This seems to be a bit of a schizophrenic article. On the one hand Islam is all wrong and those who adhere to it are grievously mistaken, and on the other both the serving Egyptian President and the former head of Saudi Arabia's religious police are quoted as being in the forefront of current Islamic enlightened thinking.
Does anyone really think those two are the only Muslims to see the problem of medieval Islam and the need to reform it?
Radical Islam can only be changed from within. This would happen much quicker if we in the West could refrain from stirring the pot. Arguably Abu Ghraib has done more to radicalise today's young Muslims that Mohammed ever did or could.

<<Arguably Abu Ghraib has done more to radicalise today's young Muslims that Mohammed ever did or could>>

BS!

TOTAL UNABULTERATED BS!

Some peoples playing up of Abu Ghraid for their own narrow purposes have given the Islamists a free excuse --but if it wasnt Abu Ghraib it would be the crusades or a million other imagined infringments/offenses --and besides Haldy old chap get real, the Muslim world is stacked full of halal Abu Ghraids

The problem is not specific to Islam but endemic to all religions and all other ideologies as well. Wherever the claims of an ideology are held to be true without empirical testing, it becomes possible for extremists to make any claims they like and attribute these to the ideology. A belief based on 'faith' thereby becomes a licence to do what you like, since there's no objective way to tell who has the 'correct' faith and who does not.

Throw in a large ambiguous holy book, with enough contradictions and ambiguity to be read any way you want, and you have a licence for bloodshed and mayhem.

This article pretty much nails it. There is no moderate or radical Islam, just Islam. All Muslims accept the hate and violence in the Quran and the evil deeds of Mohammed without question. Oh yes, they condemn terrorism, but they are selective about the terror they condemn, and never explicitly link it to their religion. There is always an excuse.

For Muslims, Mohammad’s despicable attacks on his neighbors are just fine; the hate and violence emanating from the Quran is, at best, a matter of “out of context”, “you don’t understand” or “others did it too”. The human rights violations, oppression and discrimination in Islamic societies is never linked to either the theory or practice of Islam, but always blamed on others.

There is no enlightened Islamic thinking, Halduell, only wishful thinking. The so-called moderate Muslims make excuses and pretend that some unspecified type of reformation will save Islam and give us peace, but it wont.

Islam is beyond reason, hope, reformation or salvation. Muslims have blind faith so they are impervious to any of these. To them, what ever happens is never the “real” Islam that exists in their minds, but some unexplainable aberration. How Muslims can claim that Islam is perfect and the Quran flawless, considering obvious facts and current events, is a case study in ignorance, denial or deception.

There is no hope for us, either. Our leaders and elite have infected us with Islam and now we, too, are doomed.

And yes, intervening in the Muslim world, even for the best of purposes (or worst), will only, has only, contaminated us. After 30+ years of trying to “help” Muslims around the world, what do we have to show for it? Not much, and it will get worse. Our leaders have brought millions of immigrants to live among us, people that do not share our values, and we will pay dearly for this stupidity.

Good article.

Anyone with passing familiarity with the Koran and hadith can see that the problem is Islam. The difference between so-called Muslim extremists, and so-called moderate Muslims, is that the former are doing what their religion tells them to do, and the moderates are not acting on their religious beliefs - for now.

As for reform from within, the hopes of this would appear to be slim, because any person, Muslim or not, has only to point to Koran and hadith and the example of Mohammed to prove the reformers wrong, and since Islam means submission to the will of Allah, that means the reformers are offending Allah - and we know what Allah's representatives on earth think of that, don't we? Plus, when people are prepared to die for their beliefs, it's difficult for the State to do anything about it.

On the other hand, Islam would seem to be compatible in some conditions with modern life for some time, as we see from photographs of Syria, Afghanistan and Iran in the 1970s, which were quite socially liberal compared to today. So I do think the long history of political interference from the West has had a radicalising effect.

How appalling to realise that an ethical and intellectual creed from the lowest levels of the worst traditions of the desert Arabs of the 7th century, has been preserved and projected holus-bolus into, and all around the modern world; and that "our leaders" (*cough*) are determined to pretend that the problem of widespread common atrocities has nothing to do with the belief system motivating the atrocious behaviour.

I don't know whether to laugh or spew when I hear one of these standard-issue political amoralists tell all that the problem is "not religion". Well the guys doing the shooting and beheading and raping are telling us it's about religion, so therefore it's about religion.

Interesting to see the left wing turn themselves inside out and the back-the-front with apologies, two freedom-hating religions, united in fake moral superiority, hate and illogic.

I'm with both the author and Halduell - Islam does need a revolution and of course it has to happen from within; 'pot stirring' by outsiders will not help.

However, perhaps encouragement - working with leader from the enlightened Muslim majority - will. Here is a link to some wonderful words on the Hebdo tragedy by a Muslim Scholar:
http://www.onbeing.org/blog/9-points-to-ponder-on-the-paris-shooting-and-charlie-hebdo/7193?utm_source=On+Being+Newsletter&utm_campaign=ed36703192-20150110_Parker_Martin_Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1c66543c2f-ed36703192-69823373

Such people could I believe initiate a revolution in Islam, from the safety of more liberal non-Islamist countries.

Islam is still where Judaism was before Christ, who was the revolution. The genocidal (Joshua - kill all the Canaanites- men women and children) and totalitarian (Leviticus - put homosexuals and people with short hair and a whole list of 'transgressors' to death by stoning), are still there in the Bible but safely contextualized in the minds of modern Christians. These books are taken as an historical account of the ancient Jewish history part of the Bible - that which through Christ (Love thy neighbour as thyself), our religion has evolved from. To most Christians the Bible is NOT a 'flat book', to be taken literally in its entirely.

Note: None of this is to deny that evil people in power (e.g. Inquisitionists, and quite recently Nazis) have not tried to use these texts to their own evil ends.

My question is, can any such reformation - separation of core, enlightened scriptures from the primitive errant ones - happen with the Islamic scriptures?

"Throw in a large ambiguous holy book, with enough contradictions and ambiguity to be read any way you want, and you have a licence for bloodshed and mayhem."

Posted by Jon J, Monday, 12 January 2015 8:17:22

Fortunately this doesn't apply to followers of the Christ.

I thought i would have a read of the holy quoran. Right at the top it said "love for all hatred for none" That is all i read.

Have to agree mostly with JKJ!
We need to stop pussy footing around this issue, but instead ask, how was it the gatekeepers let these people in? And do we really need these people?

And if the present system and those paid to manage it failed with a capital F, then both must be changed, given they're dismal failures.

We need to use fail safe space-age lie detection and people fully familiar with their usage at the gate, to keep the extremists out.

And then create a number of seemingly sympathetic secret police units, tasked with infiltrating and exposing those hiding in our midst!

Be they Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hari Chrishna or Burmese belly dancers/sun worshiping nudists dancing groups and expose all those who harbor extremist attitudes, but particularly those active in radicalizing youth.

One notes that not all of the hijackers who flew hijacked planes into tall building, 9/11, were Muslims, but alleged Christians as well.

Perhaps the real problem is anti western sentiment, and or what creates it?

In any event, we need to send these folk back where they came from, even if that means giving third and forth generation extremists a choice between interment for the duration of the conflict, or repatriation, even if that means they travel as tourists, then have their Australian passports revoked, so they are denied any possibility of a legal return!

And if that means certain ethnic communities believe they are selectively targeted; it's because they must be!?
Sorry, but if there were any other way now?
Rhrosty.

Roses, your scholar misses the point where he says "...Had the shooters in Paris actually bothered opening the Quran, they would have known about 'repel evil with something that is lovelier.' Had they sought to embody the Quran, they wouldn't have shot down cartoonists but made sure to shoot down prejudice by embodying luminous qualities that would transform the society..."

Some scholar. He either won't acknowledge the Quran's exhortations of followers to violence, or, hasn't read it.

There are two Islams, one violent and one not. Their followers label each other unbelievers and hypocrites (i.e. not rigid followers of the Quran). There is no hope of a reconciliation, while they follow the same book, but it'd be nice to see an attempt.

Egyptian President, General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi's speech (in the article) calls for enlightenment, appealing, "You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move....". While waiting for an age of reason to overcome the Islamic world we must look at how to meet the menace at home. As the "I'm Charlie" glow subsides, hard thinking is needed on what can practically be done.

Seeking to have Australian Muslims put the state before Allah, with a commitment to secular democracy, is disagreeable as I am told by their supposedly moderate representatives on another thread. This leaves the Muslim community to combat the problem or having it harshly dealt with by the State. I am concerned that our current leadership is not up to the task and that parties will arise and gain traction with extremist solutions, and other undesirable agenda items.

Quick comments.

1. What has been written here about Islam in 2015 could easily have been written about Catholicism right up to the Thirty Years War.

2. There is no "Islam" just as there is no "Christianity" in the sense that there are very different denominations. Even "sharia" has very different meanings...indeed sharia as practiced in Iran is more akin to English common law, while as practiced in Saudi Arabia it is more "feudal"...they execute people in Saudi Arabia for sorcery.

3. No one "let these people in" (response to a comment). There were Mohammedans(as they used to be called) on the First Fleet!

4. We should not respond to Islam by being more Christian. We should respond to Islam by requiring all groups that claim to be "religions" to preach tolerance and preach for a secular state...and political parties should be prohibited from being aligned to religions. Only religions that meet the requirement of tolerance and secularism should be able to get any benefit from the state - including charitable status and any grant funding.

The author closes with

"This is more than newspaper editors and journalists have had the guts to do, but we hope that now that so many more of their own profession have been slaughtered, besides those decapitated by Islamic State, they will stop focusing on imaginary "Islamophobia", will read the Koran and analyse Islam itself. It is not phobic to be afraid of having one's head cut off".

Does she really think journalists will acquaint themselves with the facts before passing opinions? Get real. Most journalists (aping the public they serve) are at best clueless and at worst sympathetic to the aims of the terrorists.

Just look at the two recently minted and most stupid of twitter hashtags created to appease Muslims who may be offended by us standing up for Christian values: #Illridewithyou and #Illridewithvouz

This essay is probably part of the campaign which is promoting the now popular right-wing trope that the "West" is engaged in a fight-to-the-death war againstiIslam for control of all of humankind.

Which sad to say (for the future of humankind altogether) it is.

Perhaps then we should really admit where most of the toxic forms of islamic radicalism comes from. Which is of course Saudi Arabia and the fact that it finances much/most/all of the islamic mosques and schools that now exist all over the Western world. Schools where the entirely toxic form of islam is promoted.
We should then perhaps start to call out (and call to account) the powerful right-wing Westerners who have a close working business relationship with the Saudi's. And who are thereby actively supporting the Saudi's.

A suitable way to start would be by Googling:
The Bush Family and its ties to Saudi Arabia (via the Carlisle Group for instance).
Rupert Murdoch and his ties to the Saudi's too.
Glancing through the Australian every day one could almost assume that the Murdoch press has a vested interest in promoting this global warfare - after all it IS good for business!

The Bush's do of course have a long history of trading with and supporting the enemy - Prescott Bush made a lot of money doing business with the Nazis during WWII.

Meanwhile of course everyone who has bothered to do their homework knows that the September 11 "terrorist" attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were false flag exercises staged by USA government insiders - probably headed up by Darth Vader (Cheney).
By "coincidence" a member of the Bush clan was in charge of security for the trade center at the time - how convenient!
So too, most probably was the Boston marathon bombing, and maybe even the London bombing too.

Great article Babette. I came across that same speech by the Egyptian president. Recently. We can only hope he has an impact. He is battling with the evil Muslim Brotherhood. That is the reason for his instalment as president in the first place.

Roses1,

Answer to your question – No, but we can still hope. The Koran cannot be questioned. Islam is not a religion. As a religion is meant to be spiritual. It is a 100% system of life. Islam has another agenda. More like a Theology of Terror. It is insidious and creeps into host societies. Our secular liberal society has been feeding it.

Hitler was a great admirer of Islam. Also the Inquisitions happened for valid reasons, for the sake of national security and Muslim aggression. Inquisitions (Inquests) were the paradigms for our modern Western judicial systems etc that we have today.

Hitler was anti-Christian and only used it for political opportunism in his propaganda.

https://shariaunveiled.wordpress.com/2013/09/22/evidence-mounting-that-hitler-was-a-muslim-and-practiced-islam/
“..Hence today, I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator, by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of ALLAH.”
-Adolf Hitler | Mein Kampf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

Islamic connection with Nazism

http://www.globalmbwatch.com/2009/02/03/qaradawi-says-hitler-was-divine-punishment-for-jews/

• Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s “Shariah and Life” TV program reaches an estimated worldwide audience of sixty million. He is, by any measure, one of the most influential Muslims in the world. In a 2009 statement, Qaradawi called the Holocaust “a divine punishment” of Jews and prayed that, “Allah willing,” the “believers” would finish the job started by Hitler.
• http://www.globalmbwatch.com/2009/02/03/qaradawi-says-hitler-was-divine-punishment-for-jews/

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/hitler-honored-in-upscale-instanbul-mall/2013/01/15/

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Quotations_on_Islam_from_Notable_Non-Muslims
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=137316

I'm not much into religious stuff, but I must admit the Muslims have finally convinced me.

Yep, the world will be a much better place when there are no more Muslims breathing it's air.

They appear to have also finally convinced many of our previous Muslim apologists, who suddenly started to think, & thus have gone quiet.

David,

I've no problem with religious groups forming political parties. The point is that in a secular democracy each voice is heard. For many people, religion forms the basis of their outlook and that should not be repressed by banning religiously-based parties.

An Islamic Party's job in a secular democracy is to peacefully convince everyone that it is the way. With a policy to turn the country over to Sharia law, it would't get much support here, but it should be allowed to try, without recrimination.

The cognitive dissonance for Islam is that democracy puts man's self-rule over Allah's rule. Further, there is only one god, Allah, so no party can have any other god or atheism at its basis.

Just wanted to be clear about what I see as "secular democracy".

Roses, The answer to your question is “no”. No!

Muslims cannot change and still be Muslims. As long as Muslims (“ the best of peoples”) accept the hate and violence against non-Muslims (you know, those "lower then animals”) propagated in the Quran , they cannot live in peace with us. Likewise, the fact that they believe Mohammad to be a great moral example and a messenger of truth without any questioning of this dogma or of his actions is another insurmountable obstacle. Unless they recognize both the evil in the Quran and the nefarious deeds of Mohammad, nothing changes. Nothing will change.

Why do you think that other immigrant groups don’t have the same degree of problems that Muslims do? What is the difference between Hindu and the Muslim immigrants from India, except that the Muslims fill the jails while Hindu crime is rare? Europe is full of Latin-Americans of all colours and beliefs, yet somehow they manage to live without the hateful preachers, violent attacks, burning cars, and grooming little girls for sex . Oh what can the problem be?

Also, your Onbeing article link is nothing but meaningless platitudes calling for Europeans to be more accepting of Muslims and their beliefs. The writer is not even sure if there was a religious motive in the Paris killings and chastises Europeans for not living up to their ideals. Note that Muslims are given a free pass on the evil tenets in their faith and are exempt for any required moral standards.

Ise Mise
"Fortunately this doesn't apply to followers of the Christ."
You could have fooled me. Go back to the crusades and the Spanish inquisition.

David

Sorry VK, since when were the crusaders at fault for defending Europe from Islam. The History being told to us has been greatly distorted by Leftists. And the inquisitors for basically doing the same??

Correction - GROSSLY distorted our history.

Speaking of False Flag operations, some of the usual alternative media outlets are suggesting, and perhaps providing suggestive corroborating evidence, that the Paris Charlie killings were such an operation too. Including Paul Craig Roberts and Robert David Steele who runs this site:
http://www.phibetaiota.net

Steele's CV is superb. His site provides perhaps the most extensive range of sources and links for understanding the human situation in the 21st century that I have ever come across. He is also a prolific reviewer of books for Amazon. Reading his extensive reviews on Amazon is an education in itself. He features books that are seldom if ever mentioned in the lame-stream "official" media here in the antipodes, certainly not in anything associated with the IPA or the Murdoch/Fox FAUX "news".

The "moderate" Muslims like Rebecca Kay and Dr Jamal Rifi are now reporting death threats, assaults and intimidation from other Muslims in western Sydney.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-14/death-threats-against-muslim-leader-who-denounced-radicals/5670774
I've said before, it's too much to ask of Arab liberals that they stand up to Muslims, who wants to go into what's effectively a witness protection program with a Police security detail at your side 24/7?
Racism and expectations of unquestioning loyalty to the clan or the ethnic group is by far the strongest factor controlling the Muslim diaspora, the threat of retribution from Muslim activists is trivial in comparison to the reality of having to live and work among violent gangsters and street hoodlums who see you as a traitor "Dog".
These non religious Lebanese, Afghan and Somali thugs who spend most of their days drunk and stoned out of their gourds are also suddenly very religious when the opportunity arises to riot, attack Police, loot and smash some "White dogs".

Jonj,
Yeah keep telling yourself it's "all religions" if it alleviates your self loathing for a few minutes.
http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/freedhearts/files/2013/09/gay-christians-35638751782.jpeg?w=286
People with low self esteem need to keep that little voice in their head chirping along with the fictions of "equality, liberty, and fraternity" but reality is still real outside the solipsistic bubble of the Liberal mind.
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/ByPQiPrCAAEyXIw.png:large

The Coming Annihilation of European Progressivism
http://therightstuff.biz/2015/01/11/the-coming-annihilation-of-european-progressivism/#more-12749

As other posters have shown, there is plenty in the scriptures and history of Christianity that can be read as endorsement of appalling violence, including persecution and even killing of those deemed blasphemous. Modern Christians have learned not to take these literally. So have the great majority of Muslims.

There were far more French Muslims at the demonstrations in solidarity with victims of Islamist violence than have ever participated in that violence.

It is a mark of fundamentalists and ideologues that they seek to exacerbate and provoke the very behaviour they also complain of. Babbette’s response is all the terrorists could hope for – demonising an entire religion for the actions of a few. We should not let the peddlers of hatred win, whatever their ideological/religious stripe.

The comparative argument doesn't cut it, Rhian. In the New Testament, which Christians follow, God does or threatens his own dirty work. Followers are not exhorted to it as they are in the Quran. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

MSM now talks of the "corrupted" version of Islam adhered to by terrorists, so appeasing the sensitivities of moderates. However, the same Quran is followed by terrorists/IS and moderates, and supports violence by Muslims, nothing "corrupt" about it. Yes, there are nice bits in there too , but the naughty bits can't just be ignored.

Rhian,
How many Christian terrorist attacks has Europe seen in the last year?
What's the monthly death toll for Christian, Buddhist and Hindu military operations and Guerilla strikes?
Across the world Muslims take a life about every eight minutes:
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/these-crimes-have-everything-to-do-with-islam-20150111-12lxmn.html

Hitler was not a Christian, he admired Christian Socialism as a teenager but in adulthood was a fanatical socialist:

So total is the Left's cultural ascendancy that no one likes to mention the socialist roots of fascism
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100203076/so-total-is-the-lefts-cultural-ascendancy-that-we-dare-not-mention-the-socialist-roots-of-fascism/
'I am a Socialist,' Hitler told Otto Strasser in 1930, 'and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow'.

Adolf Hitler:
Speech to the Nazi Party in Munich
(February 24, 1941)
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/hitler02241941.html
"If the new movement had been or had intended to be nothing but a continuation of the old parties or an addition to existing parties, such an objection would indeed have been justified. There were certainly more than enough parties in those days. But, after all, our movement was something quite different from all the existing and incipient parties of the time. It was a movement that declared for the first time and from the very outset that it had no intention of representing the definite, clearly outlined interests of individual classes. It did not stand for town or farm. It did not represent Catholic or Protestant interests; nor did it represent individual sections of the country. This was a movement which was definitely centered upon the concept of the German people. It was not a class party, sworn to uphold the right or the left, attempting to divide the nation, but one which from its very beginning had no thought for anything but the German people as a whole."

