I don't know about a 'Muslim mentality' (is there one ?) but my point was the opposite to yours: that possibly there are contradictions in the Koran: that the overwhelming majority (I hope, but with Teqqia/Taqiya, how can anyone tell ?) adhere to the early parts (the Medina sections) of the Koran but that the Islamo-fascists adhere to other bits (the post-Mecca sections), or at least attempt to cite them to support their vile crimes.

Is that so ? Are there contradictory bits in the Koran ?

So I'm still puzzled: does the Koran sanction the murder of bus passengers, fishermen, quarry-workers, schoolchildren, captured soldiers, people from non-Muslim groups ?

Does the Koran justify any action performed by a member of a favoured group, on the whole Salafist Sunni Arabs, and permit them, or at least people acting in the name of Allah, to butcher others as if they were non-humans, sub-humans, untermensch ?

Does the Koran permit adherents to act like Nazis - thinking they have the right to exterminate non-adherents to their ghastly cause ?

Merry Christmas,

Joe

McAdam : "On this forum, we should avoid putting the whole Muslim Community on the spot by criticizing their religion....that is if we are honest about distinguishing between the Islamists that are terrorizing the world and the everyday Muslim person that no one on this site has a problem with."

Islam, if lived to the letter of its holy books, is a supremacist ideology. That is the basis upon which it is criticized. It is understood that the majority of Muslims do not live by the letter, but nor does the majority protest at the actions of of those that do, not to say the majority necessarily support them.

Where is the Muslim majority loudly denouncing violent actions? Are they cowered by them or do they sympathize with them? We can't know.

However, there is a road which can unite us, requiring a formal pledge by religious leaders of all churches, Christian included, to secular democracy in Australia.(search my other posts for more on this. Such a pledge requires the religious to act against those in their midst working counter to it. The pledge itself has public value in quelling extremism on all sides. I can think of nothing else that has a chance of depolarizing the attitudes growing with each violent incident, actual or thwarted.

Anybody got a better idea other than letting things roll on, with nasty consequences? Problem is, we don't yet seem to be at a stage where western authorities are calling it terrorism, referring to mentally deficiencies and lone-wolves rather than agents of supremacism incited by Islamic State.

Joe,

After expressing my view (on the 24th), in response to your question of the 23rd, I get another set of questions from you (on the 24th) that I will like to go over. I revisited your previous posts that I had only glanced at and noticed elements which will perhaps emerge more clearly during our discussion.

Three questions for you to start with:

Question 1: On your post of the 21st “After all, the Koran wasn't written down for a hundred years after his (Muhammad’s) death, there were competing versions of it floating around, and perhaps still are.”

Where did you get this information from that Quran was written hundred years after Muhammad’s death? Also tell us about the “competing versions” of Quran and what lead to conclude that they existed or exist?

Question 2: On your post of the 22nd “Yes, it seems a stereotypical Muslim has a very strong sense of shame and blame, and hurt, but not much of a sense of guilt, of having ever done anything wrong or hurtful to others.”

a) Who is a stereotypical Muslim? A terrorist or a common Muslim?

b) How were you able to measure that he/she does not have “much sense of guilt of having ever done anything wrong or hurtful to others”

Question 3: Your position against religion is directed against all religions (you could be an Atheist, which is fine with me) or it is exclusively directed against Islam?

The information you provide, and I hope that you do, will help me determine the direction of our discussion. I note interesting phrases you use – Taqiyyah, Medina option, Mecca option etc and would like to have a meaningful exchange on all these. Your answers will prepare me for that.

Joe, "Muslim mentality is totally one-sided". Is a quote, not from you but from one of your side. You write "but with Teqqia/Taqiya, how can anyone tell ?"

You are sure that all Muslims practice Teqqia/Taqiya and therefore unreliable. And you can't see the havoc half knowledge, such as yours about Islam, plays.

The point is that if I am not truthful, what worth is my word and what is the point in this discussion?

We need to come to discussion with clean hands; taking the other person truthful unless proven otherwise.
And how do we tell? Through inconsistencies. If a person says one thing and practices the other, he/she is not being truthful.
Let me point out an inconsistency of your side. Lot of words about "not having any problem with every day Muslims" and "not lumping them all together" and at the same time not a word of condemnation for the person who harassed an every day Muslim and unfairly lumped her with that lunatic hostage taker.
Do you see the inconsistency?

A time to pause, to take a deep breath and ponder; whose mentality is totally one sided?

Kindly do not address any post to me, if you are not sure wether I am truthful or not.
Thanks

Luciferase,

"Islam, if lived to the letter of its holy books, is a supremacist ideology."
No, it is not. Please study it deeply.

"Where is the Muslim majority loudly denouncing violent actions? Are they cowered by them or do they sympathize with them? We can't know."

They are loudly denouncing but their cries are not reaching you ears; thanks to the controlled western media, which puts the spot light selectively. Pakistani Nation for example, is risen as a whole against these enemies of humanity and this is the nation that has suffered most at their hands and is busy doing most, to finish them off. Please search media for yourself to verify, what I have said.

"However, there is a road which can unite us, ....Anybody got a better idea ?"

We have a lot of unlearning to do, to rid ourselves of the poison fed into us in centuries, against each other, by the zealots on all sides. Then we may be able to see what we really stand for. Scriptures and sages are good sources. Quran teaches humanity being one nation....children of one parents.

Let me share with you a saying of a Muslim sage:-

Bani a:dam aza: ye yek digarand
Keh dar a: fairness ze yek goharand

Chu: ozvi beh dard a:varad ruzgar
Degar ozv ha ra: Nama: nad qara:r

To kaz mehnat e digra:n bi ghami
Nasha: yad Ke na: mat nahand a: dami
(Sadi)

Roughly translates; Children of Adam are limbs of a body, of common birth.
If one limb aches the others become uneasy.
If you are unmindful of pain of others, you are not human.

I have tears in my eyes when I write this. Do you have in yours,when you read it?
Regards

I nominate this as the OLO joke of the year: <<[the]Pakistani Nation for example, is risen as a whole against these enemies of humanity>>

Pakistan is one of the most intolerant societies on earth if you are a non-Sunni.I refer anyone who wants to check this, to this link http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/wave-blasphemy-arrests-riots-against-christians-pakistan

One Cronulla riot was enough to have the Muslim spokespersons and their progressive allies label Australia a racist society (and SBS hasn’t stopped running docos on it ever since)

But Cronulla style riots –targeting non-Sunnis -- are a regular occurrence in Pakistan (and for far less provocation than the Oz example)

But of course -- to even allude to such,in the eyes of McAdam & co is a HATE crime

SPQR, you wrote;
"I nominate this as the OLO joke of the year: <<[the]Pakistani Nation for example, is risen as a whole against these enemies of humanity>>"

Please refer to following:-
1."Pakistan announces a national plan to fight terrorism, says terrorists’ days are numbered" by Anup Kaphle, The Washington Post

2. "Your days are numbered, Sharif warns Terrorists, " Pakistan Newsweek.

3. Pakistan has mobilized the nation through All Parties Conference, has set up special courts for speedy trials of the terrorists and is willing to amend the constitution, if necessary. Pakistan Prime Minister's special address to the nation is awaited.

The nation has indeed arisen. Please verify the information I have provided.

Yes, what you say about intolerance is not baseless, and all is not well with Pakistani society, yet the nation is going ahead, to eradicate terrorism, regardless.

I am basing on the latest, while you seem to be relying on the past material with you.

And the jeers and gibes which is your style smack of non seriousness, one can do without. For by mocking truth while armed with falsehood, you only make a fool of yourself.

McAdam,

What you point to --Pakistan (finally!) deciding to take a stand against the Taliban & its affiliates --is indeed admirable, but it is more in the way of the Pakistan ruling elite defending their powerbase than a grand defense of human rights. Every day in Pakistan --PRESENT TENSE, NOT PAST-- non-Sunnis feel the boot of the sunni majority stamping on their face.

And only one who is fooling himself would believe otherwise.

SPQR, I will not let you evade the reality. You contradicted my statement of the Pakistani Nation bracing up for anti terrorism and you have been proved wrong.
Copied below is an other proof; the news of the special address to the Nation by Pakistani Prime Minister announcing National Action Plan,that I had mentioned, as reported by Jang/Geo, the largest media group of Pakistan:-

"ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has announced that special courts will be setup for a period of two years to cope with the scourge of terrorism that has claimed over 50,000 lives, Geo News reported.

In his address on Television, PM Nawaz Sharif apprised the national about the outcomes of the meeting of parliamentary parties leadership.

Nawaz Sharif said, Being the Prime Minister of Pakistan it is my responsibility to lead the war against terror.

In strong message to militants, the Premier said the days of terrorists are numbered, adding that all funding sources of terrorists will also be eliminated.

Nawaz said Madrassahs (religious seminaries) will not be allowed to operate without proper registration, they will operate under a clear system.

Banned outfits will not be allowed to operate under new names and steps will be to stop their funding, he maintained.

He said, NACTA (National Counter Terrorism Authority ) will be made fully functional and its financial issues would be solved.

PM Nawaz said Tv Channels will not be allowed to give coverage to terrorists, steps being taken to root them out from social media as well.

He said action will be taken against hate speech and hate literature."

Pakistani media is available on line; see for yourself.

Now dear SPQR, you should take your words back that you used to make fun of the truth I had posted; that is if you have any honor and moral courage. If not, then I do not see any point in interacting with a person who evades truth.
Good luck and good bye.

McAdam/NC/Junaid

I think your are confusing "the nation as a whole" with the state. Just because politicians say something doesn't mean the nation as a whole is rising up. Of course we would expect the politicians of Pakistan to say they are taking a stance against the group that just killed 141 children in the state's own army school.

However, the question is whether they intend to take any stance against the belief system rooted in Islam that motivates the religious persecution that is rife in Pakistan, not just between Muslims and non-Muslims, but between different branches of Islam. Are they going to condemn Mohammed and the Koran for inciting this violence? Of course not! They would fear for their lives if they did.

"that is if we are honest about distinguishing between the Islamists that are terrorizing the world and the everyday Muslim person that no one on this site has a problem with."

Good point. I can't see how anyone in this thread has honestly distinguished them so far. The fact that the Muslims who are not terrorizing the world, are not terrorizing the world, doesn't mean they don't believe in the same belief system that the Muslim terrorists are acting on. It means they're not acting on it.

So let's just cut to the chase. Do you think it's okay to kill, enslave or rape non-Muslims in accordance with the authority of Mohammed and the Koran, or not?

If not, do you renounce and condemn Mohammed and the Koran, and if you don't, why not, apart from fearing for your life from the violence of your co-religionists if you were to do so?

Joe,

I have been saving this second message of the day in a hope to hear your response to my questions. But then, you must be busy on this Christmas day.

Now I get this question from Jardine “do you renounce and condemn Mohammed and the Koran, and if you don't, why not”

The question tells you a lot about the concerns raised on this thread to which you responded “Nobody is demonising Muslims – nobody has to”, which I rated as positive. Now what?

You may like to drop a line or two on above question as well when you address my queries, I have raised with you.

This person’s statement preceding this demand is an extra-ordinary manifestation of trust in one’s complete ignorance: Amazing!

Then demanding a response is another extra-ordinary manifestation of trust in others’ inability to see who this person is: More amazing!

Hope you are having a nice Christmas.

NC

I notice you didn't answer my question.

Let's get one thing straight. If someone advocates or believes in killing, enslaving and raping people, it's not "demonising" them to point it out.

Do you, or not?

And if you don't, then doesn't that mean you're saying Mohammed and the Koran are wrong?

Yes Jardine, good point.

To use NCs own adjective, it is AMAZING how when questions like the ones you posed are raised. The gap between the extremists the moderates disappears!

Jardine K. Jardine,
"I think your are confusing "the nation as a whole" with the state. Just because politicians say something doesn't mean the nation as a whole is rising up."

Are you saying that State is rising up against terrorism and the Nation of Pakistan is not?

I am sure most, if not all, on this thread can distinguish between state and the nation, Do you suggest that nation means that every one out of the two hundred odd millions of them have exact one position? It is absurd to expect, it never happens in any nation. Does the nation here mean; executive, judiciary, legislature, all political parties, almost all religious leaders, civil society, public opinion at large and the press? If that is what comprises a nation, for the purpose of this discussion? then Yes, believe it or not, they are all on one page and are fully supporting the all out operation launched by the law enforcement agencies and the armed forces. These are facts; take them as I am presenting or contradict them with evidence;...... not conjecture. Don't waste every body's time by further exposing your ignorance of the ground realities of the region masked by the main stream western media.

The second point you raise about the religion, .....we'll address that too, ......after we settle this one first. Any logical and meaningful discussion has to be, point by point.

Jardine, the person who taught you "If you can't convince them, confuse them", I have read him too and will not allow you to make gobbledegook of this discussion. Unless of course, the confusion is your last resort and you are bent upon leading this discussion deep into the abyss of confusion. And if you did that, every one on this thread will know, what you really stand for.

Merry Christmas

McAdam

By nation I mean the people at large, all the people in the territory of a state. By the state I mean that group in society claiming a legal monopoly of ultimate decision-making backed by force.

I think in Pakistan the situation is that the vast majority of people are appalled by the recent killings of children, but probably there are some who sympathise with the Taliban. The state is motivated to stop the Taliban from killing people for numerous reasons. One of them is outrage at the killing of children. Another is that it's embarrassed it happened in an army school thus demonstrating the state's own impotence. Another is because the state, being a monopoly of force, seeks to forcibly suppress any person or group acting in competition with the state's claim of a legal monopoly of initiating aggression in any event.

"... they are all on one page and are fully supporting the all out operation launched by the law enforcement agencies and the armed forces."

It would be surprising if they weren't, considering what just happened.

However the operation you refer to is an armed operation against the Taliban. My question is about the state and the nation's recognition of, or willingness to deal with any underlying problem in the Muslim religion itself that motivates the Taliban to do these kinds of things, and IS, and Boko Haram, and the guy in the Lindt cafe, and so on.

The question is whether Muslims in general:
a) agree with Mohammed and the Koran that it's okay to kill, enslave and rape non-believers, in which case the fact that they are not doing it doesn't mean they don't believe in it, it just means they're not acting on their beliefs; or
b) don't agree with Mohammed and the Koran that it's okay to kill, enslave and rape non-believers, in which case they should reject and condemn Islam - shouldn't they?

My question of you is, do you think it's okay to kill, enslave and rape people for not believing in the Muslim religion?

NC/McAdam,

A bit selective there: Jardine asked, as an 'if-then'-type question:

"Do you think it's okay to kill, enslave or rape non-Muslims in accordance with the authority of Mohammed and the Koran, or not?

