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?