Luciferase

Christians follow both the Old and New Testaments – as Matthew 5:17-20 puts it:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished

Nor is the New Testament only full of peace and love:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

‘He said to them, “But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.” ‘

Revelation describes a might battle between the forces of good and evil.

What you say of the Koran:

“the same Quran is followed by terrorists/IS and moderates, and supports violence by Muslims, nothing "corrupt" about it. Yes, there are nice bits in there too , but the naughty bits can't just be ignored.”

Can equally be said of the Bible

@Rhian,

<<Can equally be said of the Bible>>

No dear it aint so. I know you really want to believe.But it does not sync with reality. Jay of Melbourne drew that to your attention above --see here, i'll print it for you again:

<<Rhian,
How many Christian terrorist attacks has Europe seen in the last year?
What's the monthly death toll for Christian, Buddhist and Hindu military operations and Guerilla strikes?
Across the world Muslims take a life about every eight minutes:
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/these-crimes-have-everything-to-do-with-islam-20150111-12lxmn.html>>

Jay

There have been no Christian terrorist attacks recently that I am aware of. That’s my point. Christian scriptures can be twisted and cherry-picked to appear to support violence, but it would be wrong to say that they inevitably make Christians violent, or that they Christians are intrinsically violent because of their scriptures. Same with Muslims and the Koran.

I’m not especially surprised at the socialist roots of fascism – both are authoritarian collectivist ideologies with a confrontational, dualistic bent. In socialism, the enemy is defined by class and in fascism by race, but there is philosophical kinship.

To Rhian.

Muslims follow the teachings of Muhammad, and Christians follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ's most notable quotes are...

"Blessed are the peacemakers."
"Love thine enemies."
"If a man strikes thee, turn the other cheek"
"Let he who is without sin throw the first stone."
"When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

How do you "twist" those meanings to claim they support violence?

Mohammad's most notable quotes are...

"Fight the unbelievers who are near to you, lay ambushes for them, strike terror into their hearts."
"Slay the idolaters wherever you find them."
"Do not take Christians or Jews for your friends, would you give Allah proof against yourself?"
"And fight them until there is no more disbelief, but belief in Allah alone."
Those that insult the prophet, kill him."

How do you twist those meanings to say that they are all about peace, love and mung beans?

Please fell free to submit any Bible quotes where God or Jesus Christ instructs Christians to kill non Christians to advance the Christian religion.

Hi Rhian,

Perhaps you're right - current Islamism is roughly on a par with early Christianity when it comes to peace and love. Only two thousand years behind the times :) Or three thousand for those who want to go back to Joshua or Saul. Backward and brutal then; fascist, backward and brutal now.

Yes, there is obviously a huge problem: both 'moderate' and terrorist Muslims can cite the Koran for their purposes. And if the Koran can not be questioned, as the literal word of Allah (except for the bits which obviously post-date Muhammad's launching of wars from Medina), then 'moderate' Muslims has an enormous task in front of them. Of course, in much earlier times, devout Christians also believed that every word of the Bible was divinely inspired, true, never to be questioned, and remnants still do.

But most Christians got over that. The Enlightenment, in spite of the burnings and torturings, prevailed. It took hundreds of years to overcome the idiocies of religion then, but I hope that any 'moderate' Muslims don't have to take so long.

At the rate that IS and its affiliate Boko Haram, etc., are killing people, it may take millions of violent deaths in the mean-time.

Yes, it's primarily an internal ideological struggle within Islam, but most certainly any progressive Muslims or 'moderate' Muslims need support from outside, particularly women, particularly educate women. This is what makes Malala Yusufzai such an amazing example of what just one person can do, such an inspiring person. We need millions of Malalas.

Thank you to all the posters here with their thoughtful comments, you give some of us hope and direction.

Joe

Rhian,
Ok, point taken but really that has nothing to do with this discussion, violence in "Christian" countries has gone down dramatically even in our lifetimes and particularly in the last twenty years.
In Muslim countries violence just gets worse and worse and you can't blame Western meddling for all or even very much of it, nobody invaded Egypt,Pakistan,Syria,Kazakhstan,Thailand,Nigeria,Libya or Bangladesh yet they've seen horrifying levels of violence in recent times.
Something like 25% of European people still practice the Christian faith, in traditionally Islamic societies above 90% of the people are practicing Muslims and between 25-40% hold "extremist" views, I think that's your explanation there.
The Muslim diaspora also reflects the levels of violence in their homelands, 60% of French prison inmates are of Muslim background, all of the drive by shootings and gang warfare in Blacktown and surrounding suburbs are down to the Lebanese, 100% of stranger rapes in Oslo are carried out by Muslim men and 90% of the victims are native Norwegian women.
The facts speak for themselves so it's pointless even discussing other religions because even though there are suggestive passages in their scriptures they don't demand violence in the way that the Koran does and even if they take such writings to heart they don't act out in violent ways.
But then Rhian, if it's not the Koran what is it that makes Muslims so violent? Studies in the west show that books, TV, video games and movies have no effect on violent behaviour and that increasing use of internet and TV watching actually seem to have played a part in the reduction of violence since the mid 90's. Muslim kids in the West have access to all the same mod cons yet they're violent and our kids are peaceful, socio economic factors don't matter, many terrorists and gangsters come from "good" homes. So why?

Dear Jay of Melbourne,

I normally save myself the bother and usually skip over your offal loads of tripe. And I know you think the sun shone from your Fuhrer's arse, but when you attempt to rewrite history the BS gets piled so bloody high it was impossible to miss.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16994#299604

I have related on another thread how it took the influence and programming of a hard right Christian to swing Hitler's magnanimous attitude toward Jews into the anti-Semitism that caused so much death, misery, and destruction. That man was Dr. Karl Lueger, one of the founding members of the Austrian Christian Socialists. Hitler, in his own words, describes his deep reluctance to succumb to anti-Semitism but the good Christian doctor managed it. Just imagine how different the world would have been without the hatred of this man poisoning the young mind of Adolf Hitler.

And you have the audacity to try this on;

“Hitler was not a Christian, he admired Christian Socialism as a teenager but in adulthood was a fanatical socialist”

What utter bunkum.

He was 33 when he said this;

““My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest
not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian
and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord
at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the
Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight
against the Jewish poison.”

And 47 when he said this;

““I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”

If you are going to be so enamoured by the man at least show the respect of correctly articulating his religious beliefs.

Rhian,

Where, in the New Testament, are Christians exhorted to kill on behalf of God? Christians live by the word of Christ, not by the Old Testament. Check out the New Covenant.

Muslims are exhorted to violence by the Quran to do the work of Allah. I agree with you that there is cruelty contained in the New Testament, but there is no exhortation to kill. If you can prove your point about the equivalence of texts by finding something better than your offering about buying swords (above), then do.

Luciferase,

"Where, in the New Testament, are Christians exhorted to kill on behalf of God? Christians live by the word of Christ, not by the Old Testament. Check out the New Covenant."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland#The_Siege_of_Drogheda

Wish you'd been around to offer advice when Cromwell was gallivanting around Ireland.

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

And anybody here want to tell me the difference between ISIS and the Ustashi?

Quote;

Although estimates vary, between 300,000 and 700,000 victims were murdered by Croatian fascists during the war.

When Hitler’s forces invaded Yugoslavia in the spring of 1941, Croatian right-wing extremists, under the leadership of Ante Pavelic and his fascist “Ustashi” movement, were given control of Croatia. Pavelic aligned the country enthusiastically to the Nazi cause and immediately launched a horrific onslaught against the Serbian minority. The official policy was popularly expressed as: Kill one-third of the Serbs, convert another third to Roman Catholicism, and expel the remaining third from Croatia.

The Roman Catholic Church insists it condemned the atrocities, but the record suggests a mix of official responses, ranging from weak condemnations to tacit support. While the killing was under way, the Croatian archbishop, Aloysius Stepanic, blessed the new regime and Pavelic was granted an audience with Pope Pius XII. A number of Franciscan monks participated in the killing. After the war ended, the Vatican helped Ustashi criminals evade capture and flee to South America.

During the war, Serbian Orthodox churches were burned and many Serbian communities wiped out. Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies were interned in concentration camps, where thousands of victims were slaughtered like animals.

The nature of the carnage was so horrific that senior ranking German officers in Croatia, including SS-Obergruppenführer Artur Phleps, sickened by the slaughter and worried that it was driving Serbians and anti-Ustashi Croats into the ranks of resistance groups, urged Berlin to demand a stop to the slaughter. These protests were in vain and the genocide continued.

End quote.

I am more than happy to acknowledge that certain sections of those of the Islamic faith are out of control and that just as the Christian faith was the greatest threat to European peace during WW2 Islam has now taken that mantle. It has a long way to go to reach the depths of deep depravity achieved by far right Christian groups during the war. Hopefully that will never happen and we can all do our part by keeping our hatemongers at bay.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0402/Croatia-should-apologize-for-World-War-II-genocide-before-joining-the-EU

"Ise Mise
"Fortunately this doesn't apply to followers of the Christ."
You could have fooled me. Go back to the crusades and the Spanish inquisition.

David"

The Crusaders and the Inquisition were not followers of Christ, had they been then they would not have acted as they did.

Christ's message was one of peace.

My, my. Now we have some people taking Hitler's very own words as shining examples of veracity!!

Yes - re the catholic Croatian fascists in his book The Power and the Glory The Dark Heart of JPII's Vatican David Yallop has some very interesting things to say about the Vatican's supportive role in these atrocities, and how it enabled Pavelic to escape, along with the plundered wealth of Croatia, even giving him shelter in the Vatican before sending him off to South America. His stolen loot was thus used to establish and support the rat-lines which assisted many nazi war criminals to escape to South America and elsewhere.
Later on he even excommunicated various catholics who testified against Pavelic's protector Cardinal Stepanic in a "show" trial.

These pictures replace a thousand words
http://alamoministries.com/content/english/Antichrist/nazigallery/photogallery.html

In a later chapter there is also a section which points out that JPII actively intervened during the Kosovo crisis to assist "catholic" interests in their long running war against the "orthodox" Serbs for control of both the people and property/assets. His intervention thereby exacerbated the crisis resulting in more murderous carnage.

These deeply fascist elements are of course very much alive and well (sic) in the Vatican and other influential right-wing outfits of the "catholic" church - opus dei being a principal player in this deadly game.

So Steele Redux and Daffy the Duck,

Are you saying that two wrongs make a right ? Is that how the 'Left' thinks these days ?

Just to recap:

* Croatian fascists murdered hundreds of thousands of Serbs, Jews, and Macedonians;

* Cromwell murdered many thousands of Irish people in his grab for land for his henchmen; [not to mention Prince William at Culloden in 1745];

* Genghiz Khan, Tamurlaine and various other despots murdered many millions across Asia, Europe and the Middle east;

* The Vikings butchered their way across much of Europe;

* * the Chins exterminated many competing groups in early China, in the first millennium BC, in the usual way of traditional societies;

* Reputedly, according to their own myths, the Hebrews exterminated 'many cities' of every man, women, child and beast, and hanged their kings from trees.

How far do you want to go back ? Does any of that excuse the terrorists currently menacing much of the world ?

Who is leading the fight, not hard enough, but still leading, against those fascists ? Lo and behold, I do believe it's the Americans.

Yes yes yes, yada yada, the US armed Saddam, yes they armed early versions of al Qa'ida against the Russians, yes they went to war against the Vietnamese. But they're about to set up naval bases in Vietnam. They have overseen what might be the most democratic system possible in Iraq. Much hasn't gone the way they thought - nyah ! nyah ! - but they're the good guys in all this.: the Ernest Borgnines or Mel Gibsons fighting against terrorism, so that you can sit in your favourite café sipping your soy lattes.

Whose side will you be on ?

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

When you played Cowboys and Indians in you backyard as a kid it was pretty easy working out who the savages were wasn't it. Life was simple, black and white, and God was in his heaven.

Most of us have grown up, we have read our history of the massacres of Indian tribes, we know of the genocides, the rapes, the slaughter of babies, the theft of land and we balance that with what we know of some of the savagery of some of the attacks on settlers.

I do not have an issue with asking that Muslims try to be more introspective about their faith, to explore what facets may allow destructive fundamentalism to fester and lash out with often tragic consequences.

What I object to is the saying through a prism of Christianity - Good, Islam – Bad because history doesn't permit it. If we can't acknowledge the failings of the faith that permeated most of the West then how can we expect those of the Muslim faith to do so.

What ultimately drove introspection of Christianity and its historic anti-Semitism was one of the great horrors of modern times, the Holocaust.

We should be honest enough to be able to say to the Muslim world we know what unchecked religious bigotry looks like and it is a horror. Learn from our mistakes, know that unchecked it will cause death and destruction of what was once thought to be unimaginable dimensions.

Without that honesty why should anyone listen?

Steele Redux,

"Learn from our mistakes, know that unchecked it will cause death and destruction of what was once thought to be unimaginable dimensions.

"Without that honesty why should anyone listen?"

Yes, you've got it, learn from the mistakes of those who have made them before, don't use the mistakes - the evils - of others to justify those of someone else.

Many Muslims have a long, hard road towards becoming modern, questioning, sceptical, reasoning human beings who take for granted that men and women are equal, that the rule of law and democratic processes SHOULD prevail over the despotic and corrupt abuse of power,of priests, kings or imams.

Whether they will find it as easy to put aside their Book just as - I presume, being an atheist - most Christians have transcended unquestioning faith in THEIR Book, I can't know. But I hope it happens in my lifetime.

If there is ever going to be a better society than a democratic one, then it will have to build on openness and democracy, imperfect and uncertain as they may be - the alternatives, so far, seem to have inevitably descended into totalitarianism, including fascism.

And that building will take perhaps decades of hard thought and painful decisions. But fascism cannot be allowed to win, anywhere.

Joe

Islam as a religion is a problem when adherents religiously and blindly follow all the 'inspired' teachings of its founder without any personal revelation of the inherent truth of its teachings. An informative testimony of Mark A. Gabriel,former Islamic University professor of Islamic history at Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt, who converted to Christianity, clearly illustrates this.

Sadly many delusional persons acting as if they were true Christians have ignored Christ's teachings. Ghandi when asked what is his opinion was the greatest enemy of Christianity being more widely accepted in India replied it was the [behaviour] of the Christians! [paraphrased].

Islam does not follow Christ's teachings and in many teachings is in direct contrast. Jesus was either a lunatic, a liar, or who He said he was in his claims about himself.

To become Christlike is the only thing in the whole world worth caring for, the thing before which every ambition of man [and woman] is folly and all lower achievement vain." - Henry Drummond

Secularist have consistly misrepresented Christ and His teachings for decades. Sometimes it is deliberate, other times naivety. So what chance of they of getting it right with Islam. Some fool of commentator on the radio today claiming muslims must claim back Islam. How blind can one be. Very similar ignorance whem trying to deal with Indigeneous incarceration. Every government is horrified with the number of people in prison but no horror about the amount of crime committed. Lets just get another committee together and reinforce victimhood. Add a few twisted historians and you have justifcation for never dealing with the issues.

And then we have Steelie sprouting the usual deceit about Hitler being a 'Christian'when he knows quite well he was a social darwinist. Hitler fit in well with Stalin and Mao as the High Priests of the god deniers. Don't forget that Hitler never considered the Jews people just like secularist deny the unborn are people. Gives them an excuse to act out their vile dogmas without guilt.

Just like the author of this article, many of the contributors to this thread believe we can only 'beat' the threat of radical Islamist terrorism by following Christian religion.

What utter rubbish!
One has to wonder how the people of the world managed to survive and prosper before the apparent birth of Christ?

Runner, I would imagine that if Hitler was heard to call himself a Christian then that is what he was, whether you like it or not. There are also bad Christians in the world today.

The only way the world can beat these radical terrorists is by standing together against this violence, and that means ALL countries, cultures and religions fighting against this evil....not just the Christians.

Thanks SteeleRedux for you wisely chosen quotes; also Susieonline and others for pointing to how religions have been mis-used for evil ends.

The Nazis'and their Catholic Reich collaborators misused the bible and made false claims to Christianity to enable their quest for power and justify their murderous reigns - all in the quest for absolute power for themselves. Anti-Christs. Ultimately they did not prevail but they did cause unspeakable death and destruction.

We are seeing the same with ISIS and Al Qaeda and the other 'Islamist' sects - they are not God-fearing, reverent, loving people (as the great majority of Muslims and Christians are) , they are a minority of mad, murderous power-seeking thugs who are mis-using Islam as Hitler / Nazis did Christianity.

We must be very wary (Jay and Constance) not to fall for their trap by demonizing all Muslims, especially those immigrants in our own country. Cherry picking a few criminal acts by one group while ignoring those of other groups is how wars start.

We must also be aware that we in the West, led by the US have stirred up this hornets nest by our nations' criminal wars in Iraq, and together with Russia in Afghanistan. All for the motive of keeping cheap oil flowing for the 'national interest' of wasting it driving 3 tonne shopping trolleys and heating over-sized mansions.

To Poirot and Steelredux.

Poirot, asked by Luciferase to submit any information from the New Testament that sanctions Christians to kill anybody, you submitted links from Wiki about Christians killing Christians in the English civil war. Did you hope that nobody would click on the links to discover your poor tactics?

That is stonewalling and obfuscating. When you have to stoop to dishonest tactics to answer a question, that is an indicator that you know that you are wrong, but you just won't admit it. You know that the man who invented Christianity was a pacifist who was against violence, and those who commit violence in his name are contravening his teachings. You also know that the man who invented Islam was a bloodthirsty psychopath warlord, who created a religion that sanctioned the killing of anybody who opposed his will. But you will never admit it. Because to do so would hardly conform to the leftist humanitarian belief that all religions are equal, and everybody wants to live in peace with everybody else.

If you have to use dishonest tactics to stay in the game, perhaps it is time to find a dark corner and do a bit of introspection about your whole philosophy? If you can no longer openly and honestly support your own position, it is probably because it is wrong.

To Steelredux.

The difference between the Ustashi and ISIL, is that the Ustashi were violating the written teachings of Jesus Christ, while ISIL are following the written teachings of Muhammad to the letter.

There is a fundamental difference between the Islamic religion and every other religion in the world at this time. The Islamic religion sanctions the killing of non Muslims, and it sanctions the spread of Islam by force. Since the destruction of international socialism and national socialism, Islam has become the last violent and aggressive totalitarian ideology in extant bent on world domination. And you support it, and make lame excuses for it?

Quote: We must be very wary not to fall for their trap by demonizing all Muslims, especially those immigrants in our own country. Cherry picking a few criminal acts by one group while ignoring those of other groups is how wars start.

We don't need to demonize Muslims -- they do that just fine by themselves. Then again, how can we demonize a people that have no problem with hate and violence (depending only on who does it) and consider a man that attacked his neighbors, plundered, burned crops, raped, tortured and enslaved men women and children to be a noble example. These are the beliefs of not a "few criminals" but all Muslims, but try to get one to talk about the blood that oozes from the Quran or the evil deeds of their dear prophet... If they will not admit to this, they will not fix it. Don't hold your breath.

Nobody should kick Muslims, but it is essential that we tell them that we are offended by their theology and practices. We have to tell them the things they don't want to hear. To pretend that islam and Muslims want peace is to ignore not only Islam's teachings but also conditions in Islamic societies.

I guess, then, by the logic and the writings of Muslim apologists here, that Mohammad misused Islam or maybe he wasn't even a Muslim.

After all these years, after ever terror event, we hear the same silly refrains about how Islam is being abused by a small group of radicals that don't really follow the teachings of the Quran and Mohammad.