"If not, do you renounce and condemn Mohammed and the Koran, and if you don't, why not, apart from fearing for your life from the violence of your co-religionists if you were to do so?"

which you corrupted into:

" ..... “do you renounce and condemn Mohammed and the Koran, and if you don't, why not”

The second part depends on a positive answer to the first part: 'if A, then B or not B ?' You can't wriggle out of that by simply distorting what Jardine asked.

So what's your answer to his question ?

Do you think we're complete idiots out here ? That sort of bullsh!tting might go down well in a madrassa, but not in the real world.

Joe

Loudmouth,

"A bit selective there: Jardine asked, as an 'if-then'-type question:

"Do you think it's okay to kill, enslave or rape non-Muslims in accordance with the authority of Mohammed and the Koran, or not?"

"The second part depends on a positive answer to the first part: 'if A, then B or not B ?' You can't wriggle out of that by simply distorting what Jardine asked."

Come off it...that's JKJ's standard modus operandi.

For instance, if we're discussing the role of govt, he will then ask the person he's debating why they support the govt shooting people, etc.

After which he will go on to abuse them fulsomely.

It's a disingenuous style of debate, and one he pulls with monotonous regularity on this site.

As we have to come expect from those on the left. Poirot opens a second front in an endeavor to take the pressure off her Islamic, fellow travelers.

Jardine,

I answered your question. You didn’t get it. Here are the details:

Your question1: “Do you think it's okay to kill, enslave or rape non-Muslims in accordance with the authority of Mohammed and the Koran, or not?”- your post of the 25th.

The question is based on the assumption that Muhammad and Quran authorise the ‘crimes’ you list.

The assumption that your question rests on is a FALSEHOOD OF MONUMENTAL PROPORTIONS.

No and I repeat NO credible source, worth the name will give you an information like that. Barring, of course the internet trash that a host of hate-sites regurgitate these days, which obviously is YOUR SOURCE. These sites misinterpret history and carry false translations of Quranic verses.

Countless people in the west have accessed the credible sources and were able to lit their lives with light of Quran. One example: Timothy Winter (now Abdal Hakim Murad) researcher, writer, academic who teaches at Cambridge University would a good person for you to examine. The internet, including Utube, carries series of his writings and lectures. See how Quran lifted the intellect of this man to where it is today.

Some upright minds, irrespective of their religious affiliations, find nothing but respect for Muhammad and Quran when they see them for who and what they really are. An example: Karen Armstrong, an acclaimed authority on religious history and a prolific writer. Her books are available anywhere. Read her books “Muhammad” and “Islam”, for starters, and find for yourself how far-removed from reality are your assumptions.

Some choose to change their unawareness from Islam into a total ignorance of facts through a one-eyed focus on the hat-sites of the internet. This is what I called your “extra-ordinary manifestation of trust” in your “complete ignorance”- my post of the 25th.

Continued …

Continued …

Then your question2 “do you renounce and condemn Mohammed and the Koran” is the next step of the ladder you place on the shaky base of your assumed FALSEHOOD OF MONUMENTAL PROPORTIONS.

To this I responded “Then demanding a response is another extra-ordinary manifestation of trust in others’ inability to see who this person is: More amazing!”

To explain it further, a dialogue is useful only as long as there is a meaningful exchange of information and views. When I identify in someone a sickening tendency to demonise Islam and Muslims (as also manifested by your friend SPQR), any hope of a meaningful dialogue fades away for me. No amount of reasoning can remove bias of some type of people, no matter how forceful it is. When encountered with such people, I prefer silence over an otherwise imminent harsh exchange.

This is my first message to you and my last one as well, seeing what you have written so far.

Please know that my time is too precious to be wasted unless there is hope for a meaningful dialogue.

Joe,

The above must answer your new query as well (26th). My response has a different angle than that of an otherwise convincing observation – (Poirot 26th)

You have ignored the questions I have asked in my messages of the 24th and 25th.

Is it that in your style of exchange you can ask questions and I cannot?

Hi Poirot,

Ah, the 'Left' rides to the rescue of the extreme-Right !

Jardine asked a perfectly legitimate question, in a perfectly legitimate way:

"Do you think it's okay to kill, enslave or rape non-Muslims in accordance with the authority of Mohammed and the Koran, or not?"

A positive answer would not have needed the second question, but a negative answer would have inevitably led to the second question:

"If not, do you renounce and condemn Mohammed and the Koran, and if you don't, why not, apart from fearing for your life from the violence of your co-religionists if you were to do so?"

a complex of questions which, in order to avoid answering, NC/McAdam corrupted into:

" ..... “do you renounce and condemn Mohammed and the Koran, and if you don't, why not”

Rather a childish 'trick'. And which you parrot by attacking Jardine. Goooood girl !

And then you go on to abuse Jardine fulsomely. Any chance of avoiding that and sticking to topic ?

Just trying to help :)

Welcome back.

Joe

Loudmouth,

"And then you go on to abuse Jardine fulsomely...."

My heart bleeds...pull the other one...JKJ is one of the most abusive posters on this forum.

"....Any chance of avoiding that and sticking to topic ?"

Lol!....love it.

Here's what your wrote on a thread recently....totally off topic.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16951&page=0#298088

Topic was: "Exaggerating the terror genie: reflections on a fake sheik"
(While the Sydney holdup says absolutely nothing about a terror 'wave', it is being read as part of a current, with Australia being caught in it.)

"Thanks Jay,

I've got to use that: " ....'to let fact checking define the narrative would be a huge mistake."

Brilliant ! I've been typing up thousands of pages of old documents, Protector's letters, missionary's journal, reports, etc., in relation to Aboriginal policy in South Australia - what I found was that:

* there was only one full-time employee of the 'Aborigines Department' (in fact, from 1837 right through to the 1930s) - i.e. the Protector;

* that there was no 'herding of people onto Missions';

* that [big surprise for me!] there was no driving of people from their lands, quite the contrary, and

* that there was no removal of countless thousands of children from families.

Next time I'm in a discussion with a defender of all those myths, I'll try to be helpful and pass that one on :)

' .... 'to let fact checking define the narrative would be a huge mistake.' Story trumps facts. Ideology trumps reality. Beauty !

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 22 December 2014 8:13:42 AM"

.........

Hypocrite

Good try, my dear wounded swan,

Abuse is not 'on-topic'. It's not all about you.

But I did like that free quote, about the post-modern, Cultural Studies 100 principle, of teaching that letting

" ....'fact checking define the narrative would be a huge mistake."

Brilliant ! I've been typing up thousands of pages of old documents, Protector's letters, missionary's journal, reports, etc., in relation to Aboriginal policy in South Australia - what I found was that:

* there was only one full-time employee of the 'Aborigines Department' (in fact, from 1837 right through to the 1930s) - i.e. the Protector;

* that there was no 'herding of people onto Missions';

* that [big surprise for me!] there was no driving of people from their lands, quite the contrary, and

* that there was no removal of countless thousands of children from families.

Next time I'm in a discussion with a defender of all those myths, I'll try to be helpful and pass that one on :)

' .... 'to let fact checking define the narrative would be a huge mistake.' Story trumps facts. Ideology trumps reality. Beauty !

Thanks again.

Joe

Good stuff Joe --well put.

Jardine and Joe
"probably there are some who sympathise with the Taliban"

We are discussing specifics. You contested the statement that Pakistanis are rising up as a nation against terrorism.
I provided you specifics and asked you specific evidence of your claim and warned you not to waste every body's time by your conjecture. And what I get is " probably"
You can not even see that I am dealing with verifiable information that I provide and you are stuck in the guesswork.
Do you really feel that "probably" is the valid substitute of specific information and evidence?

Then you ask me
"Do you think we're complete idiots out here?"
My answer is I don't know, but certainly you are acting like ones, as you can not stick to the point and hasten to dilute or confuse the discussion by introducing distractions.

Please tell me clearly where do you stand on "Pakistan rising as a nation against terrorism?"

Once, this is out of the way, we will handle your ridiculous remarks about the religion too.
By now, you have amply demonstrated that you are armed with half knowledge of Islam, and like any other ignorant person are super sure of your position, unaware that your propagadist disinformation would not stand any serious scrutiny of the subject when we reach there; after we clear the table of the point under discussion.

McAdam

1. How is the question, whether Pakistanis are rising up against terrorism as a nation or state, logically relevant to the question whether Muslims, by being Muslim, believe in the authority of Mohammed and the Koran as to its being okay to kill, enslave or rape unbelievers?

The former proposition, about Pakistan, does not depend on the latter, about Islam. It's irrelevant.

As to the former, all you're doing is showing your belief that if the state does something, it means that the nation as a whole is doing it.

Please tell me clearly where do you stand on "Pakistan rising as a nation against terrorism?"

Depends what you mean by "Pakistan rising as a nation". I've explained what I mean by nation and state. You haven't.

But tell me this: what difference does it make? If Pakistanis as a nation are rising up against terrorism, as evidenced by the Pakistani state's operation against the Taliban, or if they're not ... so what? What's that supposed to prove?

How is this question logically prior to the question whether the Muslim religion preaches violence against unbelievers?

2. As to whether Mohammed and the Koran do say it's okay to kill, enslave, or rape unbelievers, it seems that all you have is bald denial. NC's tactic of saying that the only sources saying so are hate-sites, is like the argument that Muslims who commit terrorist acts are not true Muslims.

Someone is not instrinsically hating or demonising Muslims by pointing out that Islam preaches violence against unbelievers. You've got it back-the-front.

Let's get this straight. Are you saying that no part of the Koran preaches or authorises the killing, enslaving or raping of unbelievers?

The most damaging periods of human history have been when some portion of humanity believe they have found the perfect creed, that cannot be bettered, or the perfect leader who cannot be challenged. NC and co are the just the latest in a long line of we-have-the-perfect-creed peddlers.

However well motivated such causes start out, they almost invariable end in some form of censorship, suppression and terror. And even in the above discussions --conducted in a society where free speech is permitted --you can begin to detect hints of what would happen if NC & co had the numbers.

McAdam/NC,

Thank you for writing, in answer to Jardine's quite legitimate question:

“Do you think it's okay to kill, enslave or rape non-Muslims in accordance with the authority of Mohammed and the Koran, or not?”- your post of the 25th.

"The question is based on the assumption that Muhammad and Quran authorise the ‘crimes’ you list.

"The assumption that your question rests on is a FALSEHOOD OF MONUMENTAL PROPORTIONS." [I'm certainly glad to hear that].

So your answer to his question, after some to-ing-and-froing, is "NO". Is that so ?

There is nothing in the Koran that justifies the unprovoked killing or enslavement of non-Muslims, or presumably the beheading of children ? Is that what you are saying ?

If so, then are you also saying that Islamic State are not acting in accordance with any of the teachings of the Koran ?

Are you saying there is nothing in the Koran which justifies what Islamic State is doing ? Or Boko Haram ? Or al Qa'ida ?

Are you saying that the Koran teaches its adherents to prefer peace to war, never to provoke or aggress against a peaceful group even if they are not Muslim ? And certainly not to rape and enslave their women [Hello, Poirot, where are you ?] or behead their children ?

Given that questions are not, in themselves, criticisms, or 'hate speech', I look forward to a clear "Yes" or "No".

Joe

Junaid/NC/McAdam

Do you think it's okay to kill, enslave or rape non-Muslims in accordance with the authority of Mohammed and the Koran, or not?

Are you saying that no part of the Koran preaches or authorises the killing, enslaving or raping of unbelievers?

If JKJ stays true to form - he'll very shortly declare himself the "winner"!

Poirot

Notice how NC/McAdam/Junaid believes in violence but can't bring himself either to admit it or renounce it?

Like you.

Notice how when called on it, he evades, and ignores, and diverts, and personalises, and goes in circles - anything but join issue and admit what he can't defend?

Like you.

Your last piece of ad hominem assumes that truth doesn't matter.

It is not "abuse" to call you on your tedious dishonesty. It's jut more tedious dishonesty on your part to say it is.

All you have done is bring back up your bitter gall at my having repeatedly proved you wrong and self-contradictory and illogical and violent and stupidly unethical. Just shut up and go away. You could join a left wing cheer squad for compulsory government education of girls in northern Nigeria - things you believe in.

JKJ,

"All you have done is bring back up your bitter gall at my having repeatedly proved you wrong and self-contradictory and illogical and violent and stupidly unethical. Just shut up and go away...."

A thousand pardons, but I can't help myself. Watching you attempting to ascribe all kinds of odious values to the people you debate is like an endless series of reruns...it's all you can do.

Loudy, and his twenty questions demanding "yes/no" answers is vying for the role on OLO of most predictable poster...he does it no matter how scant his knowledge of the actual subject. That and his sarcasm means he's seriously challenging you, JKJ.

Love the way you say you've proved me "violent"...pray tell, is that in the same way that you accuse everyone else of violence who has the temerity to debate you?

Time to scratch around in the bottom of your kit bag for a new line, methinks.

Joe,

You had hoped that my answer to Jardine question would be either yes or no.

Didn’t happen that way, for a reason, and here you are with the stuff you had prepared assuming that I will not see the crookedness built in the question.

Apparently, you have not been able to see from my answer so far that I had seen through your questioner. Here are details for you in more explicit terms:

The question is a two layer statement: The bottom layer is a FALSEHOOD OF MONUMENTAL PROPORTIONS, as I have already pointed out, and the top layer “Do you think it's okay to kill, enslave or rape non-Muslims “is a question that no sane mind can say “Yes” to. But if you say “No” to the question, you still own the sinister assumption built into the bottom layer.

Nice try!

What you did not expect is that your assumption in the bottom layer can be easily demolished, which is exactly what I did and with that your whole trap got dismantled.

Interestingly, you and SPQR have been eagerly waiting for a yes or no from me, applauding the questioner who seems happy with his mastery of 7th grade logic.

Good part is that your follow up in this question episode has given me the insight about you I was hoping to get from your answers to my questions which you have evaded so far. The situation is:

1. You make a statement (one of many faulty ones) that “After all, the Koran wasn't written down for a hundred years after his (Muhammad’s) death, there were competing versions of it floating around, and perhaps still are.”;

2. But you evade to substantiate your statement despite my repeated requests.

The obvious conclusion is that you can make statements without a credible source to support them.

Useful information!

Jardine
"How is the question, whether Pakistanis are rising up against terrorism as a nation or state, logically relevant ......."

Please address this question to the person who raised it in the first place, by pointing out difference of nation and state, in this debate. The name of that person is Jardine; see your own earlier posts.

This debate about Pakistan, has been started by a person of your side, who challenged and attempted to make fun of my passing reference, as "the joke of the year"...and then you Jardine entered the debate...totally unprepared.
You and others on your side challenged what I had said about Pakistan rising up as a nation against terrorism. I provided the reference of international and national media and invited you to verify the information I had provided; and plenty of other means are still available to do so. But you continued to refute me; unprepared.

