Thanks McAdam

for bringing out (your post of 5 Jan 12:58 AM)

so vividly and convincingly why it is wrong to implicate Christianity and Jesus in the crime of David Koresh (Waco Siege)

and why it is equally wrong to implicate Islam and Muhammad in the crime of Haron Monis (Sydney Siege).

The Australian public has reacted to the aftermath of Sydney Siege along exact same lines.

The Twitter drive for I WILL RIDE WITH YOU says it all.

Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-30479306

BBC: 15 Dec, 2014

Sydney cafe: Australians say to Muslims "I'll ride with you"

"The spark was this post on Facebook by Rachael Jacobs, who said she'd seen a woman she presumed was Muslim silently removing her hijab while sitting next to her on the train: "I ran after her at the train station.”

“I said 'put it back on. I'll walk with u'. She started to cry and hugged me for about a minute - then walked off alone”

Moved by the above message, a Twitter user, Tessa Kum started the hashtag, BBC reports:

“There were 40,000 tweets using the hashtag #Illridewithyou in just two hours, according to Twitter Australia; 150,000 in four hours. And it's been rapidly growing since”

The two great persons, Rachael Jacobs and Tessa Kum, and hundreds of thousands who were inspired by their kind acts present the REAL PACE of AUSTRALIA.

Compare the act of this huge number of Australians committed to overcome intolerance and hate

with a tiny minority on this thread still busy fanning intolerance and hate in extending a crime of a deranged individual to community and brazenly trying to take it far back to Muhammad and Islam.

The pseudonym gives them the “The Bravery of Being out of Range”, rightly diagnosed in the thread.

They cannot dare say in front of Australian public what they so comfortably spout on this thread!

Load mouth,
"not just by quoting slabs from the Koran: that may be your notion of truth, but it doesn't have to be that of anybody else who is not a believer."

You are right, dear Loudmouth, but is this what you thought, I was attempting by the quotations?
Obviously, you failed to see the context. Let me try to show it to you:-

1. Constance, leveled an allegation that "it is against Islam to question your own belief"

2. He did not substantiate this sweeping statement, by any evidence.

3. I contest this allegation and therefore had to show the proof of rejection of this notion.

4. I had to show the basis of my religion; Quran, urging its followers to reflect, to reason, and not to follow a belief blindly, just because of the belief being that of the elders or parents.

5. I quoted a few passages from Quran, where the believers are urged by Quran, to reason and to reflect. I quoted some that I could quickly find, otherwise, I know there are more, on the subject in Quran.

6. I also invited others to kindly show if there was a scripture, which urged its followers to reason and to reflect, more than Quran does.

7. The whole effort was to dispel the falsehood, and was not an exercise to invite non believers to believe in Quran.

Now you see, if you jump into the discussion, without understanding the context first, you add to confusion, rather than clarity. This approach of yours is the cause of your frustration, when you say, that you find the discussion tiresome. What else would it be for you, if you continue to confront the truth with falsehood or half truth?

May we all be able to see the truth, amen.

Constance,
"It was an evil cult for goodness sake - NOT MAINSTREAM. There will always be lunatics among us unfortunately."

I agree with the above statement.
If others agree too, then we may be able to wind up this forum and spend our time more usefully elsewhere.

Cheers

NC,

Yes, it's a pity it was just a story, it didn't actually happen. Never mind. It's the thought that counts, isn't it ?

Your straw man argument, that everybody is attacking Islam because of the actions of a terrorist claiming to act in its name - who is doing that ? No, people are criticising the actions of a terrorist.

We are all entitled, including of course, you, to question whether a man purporting to act in the name of Islam, who takes twenty hostages, and murders two people, was actually acting in the name of Islam ?

If somebody purports to act in the name of Islam, and murders two people (I know, that's not many these days, a bomb yesterday killed five people at a volleyball game in Afghanistan, and two dead doesn't compare to 130 children murdered in Pakistan. Could there be a common factor, I wonder), then in order to clarify the situation, everybody is entitled to ask if he actually was acting entirely within the instructions implied from the Koran or the hadiths.

Once people are assured that he wasn't acting in accordance with the Koran or hadiths, then we can move on. But we have the right to ask.

And we'll keep asking until we get straight answers, no more twisting and turning. It's got nothing whatever to do with the character of Muhammad, unless of course, he actually wrote the Koran ?

Joe

Does or does not the Koran tell Muslims to kill homosexuals?

Does or does not the Koran tell Muslims to kill women who are adulterers?

Two simple questions.

Constance,

Your message (5th, 9:57 am), supported by Utube clips and fringe (as opposed to main stream) views prove a point time and again that you are a captive of an extremely limited exposure on the subject.

Pick a subject and then pick a position on it, you will find trash from the internet supporting it. Does it make this position right?

Ask yourself!

I sent you thoroughly researched findings of Encyclopaedia Britannica, you don’t comment on them, yet totally ignore them.

You find the mainstream scholarship and a (minority) fringe scholarship in all subjects. You find fringe views in books published this day and age proving man was created in his/her current shape. Similar examples abound.

The present-day mainstream scholarship agrees on scientific criteria to weigh historic findings.

This is what has brought respect for Muhammad and Quran to which the medieval mind (and your literature) have been totally oblivious to.

Try your references in a session of scholars; your references will be thrown out of window, of course, along with you.

And your associate, the loudmouth, addresses me about “I will ride with you”(message 5th, 1: 18 pm) with

“Yes, it's a pity it was just a story, it didn't actually happen.”
Whereas the same person says in his post of 20 Dec about the same “I will ride with you”

“I must commend the letmeridewithyou or whatever campaign:”

What can one make of him on this and similar contradictions?

Given your efforts from day one:

1. To suggest the deranged mind of Monis was in fact motivated by Islam;

2. To extend the crime of this lunatic to Muhammad and Quran; and thus

3. fanning intolerance and hate against Islam and Muslims

Are you sure that you are not the morbid mind that Australian Muslims must be protected from?

Please think.

Stalemate. The defense, here, of the Quran is that its exhortations has been misinterpreted, both from within and without Islam. We've had scholars at ten paces, but no one's blinking.

If, if that defense is valid, What are NC and McAdam doing to solve the problem from within Islam? In fact, why does there appear to be such scant condemnation from within Islam of those misinterpreting the Quran's exhortations with violent actions?