As to "3 tonne shopping trolleys and heating over-sized mansions" I must have not gotten the delivery message, because that is sure not what I have.

Susie

you demnstrate with your idiotic ideology why you can't accept truth. I know it makes your worldview look foolish however I would of thought you might of learn't something in the last few weeks. Obviously can't teach those who want to live in deceit.

SPQR
I agree, in recent years most terrorist violence has been perpetrated in the name of Islam. When I was a child growing up in the UK most terrorist violence was committed by Irish Catholics. It doesn’t mean the Irish are congenital criminals or Catholicism is a religion of violence.

LEGO/luciferase
Yes, Christians follow the teaching of Jesus, but as I pointed out , not all Jesus’ sayings were pacifist. Christians accept both Old and New Testaments as scripture – the church rejected as heresy Marcion’s hypothesis that Christians should reject the Old Testament long ago:

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

Much in the OT appears to endorse violence. The Church, and Christian cultures, have historically used these texts to justify violence against other Christian denominations and other religions. This doesn’t make Christianity a religion of violence, or mean that Jesus’ message is one of violence. These self-serving corruptions are a perversion of the Bible’s message.

This book explores the issue quite well:

http://www.amazon.com/Laying-Down-Sword-Ignore-Violent-ebook/dp/B005C6HH9E/ref=sr_1_18?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1421113473&sr=1-18&keywords=violence+bible

Equally, most of Jesus' “peaceful” teaching is thoroughly grounded in the OT (“love you neighbour as yourselves” is from Leviticus 19:18, for example).

There are clear parallels with the corruption of Islam by violent fundamentalists. Knowing the history of scripturally based rationalisations for Christian violence is helpful because it can help to understand how the same process happens in Islam.

I think it was CS Lewis who said that evil is not the absence of good, or the opposite of good, but the corruption of good. The things that we most value and find most inspiring are the things we are most likely to go to extremes to promote and defend. In their own minds, the Parisian murderers were courageous idealists. So were the Nazis, the Stalinists, Mao’s cultural revolutionaries, the crusaders and the inquisition. We need to understand how passionate idealism mutates into violent fundamentalism, in all its variations.

Jay
You may be right that violence has recently diminished in Christian countries and increased in Muslim countries. But give that both religions have been around for many centuries, it’s unlikely that Islam and Christianity are the sole causes

Steele,
Hitler most certainly was not a Christian and like all shrewd politicians he had one persona for the public and another for the party's inner circle.
The NS intended to roll all the Christian confessions into one church which would gradually be absorbed into the National Socialist state.
The Leaders weren't stupid, they realised the necessity of getting the churches on side as a first step then they could implement the gradual phasing out of traditional Christianity via a program they called "Positive Christianity".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity
The senior NS definitely planned to de Christianise the German people and they were supported by Hitler, their plans didn't come to fruition but that's another story.
Steele you do understand that Hitler's public appearances and speeches were all staged and highly rehearsed pieces of theatre?
Read Goebbels' diaries, he talks about how Hitler had perfected his act, his perfect balance of physical movement and vocal techniques, what he said in his performances and what he believed are two different things.
Hindsight is 20/20, we now have a small number of more or less reliable testimonials to Hitler's character and private,personal opinions, sure he appears to contradict himself when you compare his private and public comments but when he was in power all the world saw was his propaganda, very few people knew him on a personal basis or spent any length of time in his company.

Rhian says:
<<I agree, in recent years most terrorist violence has been perpetrated in the name of Islam.>>

No Rhian:
most terrorism has been perpetuated in the cause of Islam for centuries it has only come to the west in recent years.

Suggest you read references like Confessions of a Mullah Warrior by Masood Farivar. He recounts how they hunted and raped local infidels for sport decades ago--when no one in the west knew or cared.

This article is unfortunately highly typical of one particular style of "Christian". And no less depressing, for all its tendentious familiarity.

Why is it, I often wonder to myself, that some people think that it is their Christian duty to stir up hatred towards other religions, as this article does. Is it a hangover from the Crusades? Is it just a revival of the ducking-stool style of Christianity, where a person is adjudged evil by their inability to avoid being so defined? Or are we merely seeing the sad, shrill effluvium of a permanently closed and stunted mind?

They won't go away, of course. Because they are so convinced that they are "right", that it is somehow their bounden duty to constantly bombard the rest of us with their vituperative, spittle-drenched bigotry.

It is also, somehow, easy for them to forget the actions of, say, Anders Brevik, who - relatively recently - perpetrated the mindless massacre of 77 innocents in the name of a very similar strain of Christian-based Islamophobia.

[Waits for a string of the usual excuses...]

It's almost a certainty that the vast majority of Islamic refugees, especially the women, are fleeing Islam for a better life they hope to find in a Western secular democracy. Why else would they pass through many Islamic countries, to finally risk their lives, and the lives of their loved ones, on the very hazardous sea crossing to Australia, or Europe?
We then fail them, miserably!
In Europe especially they are expected to live in their own communities, where criticism of Islam or their prophet can quickly lead to death. How can we even know if the silent majority of our Muslim immigrants wish to leave the religion (of peace?) when it is obviously so dangerous for them to even hint at such an idea? How can we possibly know if a Muslim woman is completely covered by her own choice, or from fear of the wider Islamic community?
I think we could at least try a little harder to help those who wish to escape the restrictions that the more violent of their fellows keep them under.
Firstly, we should ban any mode of dress that covers the face, anywhere in public. We know that the majority of Muslim women would prefer the freedom that western women have, as we have seen how they react in places like Iran, when the religious regime relaxes it's grip.
Secondly, we should ban religious schools - all religious schools - as they only lead to divisions in the community. Strictly enforce de-segregation, even if it means bussing kids out of their home community to more distant schools. Let the kids learn any religious garbage on the Sabbath, if their parents so desire, but not on our dollar, in our schools. Yes, this will be costly, but balance that cost against the cost of terrorism. How much have the 400,000 extra police and soldiers cost France, after the last tterrorist attack.
Thirdly, bring back complete freedom of speech. Encourage it! Make it illegal to prosecute someone for voicing an opinion, except perhaps for inciting violence. And protect those who do speak out!

Suse.

"Runner, I would imagine that if Hitler was heard to call himself a Christian then that is what he was, whether you like it or not"

Does that mean that if Hitler was heard to call himself a midwife, then he was a midwife?

I'll try calling myself a 25 year old.

Rhian, you are stonewalling and obfuscating. You know that Islam is violent religion which openly preaches violence towards non Muslims.

You are smart enough to know that the IRA did not commit acts of terrorism while screaming "The Pope is Great!" Nor did they quote any passages in the Bible that justified the spread of Catholicism by force, or justified the murder of non Catholics.

You also know that there is no parallel between the teachings, or even the behaviour of Jesus Christ, and the teachings and behaviour of Mohammad. You have submitted only two vague quotes from Jesus Christ which may pertain to approving violence. The first can easily be discounted as a poetic way of saying "I came here to cause trouble" and you are smart enough to know that too. The second, is not in context and I can not judge what it means without reading the entire paragraph. But the Koran contains 160 "sword" passages and the meaning of those stand alone quotes is crystal clear. Spread Islam by force. Kill people who worship idols unless they convert to Islam. Kill anybody who questions Islam or insults the prophet. Kill homosexuals and apostates. Terrorise non Muslims. Be prepared to fight non Muslims who's existence you are even unaware of. And if you follow those instructions, you are a Muslim "a grade higher" than the rest.

Your premise that Islam has been "corrupted" by fundamentalists is ridiculous. If Muslims are faithfully following the written fundamentals of Islam by doing exactly what their God commands them, they are hardly "corrupting" their religion.

Once again you are desperately trying to equate Islam with Christianity by claiming that both have engaged in appalling acts of violence. Once again, I have to repeat that those people who call themselves Christians who commit appalling acts of violence on behalf of their religion would be condemned as "un Christian" by other Christians. While those Muslims who commit extreme violence against non Muslims are "a higher grade" of Muslim, according to the written words of their own Prophet.

Is Mise,
There are plenty of Anti Semitic Christians getting about, Ted Pike and Matt Johnson for example, yet I've never heard a single one talk about Hitler in a positive light let alone claim him as one of their own.
Christians despise Hitler because he and his men were anti-Christian, nihilistic revolutionaries peddling a quasi scientific cult of Aryanism which portrayed Jesus as more or less a blue eyed version of Mohammed, the warrior prophet.
The Catholic "Holocaust" in the Balkans is also a lie, it didn't happen, the figure of 1.7 million dead was de-bunked as far back as 1964, the higher figure was simply invented by the Communists in the late 1940's to screw more war reparations out of Germany.

It's incredible the lengths the apologists of Islam will go to make excuses for the violent nature of the majority of Muslims, the mental gymnastics required to justify the presence of seven million Muslims in Europe is a marvel to behold.
Everyone knows Muslims are violent, the majority are only marginally less violent and criminally inclined than the Jihadis, they contribute nothing positive to our societies, they only take and steal.
It's upsetting but not surprising that "progressives" have lowered themselves to the position of pimps and benefactors for Muslims, providing rape victims and social security for alien barbarians who hate them and are working every hour Allah allows toward the destruction of their benefactors.
It's as I said earlier, the "progressives" now find themselves in the same position as old Herr Hitler in his bunker, planning grand strategies for armies which had long ceased to exist, snarling that the German people themselves have let their Fuhrer down and deserved to burn along with the dream of the eternal Reich.
Europe is fracturing and according to the "progressives" it's all the fault of the "racist" White working class, the "Far Right", the "ignorant" and the "uneducated". It's never the fault of the people who are actually in power and the "progressives" in charge, I fear will watch it all burn rather than admit that they were wrong.

Rhian,

The New Testament mentions that the followers of Jesus were first called Christians within a few years after his death.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+11%3A26%2CActs+26%3A28&version=NIV

You can't just redefine "Christian" to win a point.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/christian

Pericles, perhaps you're the real Christian here, turning the other cheek, then the other, then the other, until appeasement is reached. Good luck with that.

Practical measures must be taken by the rest of us. Separating gaol-house "mullahs" from their prison flocks is the start of it in France, and much more must be done, here too. Protecting ourselves requires compromising our privacy, and formal commitments from the Islamic leadership in Oz too, IMO.

I'll not be labelled out of the way by your PC hissy fit. Je ne suis un Christian, Je ne susi un bigot, and who's forgetting Brevik?

Dear Lego,

Thank you for supplying us with your list of what you regard as notable quotes from Jesus and Mohammed.

Why couldn't another provide a different list of what they deemed notable which might just as easily read like this;

Jesus Christ's most notable quotes are...

On peace;

“"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. "For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household."

"Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three . . . " (Which is basically what happened when Roman Catholic Croatians slaughtered Orthodox Christian Serbs)

Instructions for his disciples to arm themselves;

“But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.

On how to plunder;

“No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.”

Demanding adulation;

“He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.”

On helping those not of his race;

“It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.”

Of course I do not think the impression left by these words are a fair representation of Jesus the man, but neither are your quotes you gave for Mohammed. We could easily play this all day, but to what end?

Dear LEGO,

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

These are not the words of Jesus, but of St. Ambrose, a Roman who persecuted Jews and pagans.

Brilliantly stated Steele!

In other words both holy books use metaphor extensively. Another of my favorite ones is from Paul in the Bible who talks about 'swords, breastplates, girdles' - articles of armor and weaponry to describe the the power of truth and integrity.

Jay - "Everyone knows Muslims are violent, the majority are only marginally less violent and criminally inclined than the Jihadis, they contribute nothing positive to our societies, they only take and steal" What arrant nonsense - sounds like someone living in a closet somewhere in Nazi Germany.

I've heard many other bigots rant on the same way about races; problem is they never actually knew anybody of that race / religion personally. The rant is about some imaginary demonized 'other'.
You should get to really know some Muslims in your community.

Re the sword, fathers and daughters, etc, if Jews followed Christ it would ruin peaceful families, splitting them up with a metaphor, a sword. You don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to pick that up.

Still think you're clutching at thin straws with these references, Steele. Where is the exhortation of Christ's followers to offensive violence? No doubt tho', God is egotistical, wanting to be put before all familial relationships. Must think he's God.

Anyway, perhaps you've at least shown Christ wasn't all peaches'n'cream. Being an atheist, I'll leave others to defend his personality, but remain of the view that Muhummed and Christ were not on the same page when it came to exhorting followers to violence. Good try.

Don't get your chasuble in a twist, Luciferase.

>>I'll not be labelled out of the way by your PC hissy fit. Je ne suis un Christian, Je ne susi un bigot, and who's forgetting Brevik?<<

My remarks were directed, if you care to check, at 'one particular style of "Christian"'

>>This article is unfortunately highly typical of one particular style of "Christian". And no less depressing, for all its tendentious familiarity.<<

It is intriguing that you choose to include yourself in this category by deciding to take personal offence at its tone. Why would this be, do you think?

Fine Pericles, I've defended Christ's teachings here, so I suspected I may be one of your "particular styles" of Christian. Who would know?

I distance myself from any negative stereotyping here of Muslims as undesirable people.

And pardon my French, je ne suis pas un bigot/un Christian. Very sloppy.

@ Master cherry picker Steelredux

Nice fudge Steelie, Ismail Haniya will be well proud.

Now please give us a New Testament citation --or Christian state publication where it says, similar to the below (ie you get 72 virgins for killing enemy civilians).

"The most prominent reward that Palestinian Martyrs are repeatedly promised are the 72 Dark-Eyed Virgins in Paradise. A Palestinian religious leader explained that this is authentic Islam, whose purpose is to 'fill Muslims with desire for Paradise':
'He [Muhammad] said (in a Hadith, Islamic tradition):
‘[There is] a palace of pearls in Paradise and in it seventy courts of ruby... And in each court [there are] seventy houses of green emerald stone. In every house, seventy beds. On every bed, seventy mattresses of every color and on every mattress a woman.’ (Hadith)
The writing of the Prophet [Muhammad in this Hadith]... is intended to fill Muslims with desire for Paradise... to be worthy of it, because only three dwell there: Prophets, Righteous and Shahids (Martyrs for Allah).'
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Jan. 2, 2004]

The message comes from all parts of society, including religious leaders, TV news reports, schoolbooks, and even music videos. Newspapers routinely describe the death and funerals of terrorists as their “wedding.” The indoctrination has impacted so significantly on Palestinian society that mothers celebrate their sons’ death as “weddings” and some even state that their sons’ motivation to fight Israel and be killed was to reach Paradise and marry the Dark-Eyed Virgins.

This music video is an example of the PA's continuous indoctrination of this message. The longest running music video on PA TV, originally aired in 2000 and broadcast regularly in 2010, shows a male Martyr being greeted in Islam’s Paradise by dark eyed women all dressed in white. As the PA religious leader wrote, its purpose is to “fill Muslims with desire for Paradise.”

http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=565

We eagerly await your response.

Who would know indeed.

>>Fine Pericles, I've defended Christ's teachings here, so I suspected I may be one of your "particular styles" of Christian. Who would know?<<

Only you, Luciferase. Only you.

I make no judgment on the issue at all - everything has been from your own mouth, so to speak. Any labelling, as you call it, is yours and yours alone.

And there's nothing wrong with being a Christian. Many of my friends, etc...

But I still find it difficult to separate the tenor of the article here by Babette Francis, from the writings and ravings of Anders Brevik. Their intention - the fomentation of hatred against Moslems - is in all key respects identical.

Lego

You say “Christians who commit appalling acts of violence on behalf of their religion would be condemned as "un Christian" by other Christians.” Quite right. But it is also true that Muslims who commit appalling acts of violence on behalf of their religion would be condemned as "un Islamic" by other Muslims. Overwhelmingly, this has been the response from mainstream Muslim leaders and organisations.

Lego and Luciferase

In our tolerant, pluralistic and multicultural society (hurrah!) you and other Marcionite heretics are free to peddle the idea that Christians can disregard the Old Testament as scripture. But all mainstream churches – Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant – would disagree, and in the past they might have killed you for writing it. Quite ironic, really.

Ah! Ye olde passive aggressive position. Well done, Pericles, well done.

My label can be determined from my writings here. You decide.

Rhian.

". But all mainstream churches – Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant – would disagree,"

Google is your friend, consult it.

indeed, Is Mise

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

There you are, Google is your friend.

Luciferase,

For someone who claims to be an atheist, you seem to get all hot and bothered about this subject.

Here you go - this sums it all up quite succinctly.

http://twitter.com/BoingBoing/status/554817155779149825

Luciferase

Dont bother with Poirot's link its the sort of stuff that appeals to simpletons (which is probably why she finds it profound).

I seriously doubt it would find publication in any Muslim dominated society

LOl!...SPQR,

I have to admit it's so much more "profound" watching you guys cherry-pick bits from the scriptures of either faith ad nauseam "every time" this subject is raised on the forum.

I mean for how many years are you all intending to repeat the same inane process?

Poirot,

You have this strange utopian idea that all creeds are the same and one is no worse than the other--now ask yourself is that even sensible? The real Poirot would never be so gullible --told you before change your online handle to the more fitting Ms Maple!

And as for this: <<I mean for how many years are you all intending to repeat the same inane process?>>
It's certainly not for your benefit since i firmly believe you are beyond redemption :)

PS just in case you are wondering, i dont read your links either --i got my cyber-bot to sus it out and give me an assessment :)

SPQR,

"PS just in case you are wondering..."

Nup - can't say I was.

Talk of Christians is irrelevant. Even if there was a general problem - which there isn't -of Christians strapping bombs to little girls and blowing up markets, and killing school children, and abducting schoolgirls by the hundreds, and raping captured women, and beheading children, and crucifying people, and killing people who don't agree with them, and getting children to shoot prisoners in the back of the head, and so on, it still wouldn't justify or excuse other people doing it, would it?

It's also irrelevant because, to the extent that Christians have persecuted anyone, they have been doing what Christ told them NOT to do, unlike Muslims who when they persecute non-Muslims, are doing what Mohammed told them God wants them to do.

Amazing the contortions of stupidity the left wing will put themselves into without shame.

Jardine K. Jardine, the christian scriptures have enough places with commands about killing. The killing of "witches" certainly has a biblical basis but thankfully the christian church has motly given that up (some might be keen to start again). The persecution of homosexuals is ongoing to differing extents and has some biblical basis.

For the most part christians cope with not taking all the injunctions in the bible literally (with some very screwed up exceptions) but its been a slow process with some distance to go yet.

R0bert

Agnostic, atheist, Islamic was Jesus a lunatic or a liar? He asserted "If you have seen me you have seen the Father." [God] Former Muslim Egyptian Professor/Iman states in his Christian testimony ‘I was not involved in any radical groups. But one of my Muslim friends was a member of an Islamic group that was actively slaughtering Christians . . . he was active in jihad. One day I asked him, “Why are you killing our neighbors and countrymen whom we grew up with?” He was angry and astonished at my challenge. “Out of all Muslims you should know. The Christians did not accept the call of Islam, and they are not willing to pay us the jizyah (tax) to have the right to practice their beliefs. Therefore, the only option they have is the sword of Islamic law.” . . . .’ Many times I tried to rationalize the kind of Islam I was practicing by saying to myself, well, you are not too far out. After all, there are verses in the Quran about love, peace, forgiveness and compassion. You only need to ignore the part about jihad and the killing of the non-Muslims. I went to every interpretation of the Quran trying to avoid jihad and killing non-Muslims, yet I kept finding support of the practice. The scholars agreed that Muslims should enforce jihad on infidels and renegades. Yet jihad was not in harmony with other verses that spoke of living at peace with others. . . . In one place alcohol was forbidden; in another it was allowed (compare Surah 5:90–91 with Surah 47:15). In one place it says Christians are very good people who love and worship one God, so you may be friends with them (Surah 2:62, 3:113–114) . . . other verses say Christians must convert, pay tax or be killed by the sword (Surah 9:29). I wondered how Allah, almighty and all powerful, could either contradict himself so much or change his mind so much. Even the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, practiced his faith in ways that contradicted the Quran.