Now, here is your situation. You are challenging a substantiated and verifiable statement...while yourself armed with only guess work and conjecture; "I think" and " probably" are the words you use. The irony is that you still can not see the untenability of your position and this is, in spite of the warning I gave you not to expose your ignorance any further.

You know why it is happening?... You may never realize. It is because the hate damages the beholder. It first attacks the ability to stay impartial and rational. Read this again and again and contemplate; may you be guided to the truth, amen.

Now on your repeated question;
"Let's get this straight. Are you saying that no part of the Koran preaches or authorises the killing, enslaving or raping of unbelievers"

Please tell me which part of Quran preaches raping of unbelievers or of any body else for that matter?
We will go over your questions, one by one; mind the word restriction, if you are realistic.

Joe, please read, for you too raised a similar question.

CAN,T YOU SEE?

How would it be if I tried to put all Christian people on the spot for Inquisition and inhuman crimes committed in the name of Religion and then based on that example I insisted, "your Bible sanctions burning people alive for thinking differently?"

It would be absurd. Why? Because zealots err and transgress and commit accesses and atrocities in the name of religion; zealots of all religions. They are like cancer in any society and should be treated as such; by isolating, not letting it spread to the whole body and destroying it. Any attempt to involve and infect the rest of the body is madness.

Can't you see the madness going on in this forum?

The people who go about committing the crimes in the names of IS, Boco haram or what ever, are cancers. Let us help the body dealing with its cancer. Like, it has started in Pakistan; the arrest orders for the cleric of the main masjid of the capital city; Lal- Masjid, have been issued.

We are not doing right when we insist that all Muslims are on the side of cancer.

Don't do it, for if you did, you may only harm yourself and your beautiful and peaceful country. Read about the fire bomb attack on a Masjid in a European country and injuring a half dozen worshippers ?......Can't you see?
That is the point the author of the' article,we are discussing, has made. Can't you see?

As for the friends, armed with cherry picked hate material and based on this, posing to be experts and are bent upon starting a debate on comparative study of religions on this forum with word restriction. It is like trying to catch a Jet liner with a fly catcher. Please read on, please study further, if you are serious. Deep and honest study; by yourself will unmask the truth to you. This hate charged debate will only push you deeper in the ignorance.
Can't you see? Or can you?

@ McAdam --this is where you show how ill-informed you are!

<<How would it be if I tried to put all Christian people on the spot for Inquisition and inhuman crimes committed in the name of Religion>>

Happens EVERY DAY in the lectures theatres & forums of our universities --and across the media. Christianity & CHRISTIAN PEOPLES are daily held accountable for the Inquisition,the forced conversion of the Americas ,slavery -- you name...

But when similar is raised about Islams dark history people like you and NC label it a HATE crime.

Why, your good buddy NC wasnt even aware of the Islamic-Turkish-Arab slave trade --and once more, he didnt want to know anything about it.

McAdam

Just answer the question. Are you saying that no part of the Koran preaches or authorises the killing, enslaving or raping of unbelievers?

Shouldn't This Debate Be Over Now?

This debate should have ended after my post of equating the scourge of terrorism with cancer. That is as loud and clear, as it possibly can get. But it may generate a set of new questions.This is an attempt to answer those possible questions.
Our capacity to accept new answers varies, depending on the different levels of prejudices and pre conceived ideas, that we all seem to have.

Please recall, when West decided to arm the Mujahideen against Soviet Union, they were already in the field, with almost bare hands ..against foreign occupation of their homeland. At that time, they were like "Resistance in Europe against German occupation or like the Americans Founding Fathers struggling for independence from the colonial power. Reagan rightly equated them with the Founding Fathers, for this reason. When foreign funding started, came with it; the paid recruiters and paid zealots to motivate the recruits and potential recruits. That is the on set of cancer. The paid zealots and paid recruiters, are the cancer, possibly the financier too.

Is the game over now or is it on? It's any body's guess, but those categories still appear to be in the field. All these categories would be judged differently by history. Those resisting occupation or apartheid, need our gratitude, for we all owe our freedom to them. This is the lot, that the likes of Gandhi and Nelson Mandela, come from. Those being used and made fool of, like the assassins of Hasson-o-Sabbah are the pitiable lot. And those who are in this business for personal gains, need universal condemnation and eradication.

There is no mechanism available to judge the motive of a person other than his/her actions. So any crime against innocent civilians must be condemned and perpetrators punished. Terrorism in all its meneftststions and forms must be condemned. We must,at the same time, condemn, not as a precondition, but on its own merit, the state terrorism and subjugation of people through oppression. We must stand by the side of people opposing and resisting oppression.

NC/McAdam,

So, the answer to Jardine's question,

" Are you saying that no part of the Koran preaches or authorises the killing, enslaving or raping of unbelievers?"

is 'No' ? IS and all similar terrorist and criminal groups across the Islamic world are acting very much against the Koran, and against the interests of genuine Muslims ?

So, you are saying that the Koran and the hadiths are totally opposed to the beheading of children, the rape and enslavement or murder of young women, the murder of unarmed prisoners, the crucifixion of non-Muslims, the burning alive of teachers and schoolchildren ?

There is no mention of anything as brutal as that in any Islamic texts ? Apart from the cutting off of hands, stoning, etc., that we are used to ?

I certainly hope that you are right. IS etc. are un-Islamic terrorists ? You are appalled by what they have been doing, them and all the other fascist groups across the Muslim world ?

So the Left has backed the wrong horse, again, on their path to extinction ?

By the way, elaborating on SPQR's point, is there still slavery in Mauretania and other parts of north Africa, and in Saudi Arabia, or not ? Do you support that ? After all, it's probably 'cultural' ?

Joe

Joe

Taqiyya 1 of 2

This is brief on Taqiyya (mentioned repeatedly by you and at least one other participant of this discussion).

I am addressing it to you, but it is, in fact, for the honest seekers of the facts. They will find enough information to form a correct view on it.

It is alleged that Taqiyya “allows Muslims to lie to the disbelievers” for host of ill motives.

BACKGROUND

A Muslim (Ammar B. Yasir) in Muhammad’s time was subjected by unbelievers to unbearable physical torture and forced to insult Muhammad and praise their deities. He understandably yielded to pressure in unbearable torture and complied with the demand, unlike Bilal, for instance, who used to shout words of praise for Allah in this situation at the risk of his life. Ammar expressed his feeling of guilt to Muhammad, at a later stage. Muhammad told him “Say it again if they force you to do so”.

Shortly after this incident, the relevant verse of Quran (16:106) was revealed which has been frequently misquoted by the Medieval Mindset (resurfacing in hate sites) which has been focus of my recent posts.

The exact translation of the verse is:
“Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief - save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with the Faith - but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom.” [Pikthal translation of the Quran 16:106]

Peace of Ammar’s mind was restored after he found out that he had not sinned when his safety forced him to say what the perpetrators of torture wanted to hear.

The above background and the history is the beginning and the end of Taqqiyyah in mainstream Islam – there is nothing more , nothing less.

Original records available to upright researchers of this age show so vividly than none of them has ever endorsed the medieval mindset on this subject. Trash on the internet, filled with filth of distortions and misquotes, hosted by hate-sites is a different story.

Continue

Continued
Joe,

Taqiyya 2 of 2

FACTS

1. The world Taqiyya has its origin in word “Waqa” which means “safequard”/”self-protection”.
2. As you can see, IT DEALS ONLY WITH A SITUATION WHERE PERSONAL SAFETY IS THREATENED by the force a Muslim is subjected to;
3. World constitutions and penal codes of societies of this day acknowledge the fact the any statement/contracts made in duress have no legal standing.
4. There is not an iota of a suggestion here that the Muslims have been authorised to lie to unbelievers to achieve any other objectives;

SOURCES

The details of the background, pointed out above, have been meticulously preserved in the early records of Islam. The original information is accessible to modern-day researchers who are able to demolish medieval distortions surrounding Islam for the readers in the non-Muslim world.

On Taqiyya, the following references will suffice.

a: “Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam Hardcover” – by H. A. R. Gibb & J. H. Kramers (1997)
b: “New Encyclopedia of Islam”: A Revised Edition of the Concise Encyclopedia of Islam - by Cyril Glasse & Huston Smith (2001)

MEDIEVAL MINDSET AND INTERNET HATE SITES

The medieval mindset is still attached to the medieval distortions even though these distortions have been completely demolished by new research in the West. It has benefited the people of west, the Muslim world always had access to the original records. But, interestingly, the medieval mindset has resurfaced recently in a host of hat sites at the net, which, unfortunately constitute THE SOURCE for these distortions echoing in this thread.

Taqiyya, a phenomenon that delivers peace to sincere persons uncomfortable with their utterances in duress, is being presented as ‘code of Taqiyya’ and exploded out of context to further objectives of the medieval mindset.

Joe,

I notice you still asking me questions (your post of the 27th).

Know that have you lost any right to my response until:

• you answer my questions – about 72 hours old now; and
• apologise for making a false statement that Quran was written 100 years after Muhammad’s death.

Your other false statements would have come under scrutiny if a rational exchange had progressed, which did not because of your refusal to answer legitimate questions. Your answer would have exposed your ignorance you are hiding under tricky statements coming from you.

Know further that an exchange where you can ask me questions and I cannot (my post of the 26th) is NOT ON.

I addressed you for first time on the 24th appreciating in good-faith your statement “Nobody is demonising Muslims – nobody has to”.

I am now convinced that you never meant what you said.

This along with:

• your misinformation;
• your misquotes;
• your pressing on with a crooked question resting on a false statement from your associate for a yes or no answer – which I dismantled by demolishing the false assumption it rested on;
• your throwing around terminologies like “Medina option”, “Mecca option” etc despite your total ignorance of historical facts; and
• your attempts to “demonise Muslims”

have lead me to the conclusion that you are, if fact, another SPQR.

This is my last message directly addressed to you.

I will keep doing what I have been doing i.e. posting facts for upright minds on the subject I have pursued so far

Come on NC, no one has to “demonise Muslims” .

They do a damn good job of doing it for themselves, where ever they raise their ugly heads.

NC/McAdam,

So, since you don't agree that IS and all the other thug-terrorist groups across the Muslim world are flouting, or going against, anything in the Koran, then you believe that they ARE acting and speaking fully in accordance with the Koran ?

It follows that you are suggesting that the Koran allows the beheading of children, the rape, murder and enslavement of women and girls, the murder of unarmed prisoners, etc. ? Is that so ?

Or have I misunderstood ? That really, all the Islamo-fascist groups are operating in direct opposition to genuine Islam ?

Which is to it to be, NC/McAdam ? A simple 'yes' or 'no' ?

Or, of course, you can keep blustering and obfuscating, to dodge the issue.

Joe

Joe you are very lucky

NC demands: <<apologise for making a false statement that Quran was written 100 years after Muhammad’s death>>

The usual options offered are --conversion or death!

And here's a better assessment of Taqiyya:
http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war

<<Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it … We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.[5]>>

Jardine,
I had suggested that we close the forum because you and others on your sides were repetitive, indicating not having anything new to add. But you seem to be bent upon exposing your lack of knowledge and lack of reason. So be it. I had asked you following question:-

"Please tell me which part of Quran preaches raping of unbelievers or of any body else for that matter?
And had also suggested;
"We will go over your questions, one by one; mind the word restriction, if you are realistic."

Your answer to this specific question is as follows:-
"Just answer the question. Are you saying that no part of the Koran preaches or authorises the killing, enslaving or raping of unbelievers"

No Jardine, this is intellectual dishonesty. If you say some something, it is your responsibility to substantiate it. You allege that Quran preaches and authorizes rape of unbelievers, onus is on you to furnish the evidence; elementry!

Tell me where in Quran is rape preached or authorized?

You seem to bent upon exposing your utter ignorance, in spite of my advice against it and in spite of the fact that I provided you face saving opportunity repeatedly.
You challenged my true statement about Anti Terrorism in Pakistan and could provide no evidence to support your false claim. You started an unnecessary debate on state/ nation and then asked my explanation as who started this irrelevant debate and Now you keep repeating that Quran sanctions rape and when I ask you to provide any proof to support your ridiculous claim, you try to perry the question by counter question.

You are so blinded by your hatred that you can't see how have you made a complete fool of yourself, more than once. I gave you every chance to save face but you exposed yourself.

Come back to me when you have a reference from Quran about preaching and authorization of rape, otherwise, I am not interested in wasting my time with you.

McAdam

Are you saying that no part of the Koran preaches or authorises the killing, enslaving or raping of unbelievers?

McAdam/NC,

You may be misunderstanding SPQR.

The question is: In your view, is Islamic State acting against the teachings of the Koran in beheading children, raping and enslaving women and girls, and in murdering unarmed prisoners ? If so, will IS thugs go straight to Hell when they are killed ?

A simple 'yes' or 'no' would do nicely :)

Joe

I can find nothing on beheading children sanctioned in Muslim holy books in reading around the net, only enslavement. Perhaps an age limit is not being recognized by perpetrators.

I'm not sure what constitutes a "hate site" precisely, but here can be found many interpretations of statements from Muslim holy books:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm that do not support NC and McAdam.

They may wish to pull apart several of the interpretations to refute the argument that Islam, while providing a code to live by, is a supremacist ideology. Refutation is needed both to convince doubters of fundamentalist Islam's good intentions, and, to convince IS et al that they have strayed from Islam by their actions.

Luciferase, i dont often agree with you on other threads/issues but you have earned a lot of respect from me for your principled stand on this thread.

NC/McAdam/Junaid

1. Pakistani issue
You need to decide whether the Pakistani issue is relevant.

If it is, then stop trying to squirm out of answering my questions by telling me to ask someone else what the relevance of it is.

If it’s not, then stop trying to squirm out of answering my questions by pleading the prior relevance of it.

Even if I conceded everything you claim about the Pakistani issue, which I don’t, all you would have established is that the Pakistani state has decided on a military operation against the Taliban. However obviously if the Taliban are motivated by beliefs or doctrines that Muslims, as Muslims, share in common, a Pakistani army attack on the Taliban is not going to solve the problem.

Therefore you have not established any point of significance turns on this issue, far less any intellectual dishonesty on my part. The intellectual dishonesty is all your own: equivocation, evasion and ad hominem.

2. Relation between Islam and Islamism
>>"Are you saying that no part of the Koran preaches or authorises the killing, enslaving or raping of unbelievers?"

>”No Jardine, this is intellectual dishonesty. If you say some something, it is your responsibility to substantiate it.”

I’m asking you, not telling you. Therefore there is no onus on me to prove it one way or another.