. . .The Quran said Muhammad was sent to show the mercy of God to the world. But became a military dictator, attacking, killing and taking plunder to finance his empire. How is that showing mercy? Allah, the god revealed in the Quran, is not a loving father. It says that he desires to lead people astray (Surah 6:39, 126). He does not help those who are led astray by him (Surah 30:29) and desires to use them to populate hell (Surah 32:13) . . . Islam is full of discrimination—against women, against non-Muslims, against Christians and most especially against Jews. Hatred is built in to the religion. . . . The history of Islam, which was my special area of study, could only be characterized as a river of blood. . . .I was questioning the faith and the Quran with my students at the university. Some of them were members of terrorist movements, and they were enraged: “You can’t accuse Islam. What has happened to you? You have to teach us. You have to agree to Islam.” The university heard about it, and I was called in for a meeting in December 1991. To summarize the meeting, I told them what was in my heart: “I can no longer say that the Quran comes directly from heaven or from Allah. This cannot be the revelation of the true God.” . . .These were very blasphemous words, in their opinion. They spat in my face. One man cursed me, “You blasphemer. You bastard.” The university fired me and called the Egyptian secret police. . . Suggest you Google his full testimony and make up your own mind

R0bert

"Jardine K. Jardine, the christian scriptures have enough places with commands about killing."

The New Testament doesn't, and the whole point about being Christian, is that they believe that Christ came to put in place a 'new covenant', in other words, to supersede the Old Testament's ethic of an 'eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' with 'love God above all and your neighbour as yourself', 'love your enemy', 'turn the other cheek', 'go the extra mile' and all that jazz. That's what distinguishes Christians from Jews. However Christ was a Jew and in common with Christians he believed in the Old Testament book of Genesis, with its account of original sin, because without that, there would be no need for Jesus to save man from sin. The whole point about being Christian is that they don't share the Jewish belief in the Old Testament, otherwise they'd be Jews. In particular, they don't share the old ethic of divine favour based on ethnicity and violent chauvinism, but replaced it with a doctrine of divine favour based on grace and faith in Jesus and good works and love your brother man. All they're missing is the mung beans - and the promiscuous sex.

I'm well aware that Christians have done lots of persecuting down through the ages. In fact Edward Gibbon, in his excellent history of the early church in Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, said to the following effect: People make much of the persecution of the Christians by the Romans. But the persecution of the Christians by the Romans, was nothing compared to the persecution of the Christians by the Christians.

But the point is that, in doing so, they are not doing what Christ told them to do, they are doing what Christ told them not to do.

Dear SPQR,

Please mate don't inflict another Israeli propaganda site on us. Gather your own information, find your own source documents, make your own assessment, draw your own conclusion, then state your case. It really isn't that hard. Almost every other poster here is capable of it so give it a try. I promise to respond when you do.

Dear Jardine K. Jardine,

What on earth are you talking about?

Christ called non-Jews dogs and swine. He referred to Jews who were not of his sect as serpents and vipers destined for the damnation of hell.

You tell us;

“People make much of the persecution of the Christians by the Romans. But the persecution of the Christians by the Romans, was nothing compared to the persecution of the Christians by the Christians. But the point is that, in doing so, they are not doing what Christ told them to do, they are doing what Christ told them not to do.”

I repeat Christ's words which you seem to want to deny;

"Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three . . . "

Cont...

Cont...

That household is of course the Christian community and wars between Protestants, Catholics ,Orthodox Christians etc have been of horrific proportions. But for me the greatest tragedy was the slaughter of the followers of the Carthar faith.

“Jonathan Barker cited the Albigensian Crusade, launched by Pope Innocent III against followers of Catharism, as an example of Christian state terrorism. The 20-year war led to an estimated one million casualties. The Cathar teachings rejected the principles of material wealth and power as being in direct conflict with the principle of love. They worshiped in private houses rather than churches, without the sacraments or the cross, which they rejected as part of the world of matter, and sexual intercourse was considered sinful, but in other respects they followed conventional teachings, reciting the Lord's prayer and reading from Biblical scriptures.”

“They held that the physical world was evil and created by Rex Mundi, who encompassed all that was corporeal, chaotic and powerful; the second god, the one whom they worshipped, was entirely disincarnate: a being or principle of pure spirit and completely unsullied by the taint of matter – He was the god of love, order and peace. According to Barker, the Albigenses had developed a culture that "fostered tolerance of Jews and Muslims, respect for women and women priests, the appreciation of poetry, music and beauty, [had it] been allowed to survive and thrive, it is possible the Europe might have been spared its wars of religion, its witch-hunts and its holocausts of victims sacrificed in later centuries to religious and ideological bigotry". When asked by his followers how to differentiate between heretics and the ordinary public, Abbe Arnaud Amalric, head of the Cistercian monastic order, simply said "Kill them all, God will recognize his own!"

By your measure Catholics are not Christians then.

Steele, "That household is of course the Christian community and wars between Protestants, Catholics ,Orthodox Christians etc have been of horrific proportions."

I read the 'household' as Jewish, split by Christ's teachings. Here is the deepest analysis I've found, but please do provide alternatives.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/matthew_10_34.htm

Poirot, it's just as important to you to throw all religion into equivalence because you abhor social division. You're not alone, but look:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-cover-we-are-not-charlie-say-the-dissenting-voices-angered-further-by-french-solidarity-9976166.html

This doesn't bode well for future social solidarity, but it's a fact of life that I am sure you will fit to your own narrative. It's not religion, right?

I am an atheist, honest. Should it disqualify me from religious discourse?

Luciferase,

"I am an atheist, honest. Should it disqualify me from religious discourse?"

No,of course it doesn't - go ahead.

Forgive me if I get a little weary of the never-ending cherry picks.

It's just that humanity is at once reasonable and insane, compassionate and savage, physically earthbound and psychologically transcendent.

And most of all, it reeks of hypocrisy.

Gets a bit much to stomach at times.

Please, enough of the playground morality: 'Well, you did too !' Well, so did you !' 'nyah ! nyah !'

The score this fortnight:

Murdered, assassinated and butchered, in France, Nigeria/Cameroun, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen: two thousand +

People marching in France: around four million.

Mosques damaged in France: nil.

Rumours of Muslim women having their veils pulled, etc.: probably dozens.

Down with Islamophobia !

Steeleredux

Is that the best you can do?

He's not saying persecute anyone, is he?

One doesn’t have to cherry pick the holy books of Islam, and its unrelieved history of slaughter and enslavement, to recognise it as hostile to the protection of liberty and the open society, i,e, to the Enlightenment, and that flooding a country with its brainwashed adherents threatens freedom. The distinction which Western apologists (dhimmis in waiting) make separates on the one hand individuals who reject the open society but most of whom are “balanced” in that their methods are (for now) peaceful, from on the other hand “extremists” who inevitably emerge from among them and who can’t wait to shift into war mode. Securing our survival rests on opposing “extremists” with war while opposing the Islamic cult ideologically, rebuffing every attempt to shift any of the elements of sharia on to the body politic, including any attempts to do so domestically with the aid of PC Western apologists who exhibit a cowed Stockholm Syndrome. The old slogan “fascism shall not pass” is as valid today with respect to Islamofascism as it was to Francoism and Mussoism and Hitlerism. Nobody, but nobody, gets to roll back the Enlightenment either openly or by stealth or even by unintended consequences, without vigilant opposition. That includes securocrats who thrive on the pressures exerted by Islam to underpin calls for expanded resources and powers over the people. Of course being complicit with colonialism and with ethnic supremacism doesn’t help, and defending the open society does require an ability to walk and chew gum at the same time.

For Australia, the first shot in an ideological war against Islam is to require, enforceably as a condition of entry and continued residence, a commitment to the right of every person to adopt or abandon or obey or defy or respect or denounce any cult whatsoever and any of its symbols.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4229/austria-muslims-vienna-schools
“In recent years, Germany has seen:
• Street riots between Kurdish and Salafist immigrants.
• A proliferation of mosques housed in former churches.
• Numerous court cases in which sharia law has been given precedence over German law.
• A rise in polygamy: it is estimated that one-third of the Muslim men living in the Neukölln district of Berlin have two or more wives.
• The opening of a medical facility offering comprehensive treatment for victims of female genital mutilation. An estimated 50,000 German women are victims of FGM.
• Polls showing that 65 percent of Muslims interviewed thought sharia law should take precedence over secular law.
• Schools where German children, mostly in the minority, are subjected to daily bullying by Turkish and Arab students.
In addition, despite government efforts to discourage criticism of Europe’s indiscriminate immigration policies, Germans are no doubt aware of where those policies have led to in other immigrant-rich European nations. They probably know that:

• Muslim children outnumber Christian children in a number of European cities, including Vienna and Birmingham.
• Malmo, Sweden’s third largest city and home to Sweden’s largest concentration of Muslim immigrants, has been rocked by a series of car bombings in recent months.
• Sweden now has the second highest incidence of rape in the world.
• In the space of three days, France, which has the largest Muslim population in Europe, experienced three “lone wolf” attacks—a knife attack on police officers and two car attacks on crowds of pedestrians. In all three cases, the perpetrators shouted “Allahu akbar.”
• The number one non-fiction bestseller in France is Éric Zemmour’s "The Suicide of France.”

And another French author, Michel Houllebeque has written a novel calling Muslims clots (blood clots). His latest novel is about France becoming Islamic.

Think Satan.

What we are seeing is not so much the demise of Western Europe as the demise of Judeo-Chritianity, its place to be taken by Islam (no bible) and humanism/socialism/communism (no God). Now go back to The books of Daniel, Ezekiel and Revelation see what they have to say, and you will have one explanation. There are others of course.
One might say that Satan invented Islam to be the nemesis of Judeo-Christianity, to take the people of Ishmael and Esau and Amalek and unite them under the banner of a sword. To let them inflict on the world (and especially on the Holyland), everything that is vile and unholy.
But then Satan is just a figment of our imaginations isn’t he!

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/new-jews-new-nazis-new-communists-old-hatreds
“It’s probably no coincidence that the PEGIDA movement was born in Dresden—a city that was formerly part of the Soviet empire. Unlike the West Germans (who have had little success in mounting PEGIDA-type movements), those living in the East have experienced life under communists as well as under Nazis. Moreover, their experience of left totalitarianism is of very recent vintage. It’s not surprising that they would be the first to notice the arrival of a new form of tyranny.”

HOW ISLAM WORKS TO DOMINATE THE HOST COUNTRY IT IS IN (PART 1)
Disclaimer: This is purely the ideas of the author. Both Coin does not agree to or share the ideals of the author.

Here's how Islam works:

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In it's fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components.

Here's how Islam works:

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In it's fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components.

THE SOONER REGULAR WESTERNERS AND NON MUSLIMS UNDERSTAND THIS THE BETTER CHANCE WE HAVE TO SURVIVE THIS FAST SPREADING CANCER!

The religious component is a beard for all of the other components. Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious rights. When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious rights, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here's how it works:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens.

This is the case in:
United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.

This is happening in:
Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

Cont...

...Cont

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves - along with threats for failure to comply.

This is occurring in:
France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam.

Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:
Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the torching of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues.

Such as in:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare.

Such as in:
Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels
Such as in:
Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

Cont.....

Breaking news, Muslims support each other! Show uncanny resemblance to every other cultural minority! The shocking truth revealed!

In other stories today, it was reported that scientists have once again confirmed that the Earth goes around the Sun. Following this staggering result, an ambitious program to confirm earlier work showing that the Earth is not, in fact, flat is planned.

Those goofy scientists, what will they come up with next?

@ Craig Minns,

<<Muslims support each other...The shocking truth revealed!>>

Nah Craig, the shocking truth --to which you havent woken up yet --is that the script that all good Muslims are supposed to followed calls on them to bully any other group ...they even get extra heavenly merits for doing so :)

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways.

This is on-going in:
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
f;">United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrassahs are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word.

Such as in:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts nor schools nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrassahs - they learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death.

Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddists, and Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.

Dear Constance,

Could you supply us with evidence on your
stats. And what percentage of Muslims does
the Australian population hold compared to
Christians? And on what evidence do you
base your prediction that 50% of the world's
population will be Muslim in the future?

Back it up with evidence please.

Thanks to Constance for her assiduous research to turn up the current data on the Moslem infiltration of the countries of the world.

The situation is even worse than Constance shows with the suggested cut-off figures relating increasing Moslem dominance with increasing Moslem population. What must be taken into account is LEVERAGING. Sharia encroaches not only by use of Moslem numbers but also by enlisting the help of Western apologists. Thus for example Australian businesses and consumers already pay out a large amount of money as jizra – (http://www.halalchoices.com.au/index.html shows just how) and there is only one politician in Canberra, George Christensen, who opposes it [1].

Awareness of the role of Islam is diluted by the undefined and counter-informative dog whistle terms “left” and “right”, by the false conflation of the Moslem cult with individual believers, and by the artificial focus on terrorism (the expanding military wing of Islam) rather than the programme of the Islamic cult which is enslavement both of Moslems and of “Kafirs” (us) and which includes terrorism.

Islam is an example of religious SUPREMACISM, in which the supremacist cult requires non-believers to adjust their own lives to accommodate it, This requirement is enforced to the extent that the supremacists have access to coercive power, including the power of the AK47, and also to influence on the state to use its own coercive powers to proscribe outspoken challenge to the supremacists’ pretensions. As in Tasmania and Victoria.

It is not surprising that the Pope has fellow-feeling with Islam [2] considering his own supremacist institution's centuries-long campaign of war and murder against Christianity (libelled by them as "heresy") and especially against the right of Christians to preach and read the scriptures in their own language.

[1] The excuse for tolerating the halal certification protection racket is that it is to facilitate trade. However its application is far wider than merely labelling products sold to Islamic hellholes.

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/16/pope-francis-free-speech-charlie-hebdo

Apparently newspaper editors in the UK
agree with the Pope.

The following link explains:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan11/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-uk-press-publish

"Freedom is and should always be tempered by responsibility.
Drawing the line between the two is difficult at the best
of times..."

"Editorial decisions have always been guided, not just by
legal restrictions but by what is fair and tolerable
within British society."

Apparently what an editor needs to ask himself is -
"Is it right for me to publish this material?"

The UK editors have decided not to re-publish the Charlie
Hebdo cartoons. The explanation given in part is:

"It should be seen instead that editors as they do daily
take into account the effects of what they publish.
In essence they have to ask themselves if they should
gratuitously insult a religion and its adherents,
because a small group of fanatics had misused its
teachings in order to justify murder."

"...indeed, would publication of the offending cartoons
serve only to provoke others to take reactionary action, or
at the very least encourage yet more alienation of Muslims
in British society."

There's more on the given link.

Hi Foxy,

Freedom of expression suggests the freedom to criticise, even offend or insult what somebody believes. Nobody's belief system is somehow immune. I don't think religion has in any privilege on that score. And I don't think Islam has any extra-special privilege over other religions. Ergo ......

As an atheist, I admire the current Pope's stand on many social issues, but I don't have to go along with everything he suggests.

When the religion of peace ever actually becomes a religion of peace, i.e. say, a whole month without an atrocity, or better still, no atrocities at all [we can but hope], then we can welcome its adherents to the modern world of discussion, dispute, argument and criticism, and yes, the world of offence and insult as well.

Clearly many Muslims hold extremely firm views of many issues, views with which most of us fundamentally disagree. Should we keep silent ? Should we allow FGM, child marriage, polygamy, gender inequality, etc., merely because to criticise those matters might offend someone ? Those views offend me, I find them disgusting and primitive, and like you and everyone else who may think so, we share the right, even the duty to our fellow human beings who are unfortunate enough to be female and trapped inside that ghastly mind-set, to say so.

We don't have to be bound to dark and ignorant prejudices just because somebody else is, and we don't have to ignore the plight of people trapped by those backward notions.

This is going to be a very long ideological struggle, and it is not clear whether respect for human equality, decency and reason will eventually prevail over backwardness and bigotry.

Joe

Good stuff Joe --but i think is largely wasted on Foxy. Until she sees it reported on New Matilda or The Conversation she wont be believing any of it.

Good heavens, SPQR, are you suggesting that someone can be (I dare not write it) bigoted, that they won't change their mind no matter what evidence you present to them ?

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Don't pay any attention to SPQR - he's simply
stirring. He enjoys it.

Personally - I happen to fully agree with your last post.
However, I felt it important to broaden the discussion
and when I came across the link from The Guardian and
what the UK editors were doing - I felt it might add
another perspective to the discussion.

BTW: My views have never been set in concrete - I
re-think about things as new evidence is presented. It's
for that reason that I appreciate posters like Constance
who go to the trouble of doing the research. We don't
always agree - but I respect her opinion.

Foxy,

How do you think Sweden once being one of the most peaceful countries on earth with low crime to become the country with the 2nd highest rape record in the world? Don’t forget it is steeped in Socialism with politically correct madness.

Go on, do it now, before its too late. Expand your mind.

I didn’t create these stats – it was sent to me out of the blue. How can you deny them?

You must not consider Islam as a religion. It is an ideology created by one psychopathic man. The Church would have been fighting this devil in centuries past, and you must take into account that they never had our modern communications where we are able to communicate with the world and so were kept in the dark about the true intentions of Islam. But I’m sure some people knew but were restricted with limited communications. Religion is meant to be benign and loving and it does not control, as it gives you freedom instead. Missionaries spread the “Good News”. Islam is the opposite.

That German link site I have recently posted (on Black and White Flag article) analysed the Koran and came to the conclusion that about 60% of it was anti infidel. And people don’t think their against us?
http://europenews.dk/en/node/88457

ISLAMIC-WAY-OR-NO-WAY

And that is why the Inquisitions took place where they were forced to question the true motives of the minorities and the false Conversos that were undermining the Church and real democracy. Protestants apparently even sided with Islam. Remember, the Puritans wanted to get rid of any images (like Islam) of Christ and all the Art and Beauty that came with it and ensued. Creativity is so important in the CC. There was apparently only about 1% of torture that actually took place and when it did, it was not supported by the Church but by the Monarchy/State as it was deemed too harsh, afterall, the Church is about saving souls, redemption and forgiveness. Good shepherds. Grace. Its not perfect, what is? And it is very egalitarian.

The Holy inquisitions were a paradigm for our current modern Western judicial systems and INQUESTS.
http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-holy-inquisition.html#more
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/the-truth-about-the-spanish-inquisition

Cont.......

…Cont

And that is why expulsions took place. There is so much propaganda against the Catholic Church. And there is likely to have been Commie infiltration of the Church. See Bella Dodd.

The anonymous author of my last 3 posts stated at the end:
“In my opinion, Muslims should be expelled from all Western countries and isolated. It's the only way we can avoid the impending violence and possible war closing in.”

Really, what else can we do?

Joe, I don’t think any reformation can take place in Islam as it would have to be completely gutted. Islam is an ideology, not a religion as it completely controls lives. Arabs had a very harsh and tribal existence in the desert and Mohammad created a monster. What has Islam created? Do they climb mountains just because it’s there? Why do they not like animals or music? And why were we unable to have a reasonable discussion with McAdam and co?

One man ideologies are always creators of chaos. Marx, Niechzsche (meaninglessness), Rousseau, even Fraud who dominated for far too long like a juggernaut and as a consequence other possible advances in medical science got neglected, like Autism for eg. which is still remains a mystery and unsolved. And you know the rest of the big men with their weird and dangerous ideas.....

And while I’m here, nuns were the first real feminists and they have always had autonomy within the Church. The Church depends on people, not one person. And the saints have always been the ordinary heroes. Joan of Arc defending her town and country. St Francis who challenged materialism and was ultimately accepted by the Church. New benevolent ideas are always possible within the Church. Always evolving. But ones like Luther and Henry VIII created chaos in Christianity thus weakening it. And how much bloodshed did they cause?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc.

And still the anti Catholic propaganda persists from all directions.

Islam or Mohammed has taken the idea of martydom and bastardised it for evil intentions.

And now we have radical Secularism which is feeding Islam.

Cont...

"I didn’t create these stats – it was sent to me out of the blue. How can you deny them?"

I presume you then went quickly to work to validate their authenticity - yes?

Or does merely reposting them here make them accurate in a sort of "How can you deny them" way?

Being as you're constantly berating some of us for our lack of research.

Whodathunk that all you had to do was wait for someone of like ideology to send you something - out of the blue!

Port, kettle, Poirot :)

I don't post things on OLO which people send me out of the blue.

In fact, my email is free of people sending me ideological spiels.

...Cont

Graham Greene’s “The Power and the Glory” is about the persecution of the clergy during the Mexican Revolution. Greene is considered one of the greatest writers of the 20th Century both as a writer of novels and as a journalist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutarco_El%C3%ADas_Calles#Violent_Church-State_Conflict
“Calles was a staunch anticlerical and during his term as president, he moved to enforce the anticlerical articles of the Constitution of 1917, which led to a violent and lengthy conflict known as the Cristero Rebellion or the Cristero War,(1926-29). In May 1926, Calles was awarded a medal of merit from the head of Mexico's Scottish Rite of Freemasonry in recognition of his actions against the Catholic Church.

About 90,000 people on both sides died in the war. A truce was negotiated with the assistance of U.S. Ambassador Dwight Morrow in which the Cristeros agreed to lay down their arms. Calles, however, did not abide by the terms of the truce; he had approximately five hundred Cristero leaders and 5,000 other Cristeros shot, frequently in their homes in front of their wives and children. Particularly offensive to Catholics after the truce was Calles's insistence on a complete state monopoly on education, suppressing all Catholic education and introducing "socialist" education in its place, saying: "We must enter and take possession of the mind of childhood, the mind of youth." The persecution continued as Calles maintained control under his Maximato and did not relent until 1940, when President Manuel Ávila Camacho, a practicing Catholic, took office.”

There we go again, the State taking possession of children’s mind and taking them away from their families. And there you have the FREEMASONS in on the act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_%C3%81vila_Camacho (Mexican president )
Ávila Camacho was a professed Catholic, saying "I am a believer".
“Domestically, Ávila protected the working class, creating the Mexican Social Security Institute or IMSS in 1943. He worked to reduce illiteracy. He continued land reform and declared a rent freeze to benefit low-income citizens. Etc.”

Cont....

...cont

The beat goes on, beat goes on
Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain
La de da de de, la de da de da

Charleston was once the rage, uh huh
History has turned the page, uh huh
The miniskirt's the current thing, uh huh
Teenybopper is our newborn king, uh huh

And the beat goes on, beat goes on
Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain
La de da de de, la de da de da

The grocery store's the supermart, uh huh
Little girls still break their hearts, uh huh
And men still keep on marching off to war
Electrically they keep a baseball score

And the beat goes on, the beat goes on
Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain
La de da de de, la de da de da

Grandmas sit in chairs and reminisce
Boys keep chasing girls to get a kiss
The cars keep a going faster all the time
Bums still cries, "Hey buddy, have you got a dime?"

And the beat goes on, the beat goes on
Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain
La de da de de, la de da de da

And the beat goes on, yes, the beat goes on
And the beat goes on, and the beat goes on
The beat goes on and the beat goes on

and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and

cont...

Dear Constance,

I've just read your advice to me to -
"expand" my mind. I'll certainly continue
to try to do that. It's part of my occupational
ethos. Librarians are not in the business of
censorship. Their responsibility is not to
deny, but to add, enrich, stimulate and amplify
the reading of their patrons. So your suggestion
will be taken seriously.

And talking about reading ...
you also need to realise that
the world is a book and it would also help you
if you were to read more than just one page.

Dear Foxy,

Constance was not very forthcoming about where she got her spiel from but a quick bit of research finds although it has made its way through various hate sites like Daniel Pipes it originated from a book by “Dr” Peter Hammond titled Slavery, Terrorism & Islam written in 2005.

The irony is this man is intent on exporting his own brand of religious extremeism;

“The fundamentalist assault on equality, tolerance and Constitutional protection of human rights in South Africa comes mainly from evangelical churches based in this country, but which often have close ties to local and foreign church groups or societies which share a common intolerant fundamentalist view on matters such as abortion, gay rights and theocracy.”

“Prime examples of such hate groups in South Africa are Christian Action Network, which is based in Cape Town and whose figurehead, "Dr" Peter Hammond, is involved with radical US religious right groups such as the ICCP (International Church Council Project), which consists of a main committee, and smaller committees which include foreign leaders of churches from around the world. The ICCP is tied into the US Religious Right through its leaders.”

“Closer examination of this group's website shows that it has "targeted" 80 countries around the world to "transform" into evangelical Christian theonomies. Noting that Uganda is on its list and the state of the country - and those around it which are also on the list, I think they are achieving their goals.”
http://www.secularism.org.uk/christian-homophobes-are-spreadi.html

Unfortunately the type of propaganda Hammond is distributing finds fertile grounds for people like Constance. The worrying thing is that she is a typical of lone wolf, probably with no real connection to these hate groups, but doing their dirty work by her own volition. This can make it hard to combat.

Fortunately when it does hit mainstream pressure can be brought to bear. Foxy News has recently had to retract some statements made which were very similar to the line Constance is running.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-formally-apologizes-for-claiming-muslims-have-taken-over-european-cities/

I suppose it is up to us to do our bit in our little corner of the woods.

@Steelie

The real eye-opener here is that Steelie and the Islamists speak exactly the same newspeak --any site that exposes the unsavory side of Islam is a <<hate site>>

Have squizzy at the old Islamic evangelist, NC, on that other thread. He has exactly the same mindset/vocab as Steelie...peas from the same pod!

....Cont

France – the Third Republic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Combes (persecution of Catholic clergy)
“He took the promotion process out of the hands of senior officers and handled it directly as a political matter. He used Freemasons to spy on the religious behaviour of all 19,000 officers; they flagged the observant Catholics and André made sure they would not be promoted. Exposed as the Affaire Des Fiches, the scandal undermined support for the Combes government. It also undermined morale in the army, as officers realized that hostile spies examining their private lives were more important to their careers than their own professional accomplishments.”

Collusion with Freemasons again!

power-and-the-glory, Graham Greene:
“The priest, then, is a fully drawn character; but he is also a spokesman for Greene's view of the continuity of the Catholic Church. As a sensitive and thoughtful person, the protagonist is scarcely expendable; yet he is only a small part of a large spiritual organization — the Roman Catholic Church. In his debate with the lieutenant, the priest states that the totalitarian state is based upon personalities. When its leaders die, he says, the government will probably fall, consumed by corruption. The Church, he argues, does not depend on any one person, and the appearance of the new priest at the end of the novel manifests Greene's thesis.”

To the bad detective not living up to his name: Maybe it was divine intervention? What do you know, baby? Ain’t Divineness sweet?

And by the way, just because you spend your whole life on OLO, doesn’t mean the rest of us have to. You’re always slamming and STALKING me for not really being part of the sappy Poirot club as I’m not a regular visitor therefore Judge P deems my opinions null and void. Can you show me the membership rules where Graham says we have to be full-time members, El Fuhrer?

You have true ELITIST form all over which is typical of the Politburo. With the usual shades of authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

When are you going to stop behaving like a spoilt school girl?

Dear SteeleRedux,

Thank You for the extra information.

It's always interesting to learn about the various
sources that people use for their research and try
to fathom the reasons behind why they choose those sources.

Of course, as I've pointed out numerous times on this
forum - the historian can establish that an act took
place on a certain day, but this, by historical
standards constitutes only chronology (factology). The
moment the historian begins to look critically
at motivation, circumstances, context, or any other such
considerations, the product becomes unacceptable for one
or another camp of readers.

There's also of course
readers who are not interested in explanations - but
in what suits their point of view and if over time these
people have shown themselves reluctant to modify their
judgements and continue with stereotyping any group or
individuals - this merely encourages counter-stereotyping and
the result is usually a complete breakdown in communication.

I enjoy reading your posts - and I appreciate your
attempts at broadening each and every discussion.

Dear Constance,

Your posts are becoming somewhat shrill.

If you want people to actually read what you have to
say you need to lay off the personal insults and labelling.
They're indications of a person who's already lost the
argument.

Expand your style.

Constance,

Sorry, 'bout that.

Strange isn't it that you of all posters accuses others of "STALKING" for commenting on your material...especially since it's one of your favourite pastimes when on the forum to personally abuse anyone and everyone who disagrees with your take on things.

Who could forget the many times you've slammed Foxy and Suse merely for having an opinion that differs from yours.

You're a venomous individual who doesn't seem to like other posters calling her out. You have no compunction in blathering on about "lefties" in the most insulting manner...and then...surprise!, surprise! when a leftie comments on your belligerence - she's a "stalker"!

Of course, this is the point where I should walk away from interacting with you in general - I'd avoid you like the plague in real life - but I've always had a weakness for pushing custard pies in the faces of bullies.

There's little to be gained from reading your hysterical and fearful rants in any case....

Hi Constance,

Stick at it, you've nailed one of the problems.

The topic is "It is Islam, not 'Islamism' " so I am thankful to you that you have stuck to that topic, in spite of all manner of diversionary fluffing around by some of the usual useful idiots.

May you keep going :)

Joe

Yeah Constance stick with it.

If that old established firm of Islamist apologists, Steeledud , Fox-tales and Pure-rot are squawking you must be doing something right!

Oh dear.

Look folks, one poster has even stooped to name
calling reminds me of "Question-Time" in Parliament.

"Juliar," "Typhoon Tony," "Electricity Bill,"
"Ju-leech," (Julie Bishop), "Knobend," (Christopher
Pyne) and so on.

Next this will be followed by catcalls, hooting,
sneers and guffaws.

It would be more productive and constructive if some
people could clean up a little and shift their
standards in the direction of truth in debate and
away from juvenile idiocy.

Dear SPQR,

Seeing that you referred to me as -
"Foxy-tales," you might enjoy this
little tale:

"They don't make gruesome monsters
Like they used to anymore
There are no ogres shopping
at your supermarket store

You never see a hairy beastie
Jogging down the road
And it must be ages since a witch
Turned us into a toad

There are no ghosts or goblins
Not even in the dark
And I've yet to meet a bandaged mummy
Strolling through the park

Are all the vampires pensioned off?
Are the big, bad wolves annoyed?
Do the "things" and "its" from Outer Space
Mind being unemployed?

Now you don't meet gruesome monsters
They are very rare today
But beware! For rumour has it
SPQR'S on the way!"

There you go - enjoy!

Hahahaha i like that Foxy ...did you write that ?

Ok i saw my handle mentioned ....but let me guess, ghosts or goblins that has to be a reference to Steelie... and is Poirot the witch, or maybe, there is a veiled reference to her in this << a bandaged mummy Strolling through the park>> she must have had an accident lately which required bandages?

Dear SPQR,

I'm so pleased that you liked the poem.
It's one of my favourites amongst a
collection of poems that I use in my job - for
children's "Storytime" at Halloween.
I adapted it especially for you because of
the name you gave me - "Fox-tales."

No, the characters are not based on any of the
posters on this forum as the following poem
explains:

"There's no such thing as monsters
You just dream of them at night
That's what people tell me
But are they really right?

Witches don't exist at all!
That's what my mother said
So who is it that snores and cackles
Underneath my bed?

And who's the creature in the closet
All fat and pink and floppy?
He has six arms which wave at me
And a smile that's wet and soppy

And then there is the yellow thing
Who peeps around my door
I can only see one hairy arm
And a curve of orange claw.

The Purple Beastie with green eyes
Hangs by the window pane
His face is long and stretched and sad
Eyes weeping with the rain

The tiny, fluffy ghost is shy
She hides behind the clock
She jumps up every time it chimes
Hiccuping with shock

Who says there are no monsters?
I have met them many times
Along with countless ghosts and ghouls
Who live inside my rhymes!"

Yes, well you do like fairy tales, don't you Fox?

Dear Constance,

I like stories that are marvellous, humourous, powerful,
disturbing, illuminating - everything one might want in a
good read!

Even if television offered twenty-four hours of uplifting,
intelligent fare each day, the medium delivers information
in a flash - and then it's gone.

Stories found in books, by contrast, seep into our
very being. We all have books that lifted the fog for us,
caused the Great Aha, and literally changed our lives.
The printed word is pondered, and it is received only
when the mind is fully engaged. Like no other media it has
the power to stay with us!

In my own case I learnt from biographies that even
great individuals start out as everyday children -
letting all children know that life's possibilities are
without limit.

Take the role models in fairy tales and legends
and historical stories - Cinderella enchanted not because
she got the prince but because she was cheerful and
dignified even in unbearable circumstances. King Arthur
showed what a noble deed looked like - and that there is a
thing such as duty and sacrifice.

What are some of your favourites?

Sorry, Foxy but I'm not hear to discuss fairy tales as that would be digressing from the topic of the article.

At least there is one Leader in the world with spine:

Vladimir Putin’s speech – SHORTEST SPEECH EVER.

On August 04, 2013, Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, addressed the Duma, (Russian Parliament), and gave a speech about the tensions with minorities in Russia:

"In Russia, live like Russians. Any minority, from anywhere, if it wants to live in Russia, to work and eat in Russia, it should speak Russian, and should respect the Russian laws. If they prefer Sharia Law, and live the life of Muslim’s then we advise them to go to those places where that’s the state law.

Russia does not need Muslim minorities. Minorities need Russia, and we will not grant them special privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell ‘discrimination’. We will not tolerate disrespect of our Russian culture. We better learn from the suicides of America, England, Holland and France, if we are to survive as a nation. The Muslims are taking over those countries and they will not take over Russia. The Russian customs and traditions are not compatible with the lack of culture or the primitive ways of Sharia Law and Muslims.

When this honorable legislative body thinks of creating new laws, it should have in mind the Russian national interest first, observing that the Muslims Minorities Are Not Russians."

The politicians in the Duma gave Putin a five minute standing ovation.

Foxy, isn't it funny that some people are so happy being miserable that they won't give it up for even a moment?

And isn't it sad that the ones who seem most afflicted by that addiction are the ones who have least to be miserable about?

I wonder why that is. Any ideas?

A suggested speech an Australian political representative should give to the Australian people via parliament about immigrants and any tensions with minorities in Australia regardless of ‘political correctness’ and the expected vocal ‘shock and horror’ by some in the media and other ‘trendies’:

"In Australia, live like Australians. Any minority, from anywhere, if it wants to live in Australia, to work and eat in Australia, should speak English fluently after five years in Australia, and respect all Australian laws. If they prefer Sharia Law, and live the life of Muslims then we advise them to go to those places where that’s the state law.

Australia does not need Muslim minorities or refugees. They desire to come to Australia, and we will not grant them special privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell ‘discrimination’. We will not tolerate disrespect of our Australian culture. We must learn from the ‘cultural suicides’ of America, England, Holland and France, if we are to survive as a nation. Muslims are taking over those countries and they must not be allowed to take over Australia. Australian customs and traditions are not compatible with many of the values of Sharia Law including male treatment of females as ‘possessions’, female circumcision, forced marriages and wearing Islamic dress if they do not wish to in public without fear of reprisals.

When this honourable legislative body thinks of creating new laws, it should have in mind the Australian national interest first, observing that vocal, strident Muslim or any other minorities do not reflect the overwhelming majority of Australian families raised under laws based on Judeo-Christian ethics.

I acknowledge thankfully that the original Vladimir Putin’s speech to the Russian Parliament [Duma] on August 04, 2013 was posted by Constance, Wednesday, 21 January 2015 2:32:30pm. Australian politicians please note that politicians in the Duma gave Putin a five minute standing ovation. One assumes that they ‘reflected the views of the majority of Russians’ who elected them as their representatives in Parliament.

O lord please save me from the naïve, the gullible, and the downright stupid.

My dear Constance and CIA,

Putin never made this speech and if either of you had bothered to take 60 seconds out of what must be incredibly busy lives to check these things before you post them or respond to them you may save an egg or two.

“There is no evidence that President Putin gave any such speech, however. The Speeches and Transcripts section of the official Russian presidential web site records no Putin speech of that nature on 4 February 2013 (or any other date up to April 2013, when this item first appeared), nor does a record or mention of anything like this speech appear elsewhere on that site or in any news accounts (Russian or foreign) published since then.”

“Moreover, this item is highly reminiscent (and appears to be a variant form of) an opinion piece originally written by an U.S. Air Force veteran shortly after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, versions of which have falsely been attributed to various world leaders (primarily the prime ministers of Australia and the UK) in the intervening years.”

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/putinduma.asp

“There is no record of Putin making such a speech. Nor are there any credible news reports about the Russian President's supposed words. The message is strongly reminiscent of a factually flawed email forward that claimed that the Australian Prime Minister stated that immigrants should adapt to Australian culture, language and beliefs or leave the country and that Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law should get out of Australia.”

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/putin-duma-speech-sharia-law.shtml

A little more attention to the veracity of items you post in the future would be appreciated.

Lol!...SteeleRedux...for that I give you a five minute standing ovation.

Dear Constance,

You were the one who made the comment to me
about liking fairy-tales. I merely responded to it.
You digressed and -
you should not have digressed if you didn't want
a response.

Dear Craig,

I agree, some people are hard to fathom.

cont'd ...

Dear Craig,

As to why?

Well just a guess - but some people tend to think
in terms of general categories, if only to enable
them to make sense of the world by simplifying
its complexity

"In Australia, live like Australians. Any minority, from anywhere, if it wants to live in Australia, to work and eat in Australia, should speak English fluently after five years in Australia, and respect all Australian laws."

CIA,

What's your take on people coming from New Guinea to live with their relatives on a Torres Strait island?

Should they have to learn English or would it be OK if they just used the Australian language of their kin in the Islands?

Foxy,

"Dear Constance,

You were the one who made the comment to me
about liking fairy-tales. I merely responded to it.
You digressed and -
you should not have digressed if you didn't want
a response."

Yes, what a fascinating occurrence...

For, just the recently Constance accused moi of all things of "STALKING".

I wonder what we should make of her nonchalant provocation of you, Foxy?

"Yes, well you do like fairy tales, don't you Fox?"

"Sorry, Foxy but I'm not hear [sic] to discuss fairy tales as that would be digressing from the topic of the article."

Excellent example of hypocrisy, Constance.

@Steelie
Who waxes long about credibility and then cites Snopes LOL

"A Google search revealed that Snopes.com is owned by David and Barbara Mikkelson, who live in Southern California and are Obama supporters. An interested reader (unknown to me) suspected that Snopes had a liberal bias after discovering several "half-truths" and distortions..."
http://www.curezone.com/forums/am.asp?i=1284141

You are a joke Steelie!

@ Poirot

<<Lol!...SteeleRedux...for that I give you a five minute standing ovation>>
And ovation from Poirot is equavalent to getting a clap from a seal ...throw it any smelly old redherring and it will applaud :)
Yes i know you dont check links Poirot you havent mastered that hiteck stuff yet --but if wasnt for your benefit ;)

That's an insightful comment Foxy. The evidence is that the average capacity range of working memory in humans is between 4 and 7 items. We tend to categorise in order to be able to usefully process concepts beyond the range of direct working memory.

There's another type of memory known as prospective memory, which holds information about things we have to do, or expect to happen later. It interacts with working memory in interesting ways, since in order for us to act on something in prospective memory, at some point it has to be transferred to working memory. What is really interesting though, is that in order for something to be in prospective memory, it does not have to have been in working memory first, it may have been the result of subconscious processing (what we might call intuition) that bypassed the conscious working memory altogether.