Your argument is only the “No true Scotsman” fallacy. According to your theory, any Muslim terrorist, by committing a terrorist act, shows that he is not “sane” or is a “zealot”. Therefore Islamism has nothing to do with Islam, supposedly. The atrocities committed daily in the name of Islam are just some kind of strange coincidence, nothing to do with Islam.

To state the argument is to see the stupidity and dishonesty of it, unobscured by your repeated attempts at evasion larded at every stage with spiteful personal argument.

So what’s the answer to my question?

Jardine
"So what’s the answer to my question?"

Answer dear Jardine is; SUBSTANTIATE THE LIE YOU ARE TRYING TO PEDDLE, THAT QURAN PREACHES OR AUTHORIZES RAPE .....otherwise....EVERY ONE ON THIS FORUM HAS SEEN THAT YOU ARE LYING.

This is the second time you have put yourself in an untenable position, and you can't even see.

You can't see, because of the hate that has poisoned your rationality and has blinded you.
You are fooling, only yourself, by posting a page full of rubbish and no substantiation of your ridiculous claim.

Got it?

SPQR
"this is where you show how ill-informed you are!"

This SPQR, is your comment on my statement ;
"How would it be if I tried to put all Christian people on the spot for Inquisition ......
It would be absurd..."

What is the matter with you?
Is it that don't read ?....or
Is it that you can't think straight?

Your track record shows; its both

About rape:
Allah said, (Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess.) The Ayah means, you are prohibited from marrying women who are already married, (except those whom your right hands possess) except those whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant. Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said, "We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah (Quran 4:24) was revealed. Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women.''
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=684&Itemid=59

"The Apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Quran 4:24) Abu Dawud (2150) -

"O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee" (Q 33:50)

"But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good" (Q8:69)

“We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them.” (Bukhari)
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/062-sbt.php#007.062.137

As to beheading, try Quran 47:4 and 8:12. About killing: Q9:111.

Don’t Muslims ever read the Quran? How are they going to be good Muslims if they don’t kill and rape?

A thought: rather then our resident Muslims trying to convince we infidels that Islam is wonderful, why don’t they spend their time trying to convince Muslims that Islam teaches peace and tolerance? I mean, for most honest people the sorry state of Islamic societies might be a clue about something…

Hello McAdam,

I can understand your angst ...you have had your tail well and truly kicked …after that, anyone would be sore.

As I pointed out, EVERYDAY in our university lecture theatres and forums and EVERYDAY in the media CHRISTIAN PEOPLES held accountable for their history.

You SAY that such would be unfair –-nevertheless, both you and NC are more than happy to USE such criticism if it aids the defence of your belief system.

So, we regularly get Islamic apologists coming out with claims like this:
--The crusades were an unprovoked attack on a peaceful Muslim community, or
--The American/Atlantic slave trade was an example of Christendom’s (or America’s) inhumanity and hypocrisy …and you would never ever find similar anywhere under Islam !

Your ally NC being totally oblivious to the Islamic Turkish Arab , because to paraphrase him: lefty academics and Hollywood movies only ever talk about the Christian American slave trade --- therefore, any talk about an Islamic slavery just had to be a HATE crime. And its precisely that sort of lopsided viewing of things that gives ISIS its recruits

McAdam

"SUBSTANTIATE THE LIE YOU ARE TRYING TO PEDDLE"

1. assuming what is in issue
2. reversing onus of proof
3. mind-reading

Three logical fallacies in 8 words, not bad.

"This is the second time you have put yourself in an untenable position, and you can't even see."

4. Assuming what is in issue
5. Lying - you have not established any "untenable position" on my part. Your attempt to squirm out of the whole issue by saying the Pakistani army is attacking the Taliban is irrelevant and evasive.

"You can't see, because of the hate that has poisoned your rationality and has blinded you. You are fooling, only yourself, by posting a page full of rubbish and no substantiation of your ridiculous claim."

6. mind-reading, furious personal argument
7. assuming what is in issue
8. trying to reverse the onus of proof

McAdam, I'm asking you WHETHER, not telling you THAT, the Koran authorises killing, enslaving and rape. Therefore there is no claim on my part, and no need for me to substantiate the claim - which in any event kactuz has just done. Although there JUST MIGHT be some other verses in Koran and hadith too, mightn't there, McAdam?

I say you know that your argument that Islamism has nothing to do with Islam is stupid and dishonest.

I say the reason the only reason you are are answering by way of furious abuse, mind-reading, misrepresentation, evasion, circularity, lying and repetition, is because you know that if you answer the question you will prove yourself wrong, so you prefer intellectual dishonesty and abuse instead. Not much of an advertisement for Islam.

But by all means, prove me wrong. Answer the question. No abuse, no fury, no pretended indignation, no diversion into irrelevance about Pakistan, no insisting on prior points, no pretending some other formality is more urgent.

Just answer it. Are you saying that no part of the Koran preaches or authorises the killing, enslaving or raping of unbelievers?

Taqiyya and misquoting Quran

To the Taqiyya description from the original sources (my post of 27th) SPQR has come up with his usual internet trash and on the authority of a known Islamophobe, whose references to Quran on Taqiyya are totally twisted as are his distortions of history and other sources.

Taqiyya is the recognition that one’s utterances in the face of pressure and torture contrary to his/her beliefs are an understandable response. There is nothing more to it.

This is a fact recognised by human common sense and all legal codes of this age which do not recognise any contract or commitment made by someone in duress.

But SPQR will continue doing it as he has done before.
Example:

• His post 30 July (on another article by the same author): he brings up a quote and writes on top of it “From Koran”
• He is confronted to quote a reference from Quran by another poster including myself
• He replies (his post 31 July) “<<the Quranic passage you quoted...doesn't exist in the Quran>>
Oh yes it does old fellow-- along with a lot worse.
Better do some reading up on your religion,eh!”

Note that he even pointed out the location of his fictitious reference in Quran “ALONG WITH A LOT WORSE)”even though he has not seen it there for himself. Does he have a shame in misquoting? NONE AT ALL!

Interpretation of history has a high level of subjectivity. But in case of Quran, clarity can be established.

Still SPQRs attempt to distort references from Quran.

Another SPQR insists that Quran authorizes rape. McAdams has asked him for so many times now to quote “a reference from Quran about preaching and authorization of rape”. Every time he comes back with his gobbledygook and NO reference. How can he, when there is NONE.

kactuz,
About rape and Quran:
You quote Quran 4:24, full translation is:
And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done)

"Please note, "so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery." Clearly marriage is the subject here and not rape.

Your second quote 33: 50, complete translation is:

O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of thine uncle on the father's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the father's side, and the daughters of thine uncle on the mother's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the mother's side who emigrated with thee, and a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage - a privilege for thee only, not for the (rest of) believers - We are Aware of that which We enjoined upon them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess - that thou mayst be free from blame, for Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.

Here too, "whom your right hand posesseth and those Allah hath given thee as spoils of war" are bracket with the kith and kin. No doubt it is the honest wedlock that is the subject and not rape.

008.069 Now enjoy what ye have won, as lawful and good, and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. ( All Pickthal Translations)

No preaching or sanction of rape here either.
Continues

Thanks

Hi NC/McAdam,

Thank you for that: but that raises yet other questions - not statements or assertions, please, but questions:

* if the Koran, as you say, forbids the rape of any woman - captive, slave, non-believer, child, or any other female, then would you agree that IF Islamic State terrorists are doing this, then they are acting against the teachings of the Koran ?

OR

* IF they ARE acting in accordance with instructions from the Koran, can you point out those sections (or sections of any of the hadiths) which allow them to rape, enslave, murder, behead and crucify ?

Of course, you can wriggle out of all this by claiming that IS terrorists are NOT raping or enslaving or beheading or shooting or bombing anyone, it's all US propaganda. Give that one a try :)

Joe

The problem is that EVERYWHERE Muslims go they take their hate and violence with them.

Quote: The Swedish police recently released a map of 55 areas where they publicly admit to having surrendered control to the criminal gangs. These areas have long had problems with mailmen, fire trucks and ambulances being attacked when trying to enter, which has led to them routinely requesting police escort. Now it’s the police being attacked outright. These no-go zones are primarily so-called “exclusion areas” which is the politically correct term for the 186 ghettos that have sprung up around Sweden in the past two decades. These areas are predominantly populated by immigrants from muslim countries with low education and even lower employment rates. The exception being the enthusiastic entrepreneurs in the fields of drug dealing, protection rackets and robberies.
http://swedenreport.org/2014/10/29/swedish-police-55-official-no-go-zones/

Its the same in Denmark:
Quote: Many of the gang members who take an active part in the ongoing conflict in Copenhagen come from refugee families. For them, violence is a natural way to resolve conflicts. The band members are just part of a large group of young men with refugee backgrounds who are convicted and released over and over in a loop of crime. 70% of young people in penal institutions in Denmark are immigrants, and 40 percent of them are refugees
http://www.information.dk/189994

The words “immigrants” and “Muslims” are mostly interchangeable. According to (PC) government experts, crime is caused by violence trauma they fled from and, yes, that trauma is inherited.

The negative effect of Muslim immigration (crime, poverty, violence, abuse, rape, welfare overload and fraud) is evident everywhere Muslims go in numbers. Here on OLO we have an article “Monis and…” blaming immigrant problems on untreated PTS. Of course.

Yet leaders in the West – Sweden, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Canada, the US, Australia, etc. – lie to us and pretend the obvious problems have nothing to do with islam.

And people like NC and MCAdma invest hours to proclaim all criticism of Islam and Muslims as hate or ignorance. Never once do they consider Islamic dogma as a source of evil.

NC and McAdam (made a mess out of your name above)

On a kinder note. Firstly, know that my dislike of Islam proceeds from threats against myself (yawn) and my family (contemptable MFers!). They were not you and I don’t hold you responsible for what other Muslims do, but you defend an ideology that I sincerely believe is problematic.

You disagree. Fine. I am certainly much older than you both, and I want for you and yours the same that I want for my children and grandchildren. From where I stand I see Islam as a detrimental force due to a complex number of forces that have come together (I have written about this 10 years ago here) but most of all it is because Muslims have no ability to reflect on Islam’s theory and practice. Criticism of the Quran and Mohammad are off-limits, so nothing changes.

Basically Islam is an “all or nothing” proposition; either it is perfect or it is a mass of errors, so you give no ground.

So it is. I'll let you know a little secret: In all my years here and on other sites, I do not know that I have ever convinced a Muslim of anything or changed a mind. I don’t really do this to argue with Muslims, but to share with non-Muslims what I have learned in thousands of hours of study of Islamic documents and doctrine.

I am sure we all want a better world for our children, but I doubt that will be the case. As I have said here, the future will not be nice. Too much evil and stupidity has been done by all (Muslims and infidels). Pandora’s box is open and the venom of loathing will spread.

At this point, I think that all our collective ramblings here are pointless. You will not change, we will not change and our leaders will continue to pursue foolish policies that will damn us all.

But, at least, as the Chinese say, we can be thankful we live in interesting times.

You take care. Jay Kactuz

McAdam, I find your defense thin. What do you interpret as what the "right hand" possesses in the first and second quotes and what "Allah hath given thee as spoils of war" in the second?

I can't quite discern from the quotes whether marriage is involved in having sex with the (captive) spoils of war but, if it were, there would obviously be a degree of coercion involved i.e. a choice between yielding to the process or death. That's rape. If marriage is not involved in enjoying the "spoils", that's rape too. As I said, a thin defense, unless I'm missing something.

Perhaps it could be understood in the context of its times. How would women survive with their menfolk annihilated and without any other (international agency) support? It's a crime against humanity nowadays.

Rape aside, what of interpretations from the site I provided, say, regarding other such crimes?

Continuing with my posts on Muhammad, the one revered by the great minds.

And who is by far the most remarkable man who ever set foot on this earth.

In famous words of Annie Besant,

“It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet”

In the words of Edward Gibbon and Simon Ocklay “History of the Saracen Empire, London 1870” page 54.
“It is not the propagation but the permanency of his religion that deserves our wonder; the same pure and perfect impression which he engraved at Mecca and Madina is preserved, after the revolutions of twelve centuries by the Indian, the African and the Turkish proselytes of the Koran... The Mahometans have uniformly withstood the temptation of reducing the object of their faith and devotion to a level with the senses and imagination of man. I believe in One God and Mahomet is the Apostle of God' is the simple and invariable profession of Islam. The intellectual image of the Deity has never been degraded by any visible idol; the honors of the prophet have never transgressed the measure of human virtue; and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reason and religion."

On gradual journey of humanity to human values of today:

This post covers a current reference to Quran on slave women of the time “those your right hand possess”.

My focus would be the upright minds seeking truth on this and related aspects.

Quran lifted the society of the time gradually out of its vile practices, which was the only way to do it.

The poster presumes that human beings acted and thought exactly as the people of this age of reason do. Therefore, the current practices must decide what should have been right or wrong in those societies.

Examine a fact for clarity on what I have just said.

Twelve Tables are recognised as the first source of written law out of which the Roman and therefore Western laws have gradually evolved over centuries.

Twelve Tables recognise the authority of a father over the life and death of a son and also authorise him to sell his son into slavery for a number of times.

For a clarification again: I am not insinuating anything devilish about Roman society – but only pointing out that its right and wrong were different from present.

Can you judge this law by the current standards and independent of awareness of the right and wrong of the society then. I don’t think so.

Slavery has been prevalent in human society since long and was rampant in the times we are talking about. There were slave women in Muhammad’s times who were predominantly forced to bring money to their owners through prostitution. Islam changed this, as a first step. Imagine the social ills it corrected.

Quran rated freeing a slave as one of the highest virtues. One of many freed slaves in Muhammad’s time was one of his most respected friends (black) Bilal.

And then is the respect for women Quran introduced and gradually convinced its followers which equally benefitted the slave women.

A bigger vision can see things in the right perspective. This is why great minds revere Muhammad for what he did for humanity.

On McAdam’s notes on correct translation of Quran

McAdam’s presentation of the correct translation of the Quranic verses that Kactuz misunderstood has shifted the discussion a bit.

The fact I have pointed out many times is that there is a whole lot of material on the internet generated by the medieval mindset full of distortions about Quran and Muhammad. If you decide not to look outside this trash, the outcome is obvious, as it shows in the posts repeatedly peddling falsehood.

Kactuz responds to McAdam’s clarifications saying that he is a very old man. It only shows how long he has been exposed to distortions. Still, he can approach the subject with an open mind, if his prejudices let him.

This was done by thousands of people in the west, with the result is the Islam is the word’s fastest-growing religion in the west.

Arnoud Van Doorn, Dutch politician who once helped produce a film depicting Islam as evil and extreme , like Kactuz does– is an interesting case study for Kactus.