It's also interesting that cognitive processing, including notably capacity of working and prospective memory often declines with age, but the longer-term memory which draws on categories doesn't do so to the same extent.

So what does all that mean? Perhaps nothing, but perhaps the people more prone to miserabilism have created categories in which perceived threat to status is a large weighting perhaps as a consequence of a working memory capacity at the lower end of the range and so their prospective memory is filled with information that is itself overweighted with a threat-perception.

Aren't people interesting?

Dear Constance.
Thank you for posting "Putin's speech" whatever its source.
It is a pity that some of our fearless leaders didn't have the intestinal fortitude to get up and say similar things.

David

But you are living in a fairy tale, not the real world, Foxy!

Dear Constance,

People tend to see the world from a viewpoint
of subjectivity - an interpretation based on
personal values and experiences. As we can see
from the many posters and discussions on this
forum people can adopt varying perspectives on
the same problem and can come to different and
even contradictory conclusions as a result.

You may think I live in a fairy-tale world -
however as I tried to explain to you earlier -
if literature has integrity - it explores, orders,
evaluates and illuminates the human experience, its
heights and depths, its pain and pleasure aesthetically
and according to the creator's genuinely felt response -
the end product becomes an image of life, and a metaphor
for living. The range of such images is as vast as
human society and culture.

I wouldn't bother reacting to her provocation, Foxy.

These are the last three comments to you from the person who complains of other people trolling and digressing.

"But you are living in a fairy tale, not the real world, Foxy!"

"Sorry, Foxy but I'm not hear [sic] to discuss fairy tales as that would be digressing from the topic of the article."

"Yes, well you do like fairy tales, don't you Fox?"

We well know how she likes to follow you around and tickle you up a bit.

Dear Poirot,

Thank You for your good advice.

http://www.raymondibrahim.com/muslim-persecution-of-christians/italy-muslims-destroy-and-urinate-on-virgin-mary-statue/
Comments:
“We see, hear and smell it. However when escapeees like Ayaan Hirsi Ali come here and share their 1st hand experience, they are savaged by the rabid-dog mudslimes, and the govt/press simply denies all of her story. This is worse than the denial of the "death-camps" run by the nazi's during WWII.

I have been saying this for years. One of the precepts of Islam is that every man must strive to Islamify the host country. To that extent at least there is no such thing as a moderate. they come not to integrate but eventually, as they are required to do to subjugate. I fear it is already too late for any kind of peaceful solution. Eventually it must come down to force and the longer we allow them to dominate the less likely we will be to win any such conflict.”

http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/spain-violent-muslim-screaming-allahu-akbar-all-you-christians-will-die-gets-arrested/

http://conservativepapers.com/news/2014/12/22/russia-outlaws-the-building-of-mosques-will-get-tougher-on-islam/#.VMBB42SUfpA

http://australiansunited.com/2015/01australias-muslim-youth-project-under-investigation
http://australiansunited.com/

http://madworldnews.com/muslims-publicly-execute-13/
Muslims Publicly Execute 13 Children For Watching the Soccer Asian Cup

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabias-history-of-hypocrisy-we-choose-to-ignore-9978493.html
“Even in the Levant, aid workers are frightened of the school-teaching in Saudi-funded refugee camps for Syrians.
As Irish columnist Fintan O’Toole pointed out this week, there are two words that must not be spoken in all the official rhetoric about Charlie Hebdo’s dead: SAUDI ARABIA. “ A hundred billion dollars BUYS YOU A LOT OF SILENCE,” he wrote. “The house of Saud runs a vicious tyranny that... while the Charlie Hebdo killers were going about their ultimate acts of censorship... was savagely lashing the blogger Raif Badawi for daring to promote public debate.
Speak not a word about the Kingdom as a Wahabi-Saudi regime. It would be wrong to do so. After all, the Wahabis don’t call themselves Wahabis, since they are “true” Muslims. Which is what the Saudis are, aren’t they?”

http://www.raymondibrahim.com/muslim-persecution-of-christians/christians-burned-alive-muslim-persecution-of-christians-november-2014/

http://wethepeopleocpi.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/pro-isis-salafists-are-robbing-german.html

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

Emeka Ojukwu (1933 - 2011) was the only president of the short lived Republic of Biafra.

“The Biafran struggle is, on another plane, a resistance to the Arab-Muslim expansionism which has menaced and ravaged the African continent for twelve centuries. As early as the first quarter of the seventh century, the Arabs, a people from the Near-East, evolved Islam not just as a religion but as a cover for their insatiable territorial ambitions. By the tenth century they had overrun and occupied, among other places, Egypt and North Africa. Had they stopped there, we would not today be faced with the wicked and unholy collusion we are fighting against. On the contrary, they cast their hungry and envious eyes across the Sahara on to the land of the Negroes.

Our Biafran ancestors remained immune from the Islamic contagion. From the middle years of the last century Christianity was established in our land. In this way we came to be a predominantly Christian people. We came to stand out as a non-Muslim island in a raging Islamic sea. Throughout the period of the ill-fated Nigerian experiment, the Muslims hoped to infiltrate Biafra by peaceful means and quiet propaganda, but failed. Then the late Ahmadu Bello, the Sarduana of Sokoto tried, by political and economic blackmail and terrorism, to convert Biafrans settled in Northern Nigeria to Islam. His hope was that these Biafrans on dispersion would then carry Islam to Biafra, and by so doing give the religion political control of the area. The crises which agitated the so-called independent Nigeria from 1962 gave these aggressive proselytisers the chance to try converting us by force.

It is now evident why the fanatic Arab-Muslim states like Algeria, Egypt and the Sudan have come out openly and massively to support and aid Nigeria in her present war of genocide against us. These states see militant Arabism as a powerful instrument for attaining power in the world.”

>>>>>>

Joe and SPQR - shall the battle against the coven of smug & pug nosed trolls continue - Merci!

Dear Constance,

That comment of yours bleached my hair.
(smile).

Dear Joe and SPQR:

Just to give things a bit of balance
here's a link to add to your collection:

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/15-famous-australians-you-may-not-have-known-were-muslim-2014-11

Constance,

Nothing to say in response to SteeleRedux's comprehensive dismantling of your Putin speech claim?

"Putin never made this speech and if either of you had bothered to take 60 seconds out of what must be incredibly busy lives to check these things before you post them or respond to them you may save an egg or two.

“There is no evidence that President Putin gave any such speech, however. The Speeches and Transcripts section of the official Russian presidential web site records no Putin speech of that nature on 4 February 2013 (or any other date up to April 2013, when this item first appeared), nor does a record or mention of anything like this speech appear elsewhere on that site or in any news accounts (Russian or foreign) published since then.”

But what's this?

"Joe and SPQR - shall the battle against the coven of smug & pug nosed trolls continue - Merci!"

Rallying her troops - What Ho!

She's a class act is our Constance....

Constance

<<Joe and SPQR - shall the battle against the coven of smug & pug nosed trolls continue>>

You are never going to get a clear shot at Steelie he's been through HAMAS bootcamp. So he'll likely be hiding behind a school or under Foxy's skirt or Poirots hijab every time you try to return fire.
_________________________

Foxy
<<Just to give things a bit of balance>>
Hahaahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahhaahhaahahahahahahahhahaahahhhahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaha
Foxy you and your PC friends have been overloading (salting) that side of the scale for decades ...the ones who are adding *BALANCE* are brave souls like Constance

Altogether now...

We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range
We zap and maim
With the bravery of being out of range
We strafe the train
With the bravery of being out of range
We gain terrain
With the bravery of being out of range
With the bravery of being out of range
We play the game
With the bravery of being out of rang

@ Craig Minns

<<With the bravery of being out of range>>

No one is out of range in the age terrorism --or hadnt you noticed?

Get a lot of bombs dropping on your head, do you....erm... what was your name again?

"We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range"

And since you've mentioned it, no, I haven't noticed a whole lot of terrorists flitting about. Although, that weird bloke up at the shops last night who screamed abuse because I have a large dog could have been a concern. Following the sage advice of the "brave" people on this forum, I used the corner of my eye to look him over as carefully as I could and he didn't look like a Muslim, so that was a relief.

That's funny, Craig because it's very relevant. Muslims have been urged by Mohammed to hate dogs, in fact I think any animal. Hence the problems with Muslim taxi driver's refusing blind people because of their guide dog companions. Unfortunately, the poor labs are deemed filthy by the followers of Mohammed.

Dear Craig,

The following link gives another perspective
to this issue and explains in greater detail
the reasons for why Australians are being
pushed in the direction that they are by both
the current government and the Murdoch media
that supports it:

http://newmatilda.com/2014/09/23/islamophobia-australias-newest-national-sport

That is why independent media outlets like New Matilda
are worthy of our support - to give us the much needed
different perspective to the strident narrow views expressed
in the jungle of the internet and News Limited - where the
news is very limited.

@Foxy,

<<That is why independent media outlets like New Matilda>>

ROFLMAO

A left-wing rag that parrots the official PC line

Dear SPQR,

And who do, "The Australian," "Daily Telegraph,"
"Herald-Sun," Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Miranda Devine,
Babette Francis, Janet Albrechtensen, Piers Akerman,
et al, that you support, parrot?

Dear Constance,

I apologise for inferring you were stupid for posting a hoax. I would normally have pointed out the error and perhaps gave a little tweek of the nose then moved on.

You certainly fling the insults around and so it might be said if you live by the sword...

However Section 18c allows for good faith as a defense so I should be prepared to accept it in this case.

But you are continuing to trot out links to false beatups. You will note on your very first link in your latest post (I haven't bothered to go on to the others) there is this qualification underneath the shattered photo of the Virgin Mary;

“Although this image appears in the report of the Italian news site Alerta Digital it is not of the Virgin Mary statue that was recently shattered and urinated on and is used in simulation.”

It was not there originally ( and still is not on the source site ) http://www.alertadigital.com/2015/01/14/perugia-cinco-inmigrantes-destruyen-una-imagen-de-la-virgen-maria-y-orinan-sobre-los-restos/ . In fact that report directly refers to the photo.

That statue was actually destroyed during the 2011 'Occupy Wall Street' inspired riots in Rome.

Once these guys pointed out the hoax your Raymond Ibrahim altered his page but didn't back away from the story.
https://polination.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/latest-pope-bashing-islamic-attack-story-turns-out-to-be-a-hoax-fools-fox-news-megyn-kelly-and-multiple-other-us-news-outlets/

The first two links of yours I have checked have been hoaxes. I really don't want be verifying each and every one of them therefore might I suggest a plan. You post links as you see fit because I understand you need them to stoke your anger and indignation and perhaps for the rest of us our default position with be that they are probably crap, certainly untruthful, and often outright hoaxes, but you believe in each and every one of them. If on the odd chance one comes along that you feel you have really solid confidence in then flag it as such and we can look at it.

Does this sound fair?

SteeleRedux,

Why should I take any notice of a Leftist deviant like yourself who want to destroy peaceful societies? Who go out of there way to falsify and spread propaganda using Marxist or regressive sites in the meantime when they never have any sane arguments on offer.

You've never commented or opined any analysis on any of the historical facts and people who have had strong opinions on Islam throughout the ages. But only Leonard Cohen who of course has nothing to do with Islam.

Duh!

Constance,

"Why should I take any notice of a Leftist deviant like yourself who want to destroy peaceful societies?..."

SteeleRedux - you can't have a reasonable debate with that sort of hysterical belligerence.

One gets weary of wiping the foaming spittle off the screen.

Thanks for the link, Foxy, it seems to be saying some of the same things as I have been trying to express. Unfortunately, though it is to some extent still pushing a partisan approach which I really don't think is very useful. It doesn't matter what the Abbott Government is doing now, what matters is how we, as a highly integrated global community should be approaching the long-term planning that is required to properly address a common problem.

In other words, look for common ground, not differences. Assuming good faith is essential to do that.

Of course, there are some who have nothing useful or relevant to contribute and being able to filter those out is also important.

Dear Craig,

Yes, I fully agree by all means let's get the
discussion happening - and ignore the pugnacity
to deter it.

Foxy,

A couple of small points you appear to have missed:

1) No where am i holding up any Murdoch publication and proclaimed it to be the way, the truth, and the light --as you repeatedly do for New Matilda, and

2) There is more diversity (to use an in PC buzz-word) of opinion between the staff writers, in any of the the Murdoch publications you named than you will ever find in New Matilda.

Dear SPQR,

To quote the old adage - "Don't pee on my leg and
tell me its raining."

You may not hold up any placards for the Murdoch media
but you certainly keep leaping to their defence -
as your last post clearly shows - while at the same
time you continue to demean "New Matilda."

This is where we differ. I believe that a robust
media is fundamental to a healthy democracy and "New
Matilda," remains fiercely independent and robust
with no affiliation to any political party, lobby
group or any other media organisation. "New
Matilda," is reader-funded. Their articles are
clear-sighted, intelligent and sane assessments of issues.
Theirs is the only coverage that is critical of the
current political narrative of fear.

With shrinking media diversity in this country and huge
changes underway - there are fewer and fewer media
outlets publishing independent minded journalism.

"New Matilda" contributors are a very eclectic and talented bunch
made up of experienced journalists, current and former
politicians, satirists, lawyers,
economists, academics, critical and creative thinkers,
people like Julian Burnside QC, cartoonist
Fiona Katauskas, to name just two.

I guess each to their own. If you prefer living in the
Twilight Zone, where fear and loathing trumps calm
debate and reason, then by all means stick with negating
"New Matilda." I personally prefer calm debate and
reason to fear and loathing.

Dear Poirot,

The technique for removing the dermatological layer from a feline is fortunately not confined to the singular.

Dear Constance,

Yes we all understand the rather base response of attacking when one is cornered but it hardly adds to the sum of knowledge does it.

Here's the rub. I'm sure not everything you have posted is rubbish, in fact there is probably some quite substantive perspectives in amongst it all. However if you do not acknowledge nor apologise for posting hoaxes as fact then everything you have presented must be viewed with suspicion, it is all tainted.

What it forces the reader to do is to background each point you make and that quickly becomes tedious, exhausting and ultimately deemed not worth the effort.

So what choice does a person in your position have? Does one try and bluff it out, hurl slings and arrows so as to take the focus off one's transgressions or do they fess up and set things right? I suppose it depends on the ethics of the person, whether they hold truth to be a virtue or an inconvenience.

The other less pleasant possibility is that somebody might be so irrationally hate filled that they see little wrong, indeed they deem it their duty, to be posting erroneous claims in forums such as this.

So where do you fit in my dear Constance?

As to Leonard Coen I had asked you if you understood the lyrics to Future yet did not see a reply. Perhaps I should have been more specific. What do you make of this line;

Give me back the Berlin wall 
give me Stalin and St Paul

Why is Leonard equating the totalitarianism of Stalin to the authoritarianism of Paul's version of Christianity?

You don't understand irony, do you?

That may be one of the all-time classics...

Constance,
You are wasting you time listing that:
-- Steelie only believes what he sees on HAMAS TV
--Foxy only believes what's on New Matilda.
--Poirot only picks-up on what her lefty circle of twits tweet.
--And Craig only believes what he sees on the Disney channel

Constance,

Which begs the question - why are the Saudis the bestest friends of the West?

Are you going to critique the hypocrisy of the US, Oz, European nations and all the rest of them for lauding and dealing with the Saudis when the "Saudi regime" is all that we (apparently) stand against in the "West".

And Abbott seemed particularly taken with his fellow climate denier, Crown Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz, during the G20...(there's an engaging pic with the following article)

http://www.afr.com/p/national/eu_says_australia_alone_with_saudis_5kLYFtEB3WP5MjyUZnXvLI

Dear SPQR,

Is that the best you can dyou can come up
with.

Oh dear!

Dear Constance,

You wrote;

“You don't understand irony, do you?”

Hmmm.

Okay, I think what Leonard is referring to is that both Stalin and Paul have taken foundation ideas (those of Marx and Jesus respectively) and subverted and perverted them to extend their own totalitarian control over the freedoms and thoughts of others. George Bernard Shaw calls Paul “a monstrous imposition” on Christianity.

Could I invite you to give your perspective, specifically where you think the irony is displayed here by Cohen.

Now can I invite you to de-construct with me your latest offering;
http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/woman-beheaded-in-broad-daylight-in-moderate-muslim-nation-while-police-watch/

Why on earth would anyone put forward the proposition that Saudi Arabia is a “moderate Muslim nation”?

Woman can not drive cars in that country, require their male guardian's permission to travel, have surgery, to open bank accounts, to marry, even to go to school. Their practice of capital punishment via beheading or stoning is barbaric as is the removal of hands and feet, lashing, and insanely draconian sentencing.

Expanding on Poirot's point I have railed on this forum many times about the West's continuing support for the nation of Saudi Arabia but I understand it is the United States longest and strongest ally in the Middle East. I would have hoped the huge resources that have flowed from that country into the promotion of one of the most extreme forms of radical Islam, Wahhabism, might have caused a backlash but it didn't happen, even after 9/11.

What Saudi Arabia most certainly isn't is moderate and for you to post a link to an article claiming otherwise is misleading and untruthful.

If Australia was fair dinkum about combating terrorism then it would have been placing sanctions on that nation years ago, but we have wimped it. Personally I would have liked us deny the Saudi Arabian team visas to enter this country to play in the current Asian Cup. Barring that I would have loved to see protesters at the soccer games highlighting that country's funding of global terrorism.

Cont...

Cont...

But we so enamoured with Saudi Arabia and the US that we are prepared to let this sort of thing go unchallenged;

“On November 15, a female staff member at the InterContinental Sanctuary Cove Resort reported the assault to her managers. At the time, the resort was hosting the Saudi Arabian delegation, while the G20 Summit was being held at the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre. The woman withdrew her complaint within hours of police launching an investigation. However, the man in question was "swiftly removed" from the hotel and escorted directly to the Brisbane International Airport by police and a Saudi Arabian consulate representative. The ABC has asked the Saudi Arabian embassy for information about the man's welfare but is still awaiting a response. Police can still investigate matters, even if a complaint has been withdrawn, but authorities are no longer looking into the alleged assault.”

Look I understand there are heaps of beheadings type links coming down your facebook feed through which they have been propagated to a receptive audience, but the reason you are here is have your ideas and beliefs tested otherwise why would you bother.

I understand you are angry and wanting to do something. Could I invite you to do as I have and voice your concern to Prime Minister Abbott's and Julie Bishop's offices, not only about how the incident in Queensland was handled but the nature of our continued support of a nation where the obscenity of public beheadings occur and who is demostrably the greatest funder of Islamic terrorism in the world.

[Deleted for abuse.]

…Cont

Saudi Arabia provided the funds and the US provided the weapons and know-how to the Taliban becoming allies against their common enemy, the Commies (like yourself) in Afghanistan. Pakistan provided training camps and operations bases for the Mujahidin in the early 1980s, then for the Taliban. The Saudies were extremely hesitant in allowing the US into their country of horror but because of Sadam and Iraqi aggression on the border, they acceded. And ended up killing American soldiers by the so called Islamic religious anyway in a few countries where they had bases.

Yet, the Commies are dumb enough to now be supporting Islam. How ironic! And there you have Charlie Hebdo. What a bunch of clueless idiots.

But then all extremists think like that, not understanding subtleties. And they keep on portraying themselves as morally superior.

And what is the reason you are here? Big deal if Putin’s speech is a hoax. It would be what any sane person would wish their own leaders would do, who we’d hope would have real guts.

Why do you have such an axe to grind against Christianity when it has given you so much freedom? Why would you insanely prefer totalitarianism?

Don't let egoistic equivocation get in the way of your recognition of the abhorrence of human behaviours in times of war and conquests of the past, as being savage, unprincipled crime.

Just because exaggerated claims of brutality by Christians spew forth from your keyboard, let's all consider evil committed in the name of "allah", to be civilized and acceptable. Oh yeh.

So how do you feel in complying with the destruction of Western Christian civilisation, Hindu Civilisation, Buddhist Civilisation and the rest of the Non Muslim world?

Ah, that's more like it! Nothing like a good old-fashioned hysterical rant to brighten up the morning.

Crag on a rock and Steelie,

You love's you, baby?

I've been following this thread, increasingly half-heartedly, hoping that it will evolve into a discussion of Islamic supremacism and the worldwide surrender to it. But alas it remains a discussion by posters not of the issues but of each other. I have inserted a comment (under my proper name) on the issue in an article in "Skeptic Lawyer" at http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2015/01/18/good-appeasement-and-bad-appeasement/ . Until it is confronted, Islam will become the norm in society after society not through its own militancy but through the betrayal of Enlightenment values by a stubborn dhimmitude at all levels right to the very top such as the leadership of most civilised nations including Australia.

I hesitate to cite a source that is iteslf riddled with supremacism (ethnic in its case) but the most devastating weapons against self-referenced claims of God-given supremacy often do emanate from rival supremacists. The source is the highly informative Zionist site Middle East Forum and a particular article that I commend is at http://www.meforum.org/4993/does-europe-have-no-go-zones. I wonder where Lakemba fits in?

Dear Constance,

I'm not sure what you had said in your earlier post but as it has now been deleted it will have to be left up to the imagination I suppose. Without it your second post is rather an incomprehensible mess.

I'm going to assume it is addressed to me and I did find this comment striking;

“Big deal if Putin’s speech is a hoax.”

History has taught us that hoaxes are a very big deal;

“The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion is an antisemitic hoaxpurporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination. It was first published in Russia in 1903, translated into multiple languages, and disseminated internationally in the early part of the 20th century. Henry Ford funded printing of 500,000 copies that were distributed throughout the US in the 1920s.”

"Adolf Hitler and the Nazis publicized the text as though it were a valid document, although it had already been exposed as fraudulent in 1921 by The Times. ... The historian Norman Cohn suggested that Hitler used the Protocols as his primary justification for initiating the Holocaust—his "warrant for genocide".”
Wikipedia

I wrote in an earlier post;

“So what choice does a person in your position have? Does one try and bluff it out, hurl slings and arrows so as to take the focus off one's transgressions or do they fess up and set things right? I suppose it depends on the ethics of the person, whether they hold truth to be a virtue or an inconvenience.”

Well the slings and arrow certainly have been in abundance but more concerning you really seem to put such little store in the virtue of truth.

I think it is best that you perhaps reflect on the following;

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things arehonest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; ifthere be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
Philippians 4:8

SteeleRedux,

So you're saying Winston Churchill who tried to warn Chamberlain about the Nazi's a hoax and his same warning about Islam, and who actually experienced The Sudan. I've listed a whole bunch of other historical people, including American presidents who have cited the same about Mohammadens. Go on, debate.

This post precedes my ….Saudi…post.

Oh baby, why are you so late dropping in on the scene. No comment on all my previous posts of historical facts and significant people citing their views on the terrifying ideology of Islam. I can’t hear you?

And sneaky. I’m not here to discuss Leonard. And ambiguity doesn’t register to you either. I suggest you start a new thread on him. I don’t even use facebook - why do you assume I use it? Seen it all before? And you still defend them. Only now you criticise Saudia Arabia only when America comes up? Funny, that.

And this is the first time I’ve ever seen a beheading which I was not searching for. OntheBeach posted a link and I just checked out the site and found it. I wondered why “Moderate” was there too, but that really is beside the point. Its interesting how you regressives detract all the time and never confront the actual atrocity. It’s irrelevant. I didn’t create the vid, and anyhow:

“As the Turkish president said. There is not moderate islam, there is just islam.”

You are desensitised – like seen one seen them all. How relativist is that and so typical of the intentions of Commie oppression. You really are a weird one. But that’s what happens to the desensitised, their brains become numb.

You’re more worried about Islam being tarnished than Islam itself and its damaging effects in the West?? Now tell me, you suddenly loathe Saudi Arabia, yet support Islam? Screwed thinking, hey.

It’s tricky, isn’t it. But then, Lefties and illiberals never seem to recognise complexities. Such is the binary, a simple universe of the liberal mind, never as nuanced and sophisticated as prideful liberals and Commies insist.

Correction with my other post.

Who loves you, baby?

There is a very simple explanation for the contradiction between Putin’s forthright speech as reported in the “hoax” and the one reported in Russia’s Hansard. That is, that Putin really did tell it is it is, that reports of what he said went around the traps a bit like the way Khrushchov’s famous 1956 speech condemning Stalin went around the traps, and ended up in Constance’s quote, whereas Russohansard diplomatically reported a sanitised, nuanced version to comply with its assessment of current geopolitics. Nuance is the copout refuge of dhimmis and other appeasers – truth dumbed down to take account of estimates of its external effect. How pervasive and worldwide is this Stockholm Syndrome, cringing before an evil cult. Along with dhimmitude goes the practice of misevaluating statements not by their truth content but by their expected external effect. Thus valuable and stark warnings get headed off by considerations of what effect they would have on cherished multiculturalism (aka cultural relativism aka openness to closedness aka 18C).

Dear Constance,

Perhaps the following link may clarify things for
you:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/danger-religious-fundamentalists-just-muslisms.html

It is beneficial to follow these five steps to give the
impression of being a superior debater.

1) Always argue in a logical manner.
Sound reasoning will conquer unreasonable generalisations
every time.

2) However you must not sound too dogmatic. Always
concede a minor point. If you don't listen to the
other person's opinion you will be deemed pig-headed.
A minor admission should not make you sound weak
but rather a little less obstinate.

3)An imperative point to remember is to always know
your topic.

4) Do not stoop to personal insults. That's an indication
that you have nothing of substance to add to the
discussion - and it means that you have lost the argument.

5) The final point is to as all times remain calm.
As stated in point no 4 above - never appear insulting or
abusive.

Good peaceful arguing can increase one's self-esteem and
public confidence and from your posts - that seems to be
a quality lacking in you. No-one likes, or supports an
abusive, illogical or weak debater.

Try again!

Foxy,

Here's an analysis on the negatives of self-esteem by English psychiatrist and physician, Theodore Dalrymple (the Orwell of our times) who has worked plenty of Muslims in prisons around Birmingham, UK.
http://incharacter.org/features/theodore-dalrymple-on-self-esteem-vs-self-respect/

"One has only to go into a prison, or at least a prison of the kind in which I used to work, to see the most revoltingly high self-esteem among a group of people (the young thugs) who had brought nothing but misery to those around them, largely because they conceived of themselves as so important that they could do no wrong. For them, their whim was law, which was precisely as it should be considering who they were in their own estimate."

Still waiting for a real debate from you.

Dear Constance,

Theodore Dalrymple writes about his experiences
with criminals. He was after all a prison doctor.
People that he encountered as part of his job
were criminals. Criminials exist in all religions.
You accuse me of not having a debate with you.
How can there be a debate when you have already
made up your mind - especially about Islam and
Muslims.

I have to second Constance's point:

<<One has only to go into a prison, or at least a prison of the kind in which I used to work, to see the most revoltingly high self-esteem among a group of people ...>>

I have no insight into what happens in prisons-- but i have long noted that a huge percentage of those often characterized as the disadvantaged have a very high quotum of self-esteem and entitlement.

Foxy/Steelie,

Do you ever wonder why we have a Middle Eastern taskforce? Nope.

http://www.newenglishreview.org/Nicolai_Sennels/Muslims_and_Westerners:__The_Psychological_Differences/

http://forum.theodoredalrymple.org/viewtopic.php?p=10175
BBC Radio 4's You and Yours programme today attempted to discuss immigration. Readers might like to listen to it.

"Apparently the vast majority of communication received by the programme was anti mass-immigration. This was not reflected by the calls put through, many people being too afraid to go air on for fear of being called racist.

I thought the presenting was quite fairly handled by Julian Worricker, actually, except at one point:

"A woman called Maureen phoned in (at 23'45" through the programme), clearly nervous and upset. She explained that she was a school dinner lady who was given a discreet cross as a Christmas present, which she wore around her neck. This, however, offended one of her Muslim colleagues (who herself wore a veil). The Muslim made a formal complaint about the lady, who was consequently asked not to wear the cross any longer, or at least to hide it from view so as not to offend the Muslim."

Now tell me, Foxy/Steelie - Do you think Maureen has been fairly treated?

Dear Constance,

Of course she was not fairly treated no more
than us telling Muslim women what they should wear,
what Muslims' should eat, or whether Australian Muslim women
should be permitted to enter our Parliament.

Pot/kettle black.

Dear SPQR,

Talking about self-esteem ...

My husband had a Christian Brothers education -
he went to a Christian Brothers school from
Grade 4 to Year 12 -
and he remembers the Pentridge Catholic Chaplain
visiting his school and giving a talk on "life
after school" and the Chaplain said that the largest
population in Pentridge Prison during that time -
were old boys from Christian Brothers schools.
My husband was not surprised having experienced
the treatment of students by Christian Brothers
teachers.

On the other hand, Foxy, the least number in prisons were from Marist Brothers' schools, which is not surprising, and being myself a product of a Marist education, one of the reasons that I sent my youngest son to a Marist College.

Foxy,

And you still don't question the motives of a Muslima in a hijab complaining about her work colleague wearing a tiny cross? Muslima wins by being supported by the illiberal appeasers. So the quiet Christian woman loses and becomes a victim of oppression and just has to live with it, uh? How come Muslima still gets to wear the hijab?

So do you think the Muslima is presenting contempt for Christianity?

And what did you think of the Danish psychologist's report?

Hi Foxy & Constance,

Surely if one person is allowed to wear religious-oriented clothing or jewellery, then so has every one else ? End of. If someone wants to wear a Star of David, or a crucifix, or a Chinese character for 'good luck' or 'long life', or an image of Ganesh, or a hijab, they should be able equally to exercise that right ?

And anybody objecting to that right can be charged with harassment, or discrimination, or inhibiting someone's right to freedom of expression ?

Meanwhile, while we fluff around about trivia, surely it's ideology we should be concerned about ?

Joe

The story of the cross sounds as apocryphal as the rest of constance's guff. Islam recognises Jesus as a prophet, so why on Earth would a devout Muslim be bothered by a cross?

Of course, if the "school lunch lady" was at all like the delightful Constance, then perhaps the issue of the cross may have occurred, not because of the cross, but because of the person wearing it? Or perhaps it didn't and she was just doing a Constance-impression and trying to stir up trouble.

Either way, I can't see much point in taking Constance's post seriously.

Dear Constance,

In this country all Australians are free to follow
any religion they choose, so long as its practices
do not break any Australian law.

Australians are also
free not to follow a religion. Religious intolerance should be
unacceptable in Australian society. Therefore your story
about the Muslim woman's demands regarding her work colleague
is simply an illustration of a very unwise decision that could
have had much more serious implications had the work colleague
taken it further and complained to the
company's Human Resources Manager or sought legal advice against this type of
discrimination. We do have laws in place that protect people
against discrimination on the basis of race, and creed.

Dear Loudmouth,

Nothing more to add.

Dear Is Mise,

My husband's best friend had a Marist Brothers education.
From stories we've heard - Marist Brothers were a more
liberal order then the Christian Brothers. So well done
to you and yours! My father was educated by the Jesuits.
And our two sons started their education in private
Jesuit-run schools. Both preparatory and high schools.
However - we took them out in high school
due to the realisation that
sport was playing more of a major role in their education
then were academic subjects and also they were learning
the wrong values. Bullying was the norm. But what was also
worrying was that -
They were learning that it was allright
to do anything it took to "get ahead," and were missing
out on being taught "real basics" like respect, loyalty,
and a sense of fair play.

We wanted our children to grow up with clear values
and a real code to live by and - with a different mentality
from the "Me" mentality of modern culture. Of course they
were being taught these values at home, but they were
not being re-inforced at school. Both boys ended up
graduating from university - both are successful and happy,
and are decent human beings. We are very proud of them.

Dear Constance,

What do I think of the Danish Psychologists Report?

It is quite a concern. Psychopathic people and
behaviour are found within all cultures and religions.
And it is important to make a note of the author's
past history.
Unfortunately the Danish Psychologist has a history
of anti-Muslim polemics. His articles - including the
one you cited all deliberately disparage Islam and Muslims.
His eugenics theories lean towards "Nazi-style propaganda."

His work is posted on disreputable sites (Jihad Watch, Death
to Islam, et cetera). He is not published on any reputable
sites and it makes sense that this sort of "scholar"
would attract Islamophobes who are forced to resort to -
in order to continue their anti Muslim hatred.

Having said that - I still read the article and found that
it merely confirmed the author's past reputation was well
deserved. Instead of exercising scrupulous caution the
author was anything but objective. As a psychologist he
should have been conscious of his own bias and at least
attempted to be as objective as possible. His biases should
have been kept out of his research and interpretation.

The ethical code of the discipline requires that psychologists
be intellectually honest and that they attempt to be aware of
their own values and not allow these values to distort their
work; that they relentlessly hunt down the relevant facts and
not ignore those that are inconvenient for their pet theories;
that they not manipulate data to prove a point; and that they
not use research to suppress or misuse knowledge.

No objectivity was strived for by this psychologist.
His work cannot therefore be taken seriously.

Once again Crag shows his ignorance

<<The story of the cross sounds as apocryphal as the rest of constance's guff. Islam recognises Jesus as a prophet, so why on Earth would a devout Muslim be bothered by a cross?>>

Well, Craig, here might be one reason --because fundamentalist inclined Muslims are opposed to all forms of physical depiction of the holy and in Saudi even places associated with Muslim holy figures have been destroyed <<[the] wahhabist sect... perceives historic sites and the veneration of the prophet as encouraging sinful idolatry>>

Should Islamic body bags be banned?

A few years ago I saw a piece of garbage striding along the street with a red T-shirt adorned by a white disc about 1ft 3in across and containing a large swastika. My hostile contempt for the symbol and the wearer was palpable. Would I ban it? No. Would I allow it to be worn in the public gallery of parliament? Definitely not.

The message of Moslem body bags is a standing insult to all men and all women. To men it says: “If I let you see me you would want to violate me”. To women it says “If you let men see you you’re asking for it”. I am as filled with hostile contempt for the symbol and its wearers as I am for swastikas. Would I ban it? No. Would I allow it to be worn in the public gallery of parliament? Definitely not.

How do others feel?

PS: I’m quite happy about body bags for jihadist warriors. Bring ‘em on.

Julian,

You didn't say which way the swastika was facing; could the wearer have been a Hindu?

Dear Constance,

Thank you for reposting your deleted post. There didn't seem to be anything too nasty in it or perhaps you have left some of it out.

I'm not sure I am that much wiser about the position you are trying to put but perhaps if we take your points one by one clarity might avail itself.

I'm afraid I can find little in the way of historical facts you say you have provided on this thread. If you mean on other threads then I'm afraid I do not have the time nor the inclination to go through your comment history and dissect your offerings as those I have looked at have either been hoaxes, untruths or just plain beatups. As I have said previously if there is one or two that you have more faith in their veracity then I undertake to peruse them and offer an opinion.

You have made a comment about American Presidents talking about Muslims. The only recent example I could find was this one. It is George W Bush stating quite clearly that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.
http://youtu.be/UGu0-kTi3Eg

Cont..

Cont..

You said you are not here to discuss Leonard Cohen but you were the one who raised him in this thread. I do find that a little disconcerting. I will tell you what I think, you had made up your mind about the meaning of his lyrics and when I asked you to reflect on them you realised your interpretation could not be supported. It happens to everyone but the sad thing is you are not prepared to discuss it instead you have deflected, hurled insults and run from the debate. Most would consider that childish.

Then you run out the term 'Commie'. It really is such a strange thing to do in this discussion. The only interpretation is that you are probably an immigrant, most probably from the US, where that label is still bandied around.

But the statement from you that raised my eyebrow was this;

“Now tell me, you suddenly loathe Saudi Arabia, yet support Islam? Screwed thinking, hey.”

I have been consistent in my loathing of fundamentalism in any form especially of the religious variety and Saudi Arabia has to be one of the most fundamentalist nations in a long list. Yet what is interesting, after my detailing of their many sins, that you have not said a word in support. This either reinforces the supposition you are an immigrant Yank, or it may well be you are a fundamentalist yourself, or indeed both.

I support none of the religions, instead it is directed toward those trying to maintain Australia as a tolerant nation, accepting of those who wish to practice their faith within our laws. You my dear are a direct and very real threat to that ethic and would want to tear it done. That to me is 'screwed thinking' of the most dangerous kind.

He was no Hindu!

Joe,

Can’t you see that the devil is in the details?

“Meanwhile, while we fluff around about trivia, surely it's ideology we should be concerned about?”
Of course it is. And Islam, is the ideology – it is not a religion. Didn’t you see that post I sent on “How Islam works” Islam is 100% way of life. Wearing a hijab is purely a political statement. Religion is their guise in which they use it as a beard.

Foxy then has the gall to suggest that Maureen in trying to defend her right has personally attacked the hijab wearing Muslima who then gets supported by the Dhimmi Managers. Her appeasement knows no end. Same thing I remember happened with an British Airways air hostess who wasn’t allowed to wear a cross necklace at work.

Hi Constance,

When you suggest that " .... Islam, is the ideology – it is not a religion ...." and I suggest that " .... surely it's ideology we should be concerned about?”, I'm struggling to see why I deserve a flailing with a wet hanky :)

Islamism has the hallmarks of a sort of Caesaropapism, the coming together of absolute religious power - the caliphate - with absolute temporal power - the state apparatuses of IS, and aspiring absolutists like al Qa'ida, Boko Haram, etc., the ghastly marriage of ideology, religion and state power, forms of 'government' which were abandoned - more likely defeated - nearly a thousand years ago in Europe, with the slow developments of the separation of church and state, and state and monarchical rule.

Totalitarian ideology inevitably degenerates - and quickly - into fascism - that's the lesson, surely, of the twentieth century, writing as an ex-Marxist. Islamism is so totalitarian that it makes Mussolini look like Mother Teresa.

Joe

Steelie,

And now you suddenly decide to listen to George Bush, when it suits you? Why now?

And now you say I must be American. Hilarious. I have lived there a couple of times briefly but have also done lots of travelling in quite a few other countries. One experience of mine is that I recall riding on a rickshaw through a Muslim village in India and having a stone thrown at me. I was dressed as a Hindu woman.

And I'm a fundamentalist? My God. My dear, you are the fundy entrenched in deleterious ideology.

As a free (non-enslaved) moderate, and Catholic which actually means LIBERAL, I have reluctantly become one of the new outsiders looking in. I've never been particularly religious but I do have a conscience which has forced me back to thinking more about Catholicism and the kind of upbringing I had and the CCs place in this dangerous ever changing world. Doing heaps of reading and have had awakenings and a realisation that the CC offers true freedom. Heck, every man and his dog has been against the CC through the ages. The CC doesn't control. But the Capitalists (and branch of Freemasons) and Communists do. Hence, you have Leftist, Protestant and Islamic propaganda who have all colluded together against the CC. It is so true, "Truth is stranger than fiction". The CC is so rich and depends on the benevolence of people, not one man ideologues like Marx, Nietchshe, Luther, Henry VIII, Rousseau, Hitler, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, etc.

Lord of the Rings written by Tolkien, a devout Catholic, is in fact steeped in Catholic theology. Why are Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit so popular? Escapism?

"How to be Free" by Tom Hodgkinson. The so called Dark Middle Ages is a myth (propaganda) and was I believe much more humane than the world we are currently living in. For we are now slaves.

Cont....