He used to be a leading member of the Party for Freedom in Netherlands, headed by the notorious Geert Wilders.

Respect for truth in his mind forced Doorn to dig for truth independent of his prejudice.

As he said

“I have heard so many negative stories about Islam, but I am not a person who follows opinions of others without doing my own research,” he said. “Therefore, I have actually started to deepen my knowledge of Islam out of curiosity.”

The outcome of an honest search: He is a Muslim now!!

With a confession that entire world has heard “I AM SORRY, O PROPHET”

Doorn’s son observes:

“I saw my father become more peaceful after converting to Islam”
“That’s when I realized there is something good in this religion and it made me change my perception of Muslims.”

The son too is a Muslim now.

Kactuz may want to step out of the prejudices that one-eyed medieval literature has planted in him. He may be able to see the life-giving light of the Quran.

Oh come on, McAdam, There must be 10,000 Muslim websites that say “ma malakat aimanukum” (what your right hands possess) refers to captives or slaves. Of course, all also go on to say that this is about care by compassionate Muslims who will marry and/or care for them. Yeah, right.

Read the quran and hadith again. Say the words carefully, s-l-o-w-l-y. It says that Muslims can have sex with captured or slave married women (and no need to even mention the fate of unmarried). This is a special divine exemption from the sin of adultery.

It is very clear that this is an authorization to have sex with women -- married or not -- who are captured or owned by Muslims. Note that the woman’s opinion is not considered. That is rape.

These are the same verses that ISIS fighters use to justify rape. Of course, if the quran were really perfect, the moral prohibitions would be clear, and evil men would not so easily find verses to justify their actions.

As I have said before here, it seems that Allah and Mohammad don’t care very much about little girls. If they did, they would not put rubbish into the Quran/hadith that lets evil men justify evil. Do you want to hear the true story of a young girl named Aisha, who was raped then condemned to die for ‘zina’ a few years ago? The elders applied Islamic law. I saved the article.

NC, When you say the “Quran lifted the society of the time gradually” you aren’t kidding. I remember when SaudiArabia abolished slavery in the 1960s. 1300years is really gradual.

Nothing is absolute like morality based upon “current practices must decide what should have been right or wrong”. Are you saying then that homosexuality is fine?

Yes, as to the “respect for women Quran introduced” nothing says respect like ignoring women, saying they are worth half a man, permitting beating, mentioning only one by name in the Quran and saying they are deficient in intelligence and not worthy to lick pus off their husband.

Bye. Off to work.

So much fear driving so much hatred.

On both sides.

To what end?

continued:
So the full quotes show that The Quran, in no ways preaches or authorizes rape, as was being incorrectly suggested.

Quran however does talk of slaves and spoils of war. That makes a few minds uneasy for they think and judge in the terms of present times. That was the prevalent practice of the time and is in no way exclusive to Quran or Islam.
A quote from a biblical story and an extract from Bible are being quoted here. Jacob retuned after serving his uncle Laban, for years with a large heard and in addition, two daughters of the uncle; Leah, and Rachel as wives and two slave women Zilpah and Bilha . Later, his son Joseph who suffered at the hands of his brothers was to be sold in slavery, in his boyhood.
And now a quote from Bible; However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
The quotes from biblical story and from Bible are from secondary source with possible need of correction. Please do correct, if any misquote is noticed."

Thanks

McAdam/NC,

So the morals of the Koran are equivalent to biblical tales of four thousand years ago ? Yes, it does reflect the morals of traditional desert tribes, but I didn't think they were as backward as four thousand years behind the West.

You point out that the "Quran however does talk of slaves and spoils of war."

If the Koran was handed to Muhammad in 612 AD, ready-made, with not a verse ever to be changed, the literal word of Allah, then he was certainly prescient, knowing that the new converts to Islam would need to deal with "slaves and spoils of war".

So, if the Koran does talk a great deal about "slaves and the spoils of war", is that still applicable ? After all, not a word, or a n instruction, of the Koran is to be ever changed ? So slavery and distributing the spoils of war, including women, are still approved by the Koran ? Islamic State is, in fact, implementing the instructions of the Koran ?

Lucky Islam is a religion of peace. Are you going to also claim that it is a religion of justice for women ?

Joe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rekuWIKr55A

NC/McAdam

So you want us to believe that the Koran authorises the enslavement of women, but does not allow their owner to have non-consensual sex with them?

You need to understand that other people are not as stupid or intellectually dishonest as you are.

McAdam, how do your "corrected" verses of the Quran alter their meanings to mere references to marriage, exactly? There remains the idea of Allah supporting females, as spoils of war, to be used as their captors see fit, sexually or otherwise.

As for Leviticus, anybody who uses it to justify supremacist acts or crimes against humanity doesn't have my support. I don't see that going on in the world anyway, whereas it certainly is under the Quran. From Rationalwiki, "Jews think that Leviticus is the unadulterated word of God, as dictated to Moses on Mount Sinai. Unfortunately, the atheistic liberal modern world doesn’t allow them to follow all of these laws. Christians think that it’s the word of God, but point to 1 Corinthians 10:23–26 as exemption from following these laws. Interestingly, many fundamentalists still cite Leviticus 18:22 (kill the gays) as legitimate, even though they reject the book on principle. Other Christians accept all the laws with the exception of the ritualistic ones. That’s the definition of irony."

I don't care if you refuse to see exhortations to violence in your holy books while other followers of Islam embrace them. I do care that all followers of religion should commit to secular democracy ahead of any religious exhortation to do otherwise.

Join me in condemning any religious ideology that threatens secular democracy. Root out any that is perceived from without and within your religion, and put the State first. Is that too much to ask?

NC/McAdam,

Can you please explain why hundreds of Muslim women in Birmingham, UK are either attempting suicide or suiciding and being murdered by their own families because they have dishonoured Islam? There is a serious high rate of crime committed by Muslim men in the UK and else where. A psychiatrist in Birmingham who has worked in prisons there cites all this. And I have read about this sort of thing before. Here is Dr Theodore Dalrymple's inside view at first hand again, of his experience working with Muslim prisoners. Looks like you missed it. Can you please read it and comment? I don't want to overwhelm you but I do think they are very important issues. I don't understand how people could kill their own flesh and blood for the sake of honour. The women he says are so oppressed. And it seems if they Westernise, the trouble starts.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_2_when_islam.html

NC/McAdam
Obviously, a lot of your co-religionists don’t agree with your interpretation of the Koran and hadith – for example, the ones who have recently been beheading people, and killing and raping children, and blowing up public transport, abducting and raping school girls, and getting 13 year old girls to kill themselves by blowing up market places by threatening to kill their family if they don’t, and hacking people to death, throwing acid onto young children, slitting people’s throats, blowing up wedding parties, and so on.

My question is, what steps have you taken to explain to the many Muslims who don’t agree with you, that their views of the hadith, Koran, Mohammed and Allah are wrong, and that you renounce and condemn their views?

(No, my asking whether the widespread problem of Muslim atrocities has anything to do with their religious beliefs is not evidence of “hate” on my part, it’s evidence of hate on the part of your co-religionists. And your tactic of responding to questions about the connection between Islamism and Islam, by furious personal abuse, is evidence of hate on your part, so just cut that out and answer the question.)

Kactuz, "There must be 10,000 Muslim websites that say “ma malakat aimanukum” (what your right hands possess) refers to captives or slaves."

And then you go on to criticize Islam for sanctioning slavery. And at the same time gloss over the permissibility of slavery in Judaism and Christianity, ignoring the clear injunction of Bible, on the subject.
How is permissibility of slavery, Quran specific?
Ever seen the judgement of US Supreme Court that slaves are property? And what was the American Civil War about?
We need to be honest.

And then you interpret the meanings of "so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery." as rape and not marriage.

I believe you Kactuz when you say " I am certainly much older than you both". Yes Kactuz, very,...and it shows.

Please pay head to NC's advice and use your investment of time in study of Islam to see the truth, while you still can.
May God enable us all to see and embrace the truth, amen.

Luciferase
"Join me in condemning any religious ideology that threatens secular democracy."

I do not agree with you, but respect you for your honesty, as against those who are one eyed on the subject.

To others,
who have raised questions about violence within Muslim societies and heinous crimes committed in the name of Islam. Good questions...... we could discuss but the quota restricts my ability to respond immediately, please wait.

Why is there so much crime against women in Muslim societies. Yes there is quite a lot of it. A case that caught international attention is of rural Pakistan where a girl named Mukhtaran Mai was gang raped on orders of the informal village court for the crime of her brother who allegedly had some relationship with the girl from the opposite party. Barbaric? Sure. In accordance with Islamic teaching? Let's see.

"KOLKATA, Jan 23 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - A 20-year-old woman in eastern India was gang-raped by 13 men on the orders of a village court as punishment for having a relationship with a man from a different community.....she had violated the rules of her tribe by falling in love with a man from another community.........West Bengal recorded the highest number of gender crimes in the country at 30,942 in 2012 - 12.7 percent of India's total recorded crimes against women. These crimes include rape, kidnapping and sexual harassment and molestation..(Reported by Sujoy Dhar)

Clearly the villagers of Mukhtaran Mai have something in common with the non Muslim villagers in neighboring India; the cultural baggage and tribal customs they have carried along, in spite of embracing Islam.
This may explain the plight of women in UK from South Asia and neighboring countries.....not Muslims only.

Are the females suppressed in these societies? Yes. Is the situation likely to improve? Yes, if I am reading the trend correctly. May be these societies are where the west was in Victorian time or there about. They'll make it too, in time. Expecting them to achieve immediately, the mind change that requires generations, is unrealistic. This "holier than though" and demonizing approach does not help, it only vitiates the atmosphere.

This is how it appears to me, I am no expert on the subject and I can be wrong in my understanding. But what I have presented is true, to the best of my judgement.

McAdam

You've come all this way and you still haven't answered my question. Just leave out the evasion, and abuse, and telling me what my subjective thoughts are, and answer it: Are you saying that no part of the Koran preaches or authorises the killing, enslaving or raping of unbelievers?

If someone were charged with murder or other serious crime, and they attempted to defend or excuse their conduct by saying that other people were doing it, can you see that that would be operating at the level of a moral imbecile?

Also what steps have you taken to persuade the the many Muslims who obviously don’t agree with you and are currently committing atrocities, that their views of the hadith, Koran, Mohammed and Allah are wrong, and that you renounce and condemn their views as unIslamic?

@McAdam & Co,

Lets assume for a brief moment that McAdam has the correct interpretation of his religions texts --so he is right.

The fact that HUGE numbers of the movers and shakers in Islam interpret the same text very differently must surely be seen as a huge warning sign. If his texts can be so readily mis-read what a huge danger they pose.

However, on balance of probabilities -- I think what is most likely is that McAdam and NC are practising a form of taqiyya repacking things in terms which will go down well with a Western liberal audience—and should one day they get the numbers they will give a very different interpretation

NC/McAdam,

Just one simple question:

Is Islamic State acting in accordance with the Koran ? Yes ? No ?

Any obfuscation from now on will be a sure sign of complicity, and/or taqqiya. At least, then, we'll know where we stand with 'moderate' Muslims.

Yes ? No ?

Joe

Sane Minds on Muhammad .. continued..

An interesting fact about Muhammad is that he was unlettered and led a very quiet life for forty years. Then all of Arabia stood in awe and wonder of his eloquence when he began to preach Islam. It was so matchless that legions of Arab poets, preachers, and orators failed to produce a composition that could compare with or equal it.

Today’s quote is from:

"Islam: The Misunderstood Religion," by James A. Michene- Reader's Digest May 1955, pp. 68-70.

“Muhammad, the inspired man who founded Islam, was born about AD. 570 into an Arabian tube that worshipped idols. Orphaned at birth, he was always particularly solicitous of the poor and needy the widow and the orphan, the slave and the downtrodden.

At twenty he was already a successful businessman, and soon became director of camel caravans for a wealthy widow. When he reached twenty-five his employer, recognizing his meet, proposed marriage. Even though she was fifteen years older, he married her, and as long as she lived remained a devoted husband.

Like almost every major prophet before him, Muhammad fought shy of serving as the transmitter of God's word, sensing his own inadequacy. But the angel commanded Read'. So far as we know, Muhammad was unable to read or write, but he began to dictate those inspired words which would soon revolutionize a large segment of the earth: "There is one God."

In all things Muhammad was profoundly practical. When his beloved son Ibrahim died, an eclipse occurred, and rumours of God's personal condolence quickly arose. Whereupon Muhammad is said to have announced,' An eclipse is a phenomenon of nature. It is foolish to attribute such things to the death or birth of a human-being."

At Muhammad’s own death an attempt was made to deify him, but the man who was to become his administrative successor killed the hysteria with one of the noblest speeches in religious history:

'If there are any among you who worshipped Muhammad, he is dead. But if it is God you worshipped, He lives for ever'.”

@NC,
<<An interesting fact about Muhammad is that he was..>>

The most interesting thing about your little piece is your fanatical one-eyed editing of history--heaven help us if you ever was in a position to oversee the media or redesign the schools curricula --- it would be: new dark age here we come courtesy of NC & co

Jardine,"About Atrocities Committed In The Name of Islam"

The questions you raise are valid and the approach to these questions that you suggest; by "cutting out personal abuse", is rational.

Firstly, please recognize these societies differ from one an other and often various sections within a society are not on the same page. Secondly, these societies are masked from first hand view of the westerners, who are forced to see them through other's eyes, who may or may not be transparent.

Third problem is the restriction of words we can use, to cover these huge topics.

You will have to expand your own study to find the answers to your questions, please start with googling "The True, Peaceful Face Of Islam, by Karen Armstrong (former nun)", on Time web site. And www.usc.edu/.../The_Message_of_The_Quran__by_Muhammad_Asad.pdf. Muhammad Asad was formerly a Jew.

Just imagine, how off the mark one would be, who took the atrocities of Inquisition as the sole representative of Christianity? Zealots thrive in the environment of ignorance such as that prevailed in Europe at the time of Inquisition or such that prevails throughout the present Muslim societies. Some hard line Mullahs are deeply imbedded in the past. They follow the fossilized thinking of the Middle Ages.
You must be aware of a concept called "Ijtehad" roughly meaning renewal with independent reasoning, is inherent in Islam and was very vibrant but is at standstill since middle ages. Islam has to revive it to realize it's full potential of guiding the modern humanity.
Good news is that majority of middle class is for the way forward through Ijtehad. The hard liners with fossilized thinking who enjoy following in the relatively backward segment of the society are gradually loosing ground to reason. The Imam of the main Masjid of Islamabad is one such hard liner and government has ordered his arrest under pressure from the civil society.

I realize, I have not been able to do full justice to your good question, but if I have convinced you to carry on with your quest to find the truth, you will find what you seek.

Me: "Join me in condemning any religious ideology that threatens secular democracy."
McAdam: "I do not agree with you..."

What gives your religion the right to reign supreme over all of us? You and your co-ideologists are my enemy and I'll oppose you anywhere you are in the world, at home and internationally.

"Just imagine, how off the mark one would be, who took the atrocities of Inquisition as the sole representative of Christianity?"

Diversion. I do not judge what was done under Islam centuries ago, but what is done today. Why not use your energy and words to convince your fundamentalist element that your holy books do not espouse religious supremacy by violent means? Carry on preaching Islam's good message, by all means trying to achieve supremacy that way, but don't sit quietly while crimes are done by your co-religionists guided by its bad messages. Lack of fight against them is support for what they are achieving towards Islam's supremacist goal.

You are not for turning. Your base denial of violent exhortations in your holy books, and deification of your prophet shared with NC, is a blind-fold to reason. That's what religion is.

NC and especially McAdam, I admire your grace and calm persistence in the face of such wilfully ignorant bigotry.

Others, what a bunch of craven cowards you all are, jumping at shadows, scared of yourselves.

I am enormously grateful that you are not remotely representative of my country.

Hi Craig,

Most of us on this thread are trying to get at the truth, in the light of innumerable terrorist attacks, beheadings, murders. etc. supposedly in the name of Allah, i.e. carried out by self-proclaimed Islamists, or forgive the term, it's so not nice, Islamo-fascists. Either way, extreme Right-wingers.

For example, is the Islamic State acting entirely in accordance with the teachings of the Koran ? Yes ? No ?

If no, then should Islamo-fascism be unreservedly condemned ?

If yes, does that mean that the Koran sanctions the beheading of children, the frappe and enslavement (and/or murder) of women and girls, the execution of captured prisoners, the extermination of entire tribes, the crucifixion of non-Muslims, the bombing of market-places and the wholesale and indiscriminate execution of schoolchildren ?

Yes ? No ?

That's all I asking about, others may have other issues for McAdam/NC.

So please don't throw the label of 'bigot' around too freely. What is a bigot ? Someone who won't change his (or her) mind no matter what evidence you produce. Where does it leave you, or McAdam/NC ?

Joe

THE CONTEXT AND THE PERIPHERAL ISSUE 1 OF 2

The criticism is directed to:

1. Muhammad;
2. Quran; and
3. The followers

I have tried to restrict myself to No:1; have touched on No:2 because of few brazen misquotes and left NO:3 out of discussion for reasons. I can’t defend Muslim societies as- a- whole, just as kactuz can’t defend their counterparts in the west.

The fact is that the actions of the followers don’t alter the sublime life of Muhammad and just content of Quran.

But this style of discussion will be a big ask from kactuz who uses crime of a deranged criminal to vilify Muhammad and Quran. Not because there is a link, it is just because he wants to see a link.

He did not pick the message I delivered through example of the Roman Twelve Tables which authorised father to take life of his son- did not touch it either. Imagine what Kactuz would do to present-day Muslims if this was a written law of their society at any point in time.

Kactuz is oblivious to a miracle (in secular term) of Muhammad when he purged society clean of alcohol in his time – again in a gradual manner. No wonder, he could not grasp the gradual uplifting of society from its vile practices that Muhammad’s teaching brought about.

He comes back with the example of appalling Saudis (of all Muslim world) who took too long to abolish slavery. This is terrible failure of Saudi dictators, beyond any doubt.

But he conveniently forgets the torch-bearer of the western values, the US, which had laws forcing blacks to leave the bus seat when a white passenger arrives. One of many sufferers Rosa Park died few year ago (2005).

That torch-bearer, US, where struggle of blacks for the same civic rights as guaranteed to whites have been showcased to the whole world in such graphic details that kactuz will find volumes of literature if he takes time from Islam bashing.
Continued ..

Continued ..

THE CONTEXT AND THE PERIPHERAL ISSUE 2 OF 2

Would Kactuz extend these failures of US government to George Washington, Jesus and western civilisation etc. He must if he extends failures of Saudi dictators to so far in the past. Will it be the right approach if he does? NO.

Details on No: 3 are completely unrelated to Nos 1 &2. The point is that injustices have marred all societies, historically, the western societies included.

Kactuz brings up slavery for a reason, I suspect. The medieval literature and present internet trash is filled with insane views that the crime of slavery is exclusive to Muslims.

Nobody can defend the role of some Muslim societies in it. What I hinted earlier is that it has been a practice since ancient times. It was common in Roman world since ages, also the10th century Vikings would sell men and women in open markets along Volga River and Caspian Sea.

But nothing – repeat NOTHING in human history compares with the Atlanta slave trade (1441-1840) in volume, exploitation and brutality- exclusively operated by the western societies.
Historic records are too many and too vivid to be ignored along with the (18th and 19th Century) western literature condemning the blacks to an inherent inferior position for a moral justification for their enslavement.

A literature that deprives blacks of humanity (for instance) simply can NOT exist in a Muslim society – thanks to Muhammad’s teachings.

Kactuz must reflect on a conclusive historic evidence: How did the huge number of black Africans end up in Americas – On work visas? business visas?

Nowhere in the world you find that large concentration of slaves.

The above is meant to show the fact that all societies have their shortcomings.
West’s recent achievements in legal systems for social justice (in its own societies) is largely commendable. JUSTICE TO THE HUMANITY OF THE OTHER SOCIETIES IS ANOTHER SUBJECT.

Now this is where discussion on No:3 will lead us. I do not prefer this as a focus, unless, of course, I am forced to.

NC,

And where would Rosa Parks sit on a Saudi bus ? Anywhere ? or up the back, behind a barrier ?

Hypocrisy and bigotry is alive and well !

Joe

Loudmouth/Joe, I can see no way in which McAdam or NC can be connected with the atrocious behaviour of the psychopaths who lead IS and the damaged people they manage to attract.

What McAdam/NC have consistently shown is that despite great provocation they are able to rise above. That is admirable and deserves to be acknowledged.

On the other hand, despite every opportunity to extend a hand of friendship, the 'others' I referred to above have shown that their own natural level is the gutter and any extended hand is only for the purpose of dragging others to that level.

Do you feel comfortable in the gutter?

Yes? No?

NC, I previously posted a link to Roger Waters' great song "The Bravery of Being out of Range". It could be the anthem of many here, who hide behind pseudonyms to spout their hatred and fearmongering.

I spit on them.

Craig, what is bigoted about "Join me in condemning any religious ideology that threatens secular democracy." Answer given by your poster boy of grace and calm persistance: "I do not agree with you..."

Go jump, Craig, and take your PC labels with you.

Here's a turn up....

Broadcaster Alan Jones ordered to pay $10,000 for racial vilification.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/broadcaster-alan-jones-ordered-to-pay-10000-for-racial-vilification-20141229-12ezyh.html

"It is simply not reasonable to malign and denigrate Lebanese males in general in the context of discussing a particular incident involving a small ground of young Lebanese men," said the judgment, handed down earlier this month.

The tribunal found that Jones used "contemptuous and hateful language" and the broadcast was "gratuitously insulting and offensive to Lebanese males"."

Craig,

Thanks.

Your comment is in line with the observation that I shared in my first post (18th):

“Knowing that the Australians are rational people who prefer facts over slander, I draw your attention to ……”

McAdam has been very calm and graceful, I must learn from him. I could have shown more patience at times.

Regards,

NC

NC/McAdam/Minns,

Simple question:

Does the Islamic State act entirely according to the instructions and teachings of the Koran ?

Yes ? No ?

Joe

Loudmouth Lane,
Of course they do. In fact, even as I type this the global Jihad is starting. Be afraid...

I understand the reinforcements from the planet Zoobidoobie should be here day after tomorrow.

Craig
Nothing you have said relates to the subject matter of the discussion. You are just spewing ignorance, hatred and bigotry yourself.

NC/McAdam keep evading the central question, whether there might be some connection between Islam and Islamism, by accusing anyone who questions it of hatred and bigotry; and lots of other forms of evasion.

The point is this. There are, around the world, a lot of atrocities being committed daily by Muslims who are obviously under the impression that the Muslim belief system justifies what they are doing.

Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether this is the result of deranged lunatics who JUST HAPPEN to be Muslim - nothing to do with Islam: as NC and McAdam argue; or whether it has something to do with the Muslim belief system.

If Mohammed, Koran and hadith sanction such abuses, then what logical inference do you think might follow from that, Craig?

OTOH if they have nothing to do with the Koran and hadith, then obviously the time NC and McAdam have just spent defending an article arguing the problem is that Muslims are victims of mainstream Australian hatred and bigotry, and that you have spent spitting on me, would have been better spent persuading their co-religionists that it's not okay to behead, crucify, enslave and rape people, wouldn't it?

Wouldn't it? Craig?

McAdam
Evasion. I will not be sent on an errand to work out your belief system for you. Answer the question.

NC and McAdam
The abuses of the Inquisition, and other persecutions by other religions, are irrelevant for several reasons. Firstly two wrongs don’t make a right. You are only demonstrating a lack of understanding of the concept of moral responsibility.

The same with saying that slavery was prevalent in many places and times. Yes it was, but that’s not the question, which is, whether it is sanctioned by Mohammed, Koran, and hadith.

Secondly, can you see that, in order to move beyond slavery, someone at some time had, and has, to take a stand on moral principle?

(cont.)

But what kind of moral principle is it to say that slavery may be justified if it’s prevalent in a particular culture in a particular time? If slavery were re-advocated, yo'd have no objection against it on moral principle, it’s a question of whatever seems popular at the time, is that what you’re saying?

Historically, the abolitionist movement didn’t come from Muslims, did it?
Because they used your argument, didn’t they?
In fact it was imposed on the Muslim world from outside, wasn’t it?
And it still continues in parts of the Muslim world today.
I suppose you’re going to tell me that is more irrelevant coincidence?

Thirdly it’s easy to prove that persecutions done by the Christians were not supported by anything that Jesus said, just by reading the New Testament.

However if Jesus had said beheadings, slavery, persecutions etc. are okay, then obviously it would be reasonable to infer that such abuses are a reflection on the Christian belief system per se, wouldn’t it?

But the argument we are facing from NC and McAdam is not just a denial that Islam is relevant to Islamism, even while they refer to Koranic texts sanctioning slavery and permission to have sex with captive women.

Their argument is that it is “hate” and “bigotry” to even question any connection between the Muslim belief system, and the current worldwide plague of atrocities by Muslims.

So lets just agree to put aside all personal argument, and all evasion, and telling me what I think, and accusing me of hate, and bigotry, and diversionary talk about Pakistan, and Gibbon, and Karen Armstrong, and Craig’s spitting.

And NC, McAdam and Craig please just answer the questions:
1. Are you saying that no part of the Koran preaches or authorises the killing, enslaving or raping of unbelievers?
2. What steps have you taken to persuade the many Muslims who obviously don’t agree with you and are currently committing atrocities, that their views of the hadith, Koran, Mohammed and Allah are wrong, and that you renounce and condemn their views as unIslamic?

SPQR ,
I had deferred this post thus far, in favor of more important topics.

All I had said was, putting in plain English, so that even you can understand, that all Christians should not be put on the spot by us, for Inquisition.

Now who on earth, could make this completely innocuous statement, something of a contention and initiate a totally unnecessary debate? Other than a person devoid of reason; ......you.

You act like a Paid-Thread-Hopper who has no time for studied response. That is why all your contributions to the forum have been cheap superfluous remarks that you had no evidence to support with, when asked to, and instead, you tried to wriggle out, through clever talk and foul mouth.

Secondly, see the pattern of your posts; you keep throwing in spanners in logical discussions just for disruption. Your latest is "I think Mc Adam and NC are practising a form of taqiyya ....". Now what is this?
After all, there must be a test,to judge the truth. Test is simple; reason and consistence, the test, likes of you can never pass.
No sane person could say this after knowing what Taqqiyya is and NC 's post on the subject made it amply clear. I personally rate that post as one of the best researched; it added to my knowledge.. I wonder if you had time to read it or had the capacity to comprehend and retain it.

You think that the seeds of doubt you sow, will find fertile ground in people's mind, as if they lack the capacity to discern verifiable information which is anchored in scholarship from the off the cough, loose talk which has no ground to stand on?. Like the statement "NC and McAdam are one person". What? Proof? That has never been your concern.

I do not see a single post from you, which was knowledge based or which facilitated resolution of any issue under discussion. What is your agenda? And who are you?

Frankly SPQR, I care two hoots for what you say. And will ignore anything you address me.

Luciferase
" You and your co-ideologists are my enemy and I'll oppose you anywhere you are in the world, at home and internationally."

Fine , it is your right to pick your friends and enemies. However I do not consider you as my enemy, just because of a different religion.

Then Luciferase, you go on to say
"Just imagine, how off the mark one would be, who took the atrocities of Inquisition as the sole representative of Christianity?"

Did I say atrocities of Inquisition are the sole representative of Christianity?
You must be having some proof of this allegation. Kindly provide.

Jardine,
" I will not be sent on an errand to work out your belief system for you. Answer the question"

I have read your posts and notice an intense desire to seek clarity on the issues agitating your mind. But then I see you close the doors of flow of knowledge, .......and you can't see the contradiction.
Let me explain. Mind, like a vessel has to be empty to receive any thing new. The mind full with what it already has, can not absorb any thing new.
Now you ask lengthy question spanning more than one post. Obviously the word-restricted -post can not accommodate the full answer. So one is forced to indicate relevant study....which you reject ...as "errand to work out your belief system".

Primary responsibility to pull ourselves out of ignorance is ours; others can only help. And if you suspect the sincerity of the helping hand and wish to remain where you are, what can any one else do?...... Good luck.

Loudmouth,

"Simple question: Does the Islamic State act entirely according to the instructions and teachings of the Koran ? Yes ? No ?"

Knowledge, dear Loudmouth, does not flow like blood transfusion to a sleeping recipient. One has to strive, to seek, grasp and digest it.
You can get the answer if you are prepared to spare the effort required, .....more than the comfort of yes or no.

To All Who Are Keen To Put Islam and Quran On Spot for Actions of A Few Zealots:

And keep insisting on the questions like; "Does the Islamic State act entirely according to the instructions and teachings of the Koran ?"

Please allow me to state your position, for your kind review.
1. You get upset even with mention of Inquisition, and start protesting that Inquisition is not representative of the Christianity. Even though it had the sanction of the organized institutions of Christianity; the Church and the Pope.
2. You are right that Inquisition is not the representative of the Christianity. And it is a black spot on the beautiful face of Christianity, which arguably is the most forgiving and loving religions.
3. Please, please, see clearly, no one is suggesting that Inquisition is representative of Christianity. As it is wrong to lump the actions of a few zealots on the entire religion.
4. Now, in the same breath, you put the entire religion of Islam on spot for actions of a few zealots of dubious origin who completely lack the sanction of organized religious authorities of Islam.

DO YOU SEE THE DOUBLE STANDARDS IN YOUR STAND?

Now a couple of more points for you consideration. Religion by design, lends itself to more than one interpretations; hence various denominations and differences of opinion within religion; any religion.
a. Zealots have had extreme views.
b. Zealots thrive in ignorance and therefore any society with less literacy and more ignorance is vulnerable to their exploitation.
c. Simpletons get exploited; remember the example of Hassan-O-Sabbah?
d. There are international players who use religion for their ends. Remember the confession of US Secretary of State?
e. There are oddities about IS that do not add up; more on it later, if any one insists to pursue the subject

JKJ, whining about my critique of the appalling behaviour of some of the participants here does not invalidate that critique. You need to learn some basic logic little fella.

Whatever the Quran says, the simple fact is that a billion muslims live for the most part entirely peacefully and with some level of happiness. Some large portion of those people live in conditions which the whiners here would wither and die in (after having made sure that everybody heard their whining about it first, of course). Some tiny portion, mostly from or with recent ancestry in the most blighted of those conditions do stupid things.

It might have escaped your notice up there on your little one-trick pony, but a sure predictor that some people will do stupid things out of anger, fear and frustration is the long-term existence of a pool of people in poverty and distress.

Go and crawl into a ball and talk to the only part of the world likely to sit still long enough to pay attention to your poisonous pontifications. Poor scared little thing.

And that IS the topic.

Thanks Craig,

I asked, "Does the Islamic State act entirely according to the instructions and teachings of the Koran ?"

and you responded, "Of course they do. In fact, even as I type this the global Jihad is starting. Be afraid..."

Thanks for your confirmation of that query. Perhaps not 'afraid' though - after all, that's the aim of terrorists generally, to terrorise, to make people afraid that they may be the next victims of random, indiscriminate, attacks. 'Alert and vigilant' would be better.

But yes, I do take the threat of global jihad seriously, utterly crazy as it my sound: we will see it in fuller operation next [northern] Spring when the Taliban in Afghanistan will go all-out for it, and when the Pakistani government will drop its guts and fold.

And if you don't think that jihadis operating from Afghanistan and Pakistan right across the Middle East to Algeria and down through Nigeria and Somalia are a major threat to world peace and for a very long time to come, then you are more of an idiot that you seem from you post.

So, NC/McAdam, that a 'yes" ? Your bum-buddy Craig seems to think so:

"Does the Islamic State act entirely according to the instructions and teachings of the Koran ?"

"Of course they do."

Of course, he may have been trying to be sarcastic in his own clumsy schoolboy way, unaware that OLO hosts past masters of the art. But if he wants to get into a pissing contest for half-wits - good news ! - he qualifies.

Joe Lane

No-one is blaming all Muslims for the actions of a few terrorists.

The question is whether Muslims, by being Muslims, have in common with Muslim terrorists, that they believe in what Koran and hadith say in support of killing, enslaving and raping unbelievers. If that is so, then the difference is that the Muslim terrorists are acting on, and the Muslim non-terrorists are not acting on, such religious beliefs that they have in common.

That would have explaining power. It'd explain why Muslim terrorists come out of the Muslim community, and believe that Islam justifies their abuses. And it would explain why ordinary Australian Muslims – who Craig says are “living peacefully” – are flying overseas to join the jihadis committing atrocities, or marrying them. If they are only “living peacefully” in the sense that they believe that Islam justifies atrocious abuses, but are not actively carrying out such abuses, that's not much recommendation, is it?

Craig, hard to make out what you’re trying to say because your post is so larded with bitter sneering hateful sarcastic personal argument. Try and say something sensible without that – if you can. But it’s not sensible to say that religiously-motivated abuses are justified by poverty; or that it’s wrong to identify Muslims with the Muslim belief system.

More evasion from McAdam, ho hum. Why not just come out and say that you have no interest in the truth, and want only to propagate the Muslim religion regardless of the fact that either Islam preaches hatred and abuse, or you should be on a mission to persuade your co-religionists to renounce Islam as they mistake it?

The idea that there is a generalised problem of hatred and bigotry against Muslims because people wrongly associate Muslims in general with Muslim terrorism, would only make sense if the Koran does not sanction the abuses in evidence, or if those Muslims were trying to dissociate themselves from its teachings. Therefore the entire issue comes down to the questions that McAdam, NC and Craig keep trying to evade.

And that IS the topic.

Sane minds on Muhammad continued..

No matter who you are: a monotheist, a religious, an atheist, an agnostic, a leftist, a rightest or anyone else.

And irrespective of you academic background (or absence of it) in science, literature, religion, history or any other subject.

All you need is sane and unbiased mind to read about the wonderful man they call Muhammad.

Once you read is life story, you will know that you wanted to know him!

Here are two brief quotes for the day:

Stanley Edward Lane-Poole (1854 - 1931)- a British orientalist and archaeologist in his book “Table Talk of the Prophet Muhammad”
“He was the most faithful protector of those he protected, the sweetest and most agreeable in conversation. Those who saw him were suddenly filled with reverence; those who came near him loved him; they who described him would say, "I have never seen his like either before or after." He was of great taciturnity, but when he spoke it was with emphasis and deliberation, and no one could forget what he said...”


Sarojini Naidu (1879-1949), the famous Indian poet, writer and politician in “S. Naidu, Ideals of Islam, Speeches and Writings, Madaras,” (1918)

“It was the first religion that preached and practiced democracy; for, in the mosque, when the call for prayer is sounded and worshippers are gathered together, the democracy of Islam is embodied five times a day when the peasant and king kneel side by side and proclaim: 'God Alone is Great'... “

The Inquisition involved a church coming down on its own followers to maintain orthodoxy, not trying to impose supremacy over the worlds other religions by its violence. Furthermore, that was then, violence in the name of Islam was then and now.

Mcadam: "....I do not consider you as my enemy, just because of a different religion."

You represent the subset of religion that does not respect secular democracy and supports its supremacy, that's what makes you my enemy. You disagree with joining in condemning any religious ideology that threatens secular democracy saying, "I do not agree with you..."

You must believe your holy books support your stance. Which parts, and by what means?

I have omitted Christianity's further excesses after pursuing its own adherents, forcing Jews and Muslims to convert or leave. That is not to negate the point that it was centuries ago. Christianity has moved on, leaving Islam to clean itself up.

JKJ, don't confuse justification with motivation. If one has the motivation, then a justification can be found. The people of the middle east and the west of the subcontinent have a great deal of motivation and if they did not have Islam, the justification would be found elsewhere.

My comments here have been so vitriolic because what I see from the rabbellous mob here is counter to all I believe to be good and worthwhile. There is intolerance, no attempt to understand, no good faith in the interactions, sanctimony, thinly-disguised selfishness and distrust; all of it from those on your side of the fence and fence (or Wall if you could wish it so) it most certainly would be if those like you, got their way.

None of this is about Islam; that is simply the justification of those of you whose motivation is based on the lowest of self-interest. You don't face famine or war, you are worried there may not be room in your trough.

Sanctimonious, cowardly fearful, disgracefully weakly principled.

I am ashamed to say any of you are from my nation.

Oh yes, Craig, this is about Islam.

This is about a religion that teaches hate and violence. This is about a book that has hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of verses that slander, denigrate and call for violence against nonMuslims.

This is about a people that consider Mohammad to be a great moral example, a great moral example that attacked his neighbors for 10 years, assaulting them dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens of times, and committing all kinds of atrocities against men women and children. That is what all Islamic histories say.

This is about the “billion muslims live for the most part entirely peacefully” (your words) that live in countries that discriminate and persecute non-Muslims. Would these peaceful Muslims, by any chance, be part of the same mob of thousands that dragged a Christian couple out of their home and burned them in an oven because of a rumour? The fact is that these so-called peaceful Muslims are neither tolerant or peaceful, unless you define “peaceful” in a very restrictive personal manner.

This is about a people that cannot be honest about their beliefs. They can only make excuses or blame others (because they believe Islam is perfect and they are the “best of peoples” while infidels are “lower than animals” -- in case you haven’t read the Quran or hadith)

Don’t be ashamed or worry about me. I am fine and I have a clear conscience. I never make excuses for evil.

NC, why don't you quote Mohammad and his followers on Mohammad? I have hundreds of good verses you can use from the hadith and Tabari. Why play with secondary opinions when you can strike those horrible infidels with the forceful words from the original sources?

Just trying to help.

I'm not ashamed for you, Kactuz, I'm ashamed of you.

The tragedy is that you lack the capacity to be ashamed of yourself.

Hi Craig,

Perhaps you could give us some examples of your claims:

"My comments here have been so vitriolic because what I see from the rabbellous mob here is counter to all I believe to be good and worthwhile. There is intolerance, no attempt to understand, no good faith in the interactions, sanctimony, thinly-disguised selfishness and distrust; all of it from those on your side of the fence and fence (or Wall if you could wish it so) it most certainly would be if those like you, got their way.

"None of this is about Islam; that is simply the justification of those of you whose motivation is based on the lowest of self-interest. You don't face famine or war, you are worried there may not be room in your trough."

So much ad hominem, so little substance ! All piss and wind really.

But this could so easily apply to you:

"Sanctimonious, cowardly fearful, disgracefully weakly principled."

What, you think you'll be spared the butcher's knife when your turn comes ? You'll be up there alongside the IS apparatchiks ? Don't kid yourself.

I'm happy for all Australians, of whatever ethnic background, to live here together, as long as they observe the rule of law and the equality of the sexes.

Is that too much to ask ? Can you quarrel with that ?

Joe Lane
Adelaide
www.firstsources.info

Sure, Craig, religious ideology's got nothing to do with it. We've just got disaffected people going after what they want, violently, and justifying it with their holy books.

Where you say, "None of this is about Islam; that is simply the justification of those of you whose motivation is based on the lowest of self-interest.", you could be referring to religious supremacists. However, you are right that it is self-interest, my safety in my secular, democratic country.

What is motivating people to kill me? They have been born and raised within the safety net of our welfare state, or have been welcomed into it. The same is true of people from other religious backgrounds, but they don't want to kill me. Why not? Insufficient justification?

So, "Some large portion of those people live in conditions which the whiners here would wither and die in....". That's true of people who don't want to kill me too. All we can do is try to help them, and if your argument is we're not doing enough, that's a different topic. However you are light-years off this being any motivation for criticizing Islamic ideology here.

Finally, "My comments here have been so vitriolic because what I see from the rabbellous mob here is counter to all I believe to be good and worthwhile". Oh, you mean some people disagree with your beliefs?

Go jump.

REPEATED QUESTIONS IN THIS THREAD 1 of 2

This post revisits questions being repeated despite clear answers to them. It is for rational minds who apparently can see through these questioners, as one has recently come forward.

On Slavery and Quran, I quote here a forceful message of Quran through 2:177, repeated elsewhere too, Pickthall’s translation:

“It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, AND TO SET SLAVES FREE; and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due. And those who keep their treaty when they make one, and the patient in tribulation and adversity and time of stress. Such are they who are sincere. Such are the Allah-fearing.”

To “set slaves free" is a basic attribute of “righteousness” of an upright person that Quran demands. I mentioned in previous posts the one of the most revered of the friends of Muhammad (Bilal) was as freed (black) slave, of course, among countless others.

And also the fact that Muhammad lifted the society from its vile practices gradually, as it was the only practical way to do it, remember slavery was a sanctioned human practice for ages.

Does it leave any doubt on position of Quran on slavery: Absolutely NOT. But the case of the questioners is different.

The other question:

"Simple question: Does the Islamic State act entirely according to the instructions and teachings of the Koran ? Yes ? No ?"

The question is built in Loudmouth’s question of the 23rd:

“Nobody is demonising Muslims. Nobody has to - in their name (are you prepared to repudiate their claim ?) dreadful crimes are being committed by terrorists, in Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Yemen, Kenya. Obviously, those crimes have been committed by a tiny minority of Muslims, the vast majority of whom would, I'm sure, repudiate those crimes.”

Continued …

Continued …
REPEATED QUESTIONS IN THIS THREAD 2 of 2

To which NC answered (NC’s post of the 24th)

“Your concern about the tiny minority using (their perverted version of) Islam for their crimes against humans is thoroughly understood and totally shared by me, as is, I am sure, by the huge majority of the Muslim world. Muslim societies are mobilising to deliver them a death blow, which I am sure, is imminent now.”

Is it not obvious from my answer that I consider IS jokers forcing “their perverted version of” Islam on Muslim majority?

The Loudmouth still repeats the question, and will presumably keep doing so, because this is what he and his associates do.

On kacktuz’s “Why play with secondary opinions”, he must know that when it is between Quran and Hadith, the Hadith is the secondary opinion – NOT Quran.

• Hadith, a collection of verbal accounts of generations about 150 years after the death of the Prophet have their critics even within Muslims especially on topics it seems to pursue a different line from the Quran.

• Hadith is known to be a human effort that can’t be flawless.

• Quran, in contrast, was revealed to Muhammad’s Heart, every verse was immediately recorded by people assigned by Muhammad for this job, carefully preserved in his lifetime, passed on to the following generations with the same care. Even today, you get the same version of Quran anywhere in this wide world. Translations understandably carry the colour of the translators.

If there is a conflict between Quran’s injunction and anything in Hadith – Quran’s injunction takes precedence – this is a universally agreed principle in the Muslim world. The position of Quran is the position of Islam on an issue. I do not and do not need to consult anything, including Hadith, on something clearly mentioned in the Quran. Slavery is one such topic.

The hate and anger of some of posters is a suffering they have put themselves through by a refusal to part with the distortions of the medieval literature.

NC, thank you for making Islam's stand against slavery, amply clear.

And your advice to guard against the distortions of the medieval literature,is worth serious consideration. Arming ourselves with medieval interpretations and taking them as irrefutable rules, puts us in the position similar to a person's who would still insist on gea-centricity of the world and insist that Galileo was wrong, because Church had so ruled in the past, or like the people who still contest evolution, on the authority of Church even when the Church has since shifted its position to the side of the truth.

Any side, which clings to dogma and uses his /her fossilized interpretation to justify hate and carnage, is wrong. May it be Osama bin Laden, a Muslim or James Kopp, the alleged killer of an abortion provider in Buffalo, N.Y., a Christian or Baruch Goldstein, who shot 29 worshipers in the Hebron mosque in 1994 a Jew, are all wrong and represent example of fossilized interpretation of their respective religion.

We all, need to be on the side of reason.
It is not reasonable to spread hate......the basic message of the article we are discussing

Point To Ponder

We take our siblings to be our competitors .....then we grow out of it, to realize that siblings are the longest lasting bond we have.

Then we take our peers to be our competitors and when we grow out of it, we realize that the peers are the ones who provide us our long lasting friendships.

We take other humans to be "they" and we fear or hate them but then those among us who can grow out of it, realize the humanity to be one family. There are sages in every religion, in every society who discovered this. Like the saying of Sadi, I shared on this post. And now I share a quote from Khalil Gibran:

"Human beings separate into factions and tribes and adhere to countries and regions whereas I see my essence as foreign to any one land and alien to any single people. The entire earth is my homeland and the human family is my clan. For I have found human beings to be weak, and it is small-minded for them to divide themselves up; the earth is cramped, so that only ignorance leads people to partition it into realms and principalities"

Now the reality is that some people from various religions take others as enemies and are .at each other's throat. Should we follow them, rather than the likes of Sadi and Khalil Gibran? Should we join these misguided ones and go for each other's jugular or should these fringe groups be isolated and neutralized with a hope that they too, would one day grow out of the hatred.

Just food for thought....relish.

Quote From KHALIL GIBRAN; For I would have written the same, if I had the prowess:-

"Humanity is the spirit of divinity on earth. That divinity which walks among the nations and speaks of love, pointing toward the paths of life, while the people laugh and mock its words and teachings....... "Ridicule is crueler than killing, and more bitter."
Jerusalem proved unable to kill the Nazarene, for he is alive forever; nor could Athens execute Socrates, for he is immortal. Nor shall derision prove powerful against those who listen to humanity or those who follow in the footsteps of divinity, for they shall live forever. Forever.

You are my brother, and both of us are sons of a single, universal, and sacred spirit. You are my likeness, for we are prisoners of the same body, fashioned from the same clay. You are my companion on the byways of life, my helper in perceiving the essence of reality concealed behind the mists. You are a human being and I have loved you, my brother.
Say about me what you will, for tomorrow will pass judgment on you and your words..."

Do you have tears in you eyes while reading it; I have in mine while quoting.
May we, all be guided to the truth, amen

HAPPY NEW YEAR

HAPPY NEW BEGINNING

Sane Minds on Muhammad continued ..

Further to the quote from the same person (post of the 20th)
Alphonse de LaMartaine (1790-1869), in 'Historie de la Turquie,' Paris, 1854.

"Never has a man set for himself, voluntarily or involuntarily, a more sublime aim, since this aim was superhuman; to subvert superstitions which had been imposed between man and his Creator, to render God unto man and man unto God; to restore the rational and sacred idea of divinity amidst the chaos of the material and disfigured gods of idolatry, then existing. Never has a man undertaken a work so far beyond human power with so feeble means, for he (Muhammad) had in the conception as well as in the execution of such a great design, no other instrument than himself and no other aid except a handful of men living in a corner of the desert. Finally, never has a man accomplished such a huge and lasting revolution in the world….”

"On the basis of a Book, every letter which has become law, he created a spiritual nationality which blend together peoples of every tongue and race. He has left the indelible characteristic of this Muslim nationality the hatred of false gods and the passion for the One and Immaterial God. This avenging patriotism against the profanation of Heaven formed the virtue of the followers of Muhammad..”

"The idea of the unity of God, proclaimed amidst the exhaustion of the fabulous theologies, was in itself such a miracle …. His life, his meditations, his heroic revering against the superstitions of his country, and his boldness in defying the furies of idolatry, his firmness in enduring them for fifteen years in Mecca, his acceptance of the role of public scorn and almost of being a victim of his fellow countrymen..”

"Philosopher, Orator, Apostle, Legislator, Conqueror of Ideas, Restorer of Rational beliefs.... As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, WE MAY WELL ASK, IS THERE ANY MAN GREATER THAN HE?"

NC/McAdam/Craig Minns,

So: Islamic State has declared that Monis was a martyr, a hero, that his murder of two random non-believers washed all his sins away - his alleged murder of his first wife, his alleged forty sexual assaults. He can now get stuck into his 72 virgins.

As you have, in a very roundabout way, suggested that Islamic State is not acting in accordance with the tenets of the Koran or the Hsdiths, we can now join together in declaring that this IS position is disgusting, vile and non-human, and that any attempts to defeat IS must be supported.

Let us all join with the vast majority of 'moderate' Muslims in eliminating this dreadful scourge of reactionary Salafist Islamism wherever it appears.

Joe

Loudmouth Joe Lane,
I am not a Muslim. I am not a Christian. I am not a Hindu, or a Buddhist, or a Taoist, or a Jew, or a Shintoist. In fact, I'm not a follower of any of the great faith traditions. If you read the other thread I've been involved in - notable for the way in which the participants, unlike the mob you are part of, have managed to hold a discussion on a difficult topic - you will know my views on religion a little better. You may need someone to explain the concept of tolerance to you in one syllable words before you start. Here, let me try.

Be nice. Smile, don't snarl. Try to act in the way you would like folks to act with you.

Now, I'm sure you know all that, so why are you acting like a silly old tosser?

IS is nothing to do with Australia. In fact, IS is nothing to do with Islam, as the two nice Muslims posting here have pointed out. Even in the Middle East IS is a tiny minority that is political rather than religious in nature and it will soon be a rather nasty memory best forgotten.

I recommend you and the other silly old tossers rest up, take your blood pressure tablets (take a couple of extras, just in case), get away from the TV (the cricket captaincy decision-making would get anyone's BP up) and the computer for a little while, have a nice cold beer if the doc will allow it, perhaps go and wet a line and watch the young mums and kids having a ball.

In other words, get back to life and stop worrying yourself silly enough to act like tossers.

Hypocritical tosser, but back to the point,

The Quran supercedes any other Islamic holy book yet is still full of exhortations to violence against hypocrites (Muslims not conforming to violent Islam, ie. McAdam & NC who only support non-violent jihad towards Islamic supremacy), apostates and infidels.

By comparison, Christ's teachings, in the New Testament, contain no such exhortations.

Craig, everyone has the right to hold faith, it's just that some want their faith to reign as the only faith. The Quran supports those of Islamic faith who follow a violent path towards this supremacy.

Your soothing words of calm have not helped our Sydney victims of jihad, nor the thousands of others who have died in the name of Allah this year. But 2015 is a new year, and your assurance that it will be better calms me.

This post was written while wetting a line, BTW. Some of us can walk and chew gum.

Hi Craig,

It might come as an unpleasant surprise to you but I don't really give a toss about your religious beliefs. Your political beliefs, however, cause me great concern: I presume you think you are on the left ? Yet, you equivocate about the most vile, right-wing [surely you are not claiming that IS is somehow left-wing, are you ?!] and fascist organisation, you make light of what power it may have now or in the near future, and what evil it may do, at random anywhere in the world.

You don't seem to understand the force of Islamism across the entire Muslim world, or its very long back-history. Nor of its ideological dominance over the minds of many of the 1.5 billion Muslims in that world. Islam provides the dominant, usually the only, framework or prism through which Muslims see the world, and it is invariably reactionary: that, if you like, is their terrible cross to bear, poor buggers.

What ideological alternative - 'realistic' alternative - do Muslims have to Islamist fascism ? Tragically, nothing but to revert back to secular dictatorships, as in Egypt. The democracy that the US thought might somehow flower, obviously hasn't. The ghastly alternatives still seem to be nothing but either vile Islamism or vile dictatorship.

I wish it were not so, I wish with all my heart that democracy could still somehow take root, ultimately allowing for some form of liberal and democratic socialism to struggle into life. But I don't think that will happen in my lifetime, or in those of my putative grandchildren. Or in this century. Power will seesaw between secular dictatorship, exploiting Islam when it needs to, and Islamism, blaming outside forces for all their problems, for a long time yet.

On that score, I feel desperately sorry for people like NC and/or McAdam: they will be locked into a backward way of thinking, wasting their lives on thin-air illusions, for a long time to come.

Joe

A short-history of the image of Muhammad in the West – 1 of 2
This post addresses Kactuz. He appears to have read more than the other three, but writes as an obvious captive of his narrow knowledge-base.

Focus of this post is an overview of the image of Muhammad in the West and the source is Encyclopaedia Britannica (EB).

EB traces the history of the distortions fed to a common western for centuries.

I have tried to summarise it below to save readers’ time, retaining the EB’s words (within quotes) – details are there at the EB’s website.

• “From the time when a polemical work by John of Damascus (676-749) was translated from Greek into Latin, some knowledge of Muhammad’s life was available in the West but was nearly always used abusively.”

• “After the 9th century highly negative biographies of Muhammad appeared in Latin.”

• “During the 13th century European medieval knowledge of the life of Muhammad was “completed” in a series of works by scholars such as Pedro Pascual, Ricoldo de Monte Croce, and Ramon Llull. In these works, however, Muhammad was depicted as an imposter and Islam as a Christian heresy, and in some of them Muhammad was portrayed as the Antichrist.”

• “This highly negative image of Muhammad as a heretic, false prophet, renegade cardinal, or FOUNDER OF A RELIGION THAT PROMOTES VIOLENCE found its way into many other works of European literature OVER THE CENTURIES, such as the chansons de geste, William Langland’s Piers Plowman, and John Lydgate’s The Fall of the Princes.”

• “In the early modern period, the medieval image of Muhammad continued to be promoted by a variety of Western writers.”

• “The general hostility toward Islam formed part of Martin Luther’s polemic against the Roman Catholic church, and the image of Muhammad as the Antichrist appeared in Alexander Ross’s introduction to his translation of the in 1649.”

• “Apocalyptic interpretations of Muhammad continued into the 19th century in America, notably in George Bush’s Life of Mohammed (1830).”
Continued …

Joe, a reference to right- or left-wing makes no sense in the context of a movement like IS. I'd go further and suggest it makes very little sense in any context at all. All it does is to create simplistic categories that reduce complex sets of ideas to ideologies.

IS is a complex phenomenon that is not unlike the early stages of the modern Zionist movement, albeit better equipped and funded for reasons that need not be explored too deeply right now, and I suspect draws more on the lessons of that movement than either modern Israelis or the IS leadership would care to acknowledge. What has changed since the late 19th-early 20th centuries when the modern Zionist movement was at its height is that the capacity to disseminate propaganda is vastly greater and IS has shown great media savvy.

The other difference is that the IS movement is largely aimed at an internecine political struggle between factions of political islam rather than against an external enemy in the form of a largely disinterested British administration.

Don't make mountains out of molehills. This too shall pass.

Luciferase, I hope the fish are biting better than the mozzies have for you...

Craig,

You're still making the mistake of thinking that Muslims are sheep, either getting herded hither and thither by evil imperialists, or, shaken from a state of rustic bliss, reacting to unwarranted imperialist intrusion. No, as intelligent people, they develop their own dynamics and have done since Muhammad.

When Colonel Lugard rocked up in Northern Nigeria in the 1890s, he found a raging Islamist struggle going on, with at least three Islamist factions contending, including the early forms of the Sufi groups within the Senussi who believed the Messiah was yet to come, this time to be born from a man.

Of curse, factionalism within Islam goes back to the Sunni-Shi'ite split, and, inter alia, the break-up of Muslim Spain into different Caliphates. We shouldn't be surprised, since the difficulties of communication, transport, language differences etc. across the vast Islamic world were bound to throw up a multitude of interpretations (and perhaps the mistranslations) of the Koran and hadiths. It's not as if there has been only one form of Islam, ever, only to be fractured by Western imperialism, especially by the US.

Joe

Joe, I'd love to continue this discussion, but in order for that to be a worthwhile exercise you will need to work out how to tell the difference between your own fevered imaginings and what I write. In the absence of that, all you have is political posturing. Of course, that might make you happy, but let's face it, the people behind IS are so much better at that sort of thing than you are.

Craig,

[I'm losing a post over this, I hope it's worth it]

Wow, you really are up yourself, aren't you ? How do you mean, 'fevered imaginings' ? What have I imagined ? Do you find history incomprehensible, is that the problem ?

Don't drop out just yet ! It gets better in second year :)

As for that crack: ' ..... the people behind IS are so much better at that sort of thing than you are.'

That's so hurtful :(

Joe

(Continued …The site would not permit this post earlier!)

A short-history of the image of Muhammad in the West – 2 of 2

• “The first fairly positive biography of Muhammad NOT BASED ON Christian “ideology” of the medieval period was Boulainvilliers’s La Vie de Mahomet (“The Life of Muhammad”), published in London in 1730”

• “In 1742 Voltaire’s tragedy La Fanatisme; ou, Mohamet le prophète (“Fanaticism; or, Muhammad the Prophet”) was performed in Paris, and Goethe translated it into German in 1799. This most revered of German writers was deeply attracted to Islam and planned to write a drama on this theme but completed only the famous poem Mahomets-Gesang (“Mahomet’s Singing”).”

• “At the same time (19th Century), Thomas Carlyle broke new ground in On Heroes, in which he provided a positive evaluation of the Prophet.”

• (I repeat here famous words of Thomas Carlyle: “The lies which well-meaning zeal has heaped around this man (Muhammad) are so disgraceful to ourselves only .. A silent great soul, one of that who cannot but be earnest”)

• And then (finally) came the time “when Western Orientalism was TURNING TO BIOGRAPHIES ABOUT MUHAMMAD BASED ON MODERN HISTORICAL AND ANALYTIC METHODS.”

And this dawn of “modern historical and analytical methods” have enabled truth to seep back to view for a common western through the centuries-old barriers of misinformation erected around Muhammad by the medieval mindset.

This age of reason has brought facts to the daylight. Countless researchers with upright minds tell you today that Muhammad was NOT a bit like anything the medieval literature wants you to believe.

Today, it is impossible for a historian to say things about Muhammad, that you say Kactuz, and still be able to retain his/her credibility.

The lunatic fringe is an exception.

This fringe has always existed in human societies and will continue to exist.

However, the inevitable destination for the names in this fringe, scholars on leaders, is the dust bin of the history.

Message for you Kactuz, from all this: Please revisit your knowledge-base.

"Wow, you really are up yourself, aren't you ?"

I thought not, Joe. He reminds me more of a guy so focused on his own self-esteem that .... http://youtu.be/4g-9Y5X-fGQ

Craig. Stick to threads where you can spout unfalsifiable P&W to your heart's content (i.e. faith-based threads) and leave threads like this, where beliefs are being vigorously tested, to we grown-ups. Your vitriol is purposeless.

NC, I read what you write and appreciate your attempt to dispute the violent messages in your holy books. It would be wonderful to think that on Islamic blogs you, and McAdam, are carrying on the same argument to counter the basis in faith held by Islamicists for their violent actions.