...Cont

Steelie,

And you have no time to visit history - oh dear, that is a shame. I know, we are all told to be busy busy nowadays. You really should check facts before you start writing and listen to some of the historical figures, like Churchill for example for warnings. And learn.

And I did not send the Leonard Cohen vid to you – I sent it to the Lefty ex academic, David Fisher. You commented on it and so you persisted with it. Oh please!

My dear, so tell me what exactly do you believe in?

Dear Constance,

No. what Foxy was suggesting was that had
Maureen reported the incident to the Human
Resources Manager, and/or sought legal advice -
the matter would have had serious repercussions
for the organisation because this sort of discrimination
is against Australian law. Re-read my post.

You Madam, owe me an apology.

Ah, SPQR, I bow before your obviously superior knowledge.

Or perhaps not...

http://www.davidmus.dk/en/collections/islamic/cultural-history-themes/symbolism

"The very idea that an image or a sculpture represents something other than itself has often been interpreted by orthodox Muslims as irreconcilable with the central message in Islam: “There is no god but God.” For this reason, one could say that all art made in the Islamic world must be considered devoid of symbolism. But if we look at actual works, we can see that several motifs in Islamic art can easily be related to symbols of both recent and earlier date."

[...]

"The Arabic script has always been viewed as exalted and holy. This is undoubtedly due to the close association between the words of the Koran and the script used for writing them, but it might also be due to a direct linkage between the abstract forms of the letters and the qualities that are attributed to the Divine. In keeping with this interpretation, arabesque decorations and geometrical patterns have been interpreted from time to time as metaphors for God. Because they can be extended infinitely, both vegetal ornamentation and geometrical forms can be seen as a reminder of the infiniteness of God."

Never mind, I'm sure you must be right about how unlikely it is that the Assyrian Empire could have any influence on modern-day descendants of the subjects of the Empire, eh, Senatus Populusque Romanus?

After all, you really are very special...

Continuing bowing Craig

<<The past two years have seen a disturbing trend of systematic grave desecration done by various Wahhabi groups in Libya, Mali, and Egypt. With the fall of ruling powers resulting from the Arab Spring many Wahhabis have decided to utilise power vacuums that opened up in Libya and subsequently Mali to ravage these lands by destroying all signs of their holy sites, which according to their puritanical view are heretical, pagan-like and akin to grave worship...>>
http://themuslim500.com/2013-2/issues-of-the-day/destruction-of-sufi-shrines


And here's another ...


<<One of Islam’s most revered holy sites – the tomb of the Prophet Mohamed – could be destroyed and his body removed to an anonymous grave under plans which threaten to spark discord across the Muslim world...Hardline Saudi clerics have long preached that the country’s strict Wahhabi interpretation of Islam – an offshoot of the Sunni tradition – prohibits the worship of any object or “saint”, a practice considered “shirq” or idolatrous.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudis-risk-new-muslim-division-with-proposal-to-move-mohameds-tomb-9705120.html

as they say, actions speak louder than words :)

Steelredux,

"Thank you for reposting your deleted post. There didn't seem to be anything too nasty in it or perhaps you have left some of it out."

Indeed, a couple of things were left out of the reprise.

""How to be Free" by Tom Hodgkinson. The so called Dark Middle Ages is a myth (propaganda) and was I believe much more humane than the world we are currently living in. For we are now slaves."

Tom rails mainly about being "slaves" to the capitalist consumerist paradigm...that's his point.

His other great book was "How to be Idle".

So it begs the question, apart from him championing medieval Catholic social history verses the starkness of Protestantism - why do you cite his work to dong Islam on the head?

He's complaining about a Western world melded from a combination of modern capitalism.

Poirot,

Yes, you do have a lot of trouble being unable to think of more than one thing at once. You don’t seem to have any concepts of the consequences of actions.

The consequences of the Reformation and industrialisation has brought us to our current dilemma we have with work/life balance and of course Islam. Ie because Christianity has been weakened due to all the diviseness. In other words, the West has become emasculated. And now we have Marxist Secularism which has now clashed with Islam which has been like a metamorphosis of creeping degression ever since the Reformation.

You must be enamoured with Islam. Tell me what you like about it?

You live in the WA countryside, don’t you? Rather secluded?

http://www.cbn.com/tv/embedplayer.aspx?bcid=1509282970001

You have no concerns of Socialist Sweden having the 2nd highest rape record in the world now since Muslim immigration. Sweden once had one of the lowest crime rates in the world. What is your opinion on this?

Joe,

I probably reacted to your use of the word, trivia. Which it is not.

And yes, the sooner we do not consider Islam a religion, the better our understanding. It has to be a two way path of course and it is not happening. The nerve of the the Muslima just shows how much contempt they have for infidels. And to be supported by the management just makes me sick. That is oppression pure and simple.

Well it's obvious everywhere and I have been saying this for yonks that Muslims hold contempt for Christians and Jews, well actually any Non Muslim, including Hindus, Buddhists, Animists, Zoastrians etcetera. And it is even worse for Atheists - Charlie Hebdo for eg.

Yes, Islam is the most sinister of any fascist doctrine. Who the hell has ever taken on the world with such aggression?

Enigma - Age Of Loneliness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APW_QwzGg2o

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

Constance,

"You must be enamoured with Islam. Tell me what you like about it?"

Where have I ever said I was enamoured of Islam?

"You live in the WA countryside, don’t you? Rather secluded?"

Where have I ever indicated I live in a secluded setting?

You're surmising - surmising wrong.

"The consequences of the Reformation and industrialisation has brought us to our current dilemma we have with work/life balance and of course Islam. Ie because Christianity has been weakened due to all the diviseness. In other words, the West has become emasculated. And now we have Marxist Secularism which has now clashed with Islam which has been like a metamorphosis of creeping degression ever since the Reformation."

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Christianity has been weakened because of the Enlightenment and reason - and industrialisation/consumerism.

Tell me what Christ would have criticised about social democracy?

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/dec/17/what-is-living-and-what-is-dead-in-social-democrac/

"Americans would like things to be better. According to public opinion surveys in recent years, everyone would like their child to have improved life chances at birth. They would prefer it if their wife or daughter had the same odds of surviving maternity as women in other advanced countries. They would appreciate full medical coverage at lower cost, longer life expectancy, better public services, and less crime.

When told that these things are available in Austria, Scandinavia, or the Netherlands, but that they come with higher taxes and an “interventionary” state, many of those same Americans respond: “But that is socialism! We do not want the state interfering in our affairs. And above all, we do not wish to pay more taxes.”

(Good article/lecture)

Poirot,

Then why do you persistently defend something you are not enamoured with?

Tell me, what you know about Islam?

You live in the country, don’t you?

The USA is ultimately a Protestant capitalistic country. And yes, they are probably paranoid about Socialism as it is virtually the opposite of Capitalism.

It is all about the EXTREMES.

Look at Sweden – it has taken Socialism to the extreme and now has huge problems. France and Spain I believe are heading in the same direction because of their Socialist govts.

PC madness with its cultural relativism is occurring in Sweden. From having one of the lowest crime rates in the world, it now has the 2nd highest rate of rape records in the world, and the highest in Europe which has brought about by Muslim immigration. Islam is clashing with radical Secularism.

On another note, our past Prime Minister Ben Chifley (a devout Catholic) wanted to nationalise the banks and ended up being voted out because of it as it smelled of Socialism. Otherwise, he was Australia’s favourite PM. Even Bob Menzies cried at his funeral. I think nationalising the banks would have been a great idea. Chifley truly was a man of the people.

One extreme always creates another, that’s why there has to be a balance.

Chifley was not a good PM because of which brand of religion he followed Constance.
If that were the case, wouldn't we have a great PM in the current devout, ex-student priest Abbott?
But we don't.

Abbott may well have been good back in the Chifley era though, as he is certainly stuck in that time warp.....

Constance,

"Then why do you persistently defend something you are not enamoured with?"

Care to stump up with posts where I have "persistently defended" Islam?

I persistently defend moderation and tolerance.

I persistently argue against extreme views and actions.

I live outside the capital city of my state.

The religion of the Prime Minister has nothing to do with his/her political ability - and judging by Abbott's woeful performance, I wouldn't be pursuing that line of argument.

Suze,

Tell us what you know about Chifley and his Prime Ministership? Apart from your insular ingrained bigotry.

By the way, where's Steelie gone?

Poirot,

How vague can you get?

Can you admit you know NADA (and never wish to know) about Islam?

How anti intellectual can you get.

Suze,

And I suppose your same bigoted reasoning is why the Kennedy's were so popular?

Um, funny they're somehow considered US Royalty?

As a bloke, I love a good cat-fight, but can you girls try to get back to the topic ?

[Retreats to underground bunker].

Joe

Constance,

"Can you admit you know NADA (and never wish to know) about Islam?

How anti intellectual can you get."

If you mean that I don't come on this forum and rant hysterically about some religion I've decided is "the Devil", then perhaps you have a point.

I suppose you're going to tell me that your frequent frenzied outpourings are the epitome of intellectual?

..........

"As a bloke, I love a good cat-fight, but can you girls try to get back to the topic ?"

Come off it Joe, your particular style of debate is reminiscent of that which you reference - even though you're "a bloke".

And this is the perfect time to remind peeps that Loudmouth only approves of off topic discussion when he's the one doing it.

Yeah, whatever.

Back to topic: How does IS square burning someone to death in a cage, and lying about it, with the teachings of the Koran ?

The lying bit, I can understand - taqqiya, after all - but burning a prisoner to death ?

I wonder if there is any limit to barbarity. No, maybe not, not with these thugs.

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

IS - is a terrorist organisation.
And they behave as one.

http://www.siotw.org/news_english.item.777/a-warning-from-a-former-muslim.html

THIS IS A WARNING TO ALL INFIDELS (NON BELIEVERS) ISSUED BY AN EX MUSLIM WHO KNOWS ABOUT THESE THINGS) IGNORE IT AT YOUR OWN PERIL!

"I was born and raised as Muslim. My whole family is still Muslim. I know every genetic code of Muslim. I know Islamic brain. I live and breath with them. I am an insider. I left Islam when I understood that Islam is a sick and evil religion. The following are the Islamic message to the West.

ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION. In it's fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious (only the beard), legal, political, economic, social, and military components.

To the infidels of the West:

The Constitution for the new Islamic Republics of EuroArabia and AmerIslamia is under construction.

We will fight the infidel to death.

- Meanwhile American laws will protect us.
- Democrats and Leftist will support us.
- N.G.O.s will legitimize us.
- C.A.I.R. will incubate us.
- The A.C.L.U. will empower us.
- Western Universities will educate us.
- Mosques will shelter us
- O.P.E.C. will finance us
- Hollywood will love us.
- Kofi Annan and most of the United Nations will cover our asses.

Our children will immigrate from Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Indonesia and even from India to the US and to the other Western countries. They will go to the West for education in full scholarship. America is paying and will continue to pay for our children’s educations and their upbringing in state funded Islamic schools.

We will use your welfare system. Our children will also send money home while they are preparing for Jihad.

We will take the advantage of American kindness, gullibility, and compassion. When time comes, we will stab them in the back. We will say one thing on the camera and teach another thing to our children at home. We will give subliminal messages to our children to uphold Islam at any cost.

Our children in America will always care more about Islamic Country’s interest than US interest.

Cont.....

We will teach our children Islamic supremacy from the very childhood. We will teach them not to compromise with Infidel. Once we do that from the very early age our children won’t hesitate to be martyr. We will take over the Europe first and then US will be the next. We already have a solid ground in the UK, Holland, Sweden, Spain, Italy, Germany, and now in the US.

Our children will marry Caucasian in Europe and in America. We will mixed with intricate fabric of the Western society but still will remember to Jihad when time comes. Who are we?

We are the “sleeper cells”.

We will raise our children to be loyal to Islam and Mohammad only. Everything else is secondary.

At the time of the real fight we will hold our own children as our armour. When American or Israeli troops shoot at us the world will be watching. Imagine,… Imagine the news in the world “Death of Muslim babies by infidels”.

We know CNN, ABC, CBS are broadcasting live. Al-Jazeera will pour gasoline on the fire. The news will spread like wildfire. “Americans killed 6 babies, 10 babies”. “Jews killed two women”,
Keep your Nukes in your curio cabinets. Keep your aircraft carrier or high-tech weaponry in the showcase. You can't use them against us because of your own higher moral standard. We will take the advantage of your higher moral standard and use it against you. We won’t hesitate to use our children as suicide bomber against you.

Visualize the news flash all over the world, …Moslem mother is sobbing, ….crying. ….Her babies are killed by Jews and Americans, the whole world is watching live. Hundreds of millions of Muslims all around the world are boiling. They will march through Europe. We will use our women to produce more babies who will in turn be used as armor/shield. Our babies are the gift from Allah for Jihad.
West manufactures their tanks in the factory. We will manufacture our military force by natural means, by producing more babies. That is the way it is cheaper.

Cont....

..Cont

You infidels at this site cannot defeat us. We are 1.2 billion. We will double again. Do you have enough bullets to kill us?

On the camera:

- We will always say, “Islam is the religion of Peace.”
- We will say, “Jihad is actually inner Jihad.”
- Moderate Muslim will say there is no link between Islam and Terrorism and the
West will believe it because the West is so gullible.
- Moderate Muslim all over the world will incubate Jihadist by their talk by defending Islam.
- Using Western Legal system we will assert our Sharia Laws, slowly but surely.
- We will increase in number. We will double again.

You will be impressed when you meet a moderate Muslim personally. As your next-door neighbour, coworker, student, teacher, engineer, professionals you may even like us. You will find us well mannered, polite, humble that will make you say, “wow, Muslims are good and peaceful people”, But, we will stab you in your back when you are sleeping as we did on 911.

There will be more 911 in Europe and in America. We will say, “We do not support terrorism but America got what it deserved.”

Muslims, CAIR, ISNA, MPAC and other international Islamic Organization will unite. We will partner with Leftist, ACLU, with Koffi Annan, and the UN, and if we have to then even with France. Fasten your seatbelt. The war of civilizations has just begun.

We will recite Quran and say Allah-Hu-Akbar before beheading infidels, as we have been doing it. We will video tape those and send it to all infidels to watch. They will surrender - ISLAM means surrender.

We will use your own values of kindness against you.

You are destined to loose! Chilling…..
Sent in by a fellow Patriot."

...

Constance,

I have a horrible feeling that you may be close to the mark.

If there isn't a violent split across and within the Muslim world in the next year or two, an overt rejection of terrorism and the defeat of ISIS with the active involvement of Jordan, the Saudis, Egypt, Morocco and Iran, then start to cautiously reconsider.

On the other hand, if the Afghani and Pakistani Taliban et al. take over Pakistan and ISIS is still around in a year or two, I'll give you full marks. Not that I want to :( Because then it will be on for young and old. Too bad, I wanted to die peacefully in my bed.

Joe

Erk...

Via Constance,

"THIS IS A WARNING TO ALL INFIDELS (NON BELIEVERS) ISSUED BY AN EX MUSLIM WHO KNOWS ABOUT THESE THINGS) IGNORE IT AT YOUR OWN PERIL!"

[Frequent frenzied outpouring No. 342]

Dear Poirot,

I vaguely recall that Constance is an
admirer of Francis of Assisi.
Perhaps the following quote is appropriate
considering her vast apetite for quoting from
disreputable sources on this forum and continuing
her vendetta against a select group of people:

"Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love."
(Francis of Assisi).

Hi Foxy,

So, you're implying that if someone shows love, everybody else will also show love, and the world will be at peace forever ?

If Francis travelled to Raqqa in 2015, what do you reckon his chances would be ?

The bad news, my dear Foxy, is that there is evil in the world. Goodness and kindness are interpreted, in that mindset, as weakness: these are the sort of people who would rob a crippled old lady, PRECISELY because she couldn't fight back.

ISIS controls an area bigger than South Australia, containing fifteen million people, nine universities and hundreds of hospitals and schools, not to mention an armoury big enough to fit out an army of half a million. A huge, evil force which, in time and if unchecked, will come to a place near you.

There's a time to be loving and kind and gentle and to cuddle kittens, and there's a time to oppose reactionary forces, a time when even St Francis would pick up a gun. Don't kid yourself.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

All I can politely suggest is for you
to go back and re-read the current
stream of posts by Constance. Then go back and
read the quote I cited from Francis of Assisi.
Then take an intelligent
guess as to why it is appropriate.

It may also help it you were to Google -
"Muslims Against Terrorism."

You may just see the bigger picture.
And the rants of Constance for what they really are.

Foxy,

Well, I suppose we'll see, won't we ?

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Many Muslims are already experiencing
the anti-Islam backlash as the following
link illustrates:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-16/hamad-sydney-siege-confronting-our-anti-islam-backlash/5969636

Foxy,

Yes, they have a huge job in front of them, an ideological revolution. I wish them the best of luck.

Joe

Focusing on Constance’s recent group of contiguous posts, I am in full agreement with what they say about the Moslem Fifth Column, its relationship with its ever-expanding active military wing and with its probably much greater reserve military wing. What brings them out in angry demonstrations however is not casualties from America’s and Israel’s colonial wars. Reflect on what has them on the streets in their thousands in the civilised world demanding beheadings and proclaiming their hatred of democracy, freedom, decency and the countries that foolishly give them a foothold. Every time, it is a slight to their lying, vicious paedophile “prophet” or their supposedly holy books. That’s what gets them screaming for blood. And they will be defeated only when their anti-human cult is reduced to a forgotten rump like the Branch Davidians or Charles Manson’s “Family”.
Planes and bombs won’t do the job though they have a role in combating the military wing.

Only a protracted ideological war against the Moslem cult can protect what humanity has gained in the Enlightenment and defended in the global War Against Fascism. That is where Constance’s argument, squarely directed against appeasing dhimmis, has a vital role.

The objectionable core of Islam is its SUPREMACISM. Theocratic supremacism (e.g. Islam, Church of Rome), national supremacism (e.g. PNAC) or ethnic supremacism (e.g. Zionism) are all threats to peace and freedom and all have created martyred victims in their tens of thousands.

Foxy,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall Constance citing St Francis of Assisi as her favourite saint.

Notwithstanding that you two "go back a long way", Joe appears to be patronising you to the max with his " my dear Foxy's" & "Love Joe's".

@Joe loudmouth --well said,well said.

The biggest thing Islam has going for is a collection of allied Islamo-sympathetic idiots in the West who know little about it, but are hell bent of making it out to be just another branch of Protestantism

Dear Poirot,

Thank You.

Yes, I think you're right about Francis of Assisi
and Constance.

As for Joe?

Perhaps that's simply
his style of posting. At least Joe's not abusive.

My dear Poirot,

Never let it be said that I discriminate against anybody :)

Love,

Joe

Foxy,

"As for Joe?

Perhaps that's simply
his style of posting...."

What it is is his style of patronisation...but fair enough if you like it.

"...At least Joe's not abusive."

Well, maybe not to you...he got something deleted to me recently if I recall.

..............

Joe,

Yes, yes very clever - and by "clever" I mean boring.

Ar least there's some wit on twitter.

Dear Poirot,

I take Joe's "endearments" merely as his
style of posting and I don't actually read anything
into them. It's his views on issues that interest
me.

I am sorry to hear
that he has been abusive to you.

Salaams
I thought it useful to provide what I consider a reality check: the teachings of Islam from a shaykh who has the knowledge and credentials to speak.

The teachings (link below) are in form Q&A sessions of lessons from a Shaykh to his students. The Shaykh is based in Jordan but many of his lessons are outside of Jordan. While you'll notice from his accent he was born and raised in the U.S. he was trained by traditional Islamic scholars.

A summary of what he has to say is as follows:

Shariah states: murder is illegal, obey the laws of the land; our response is limited to pray (do'a) against these acts insulting the Prophet; noone can be a law unto themselves; no Muslim has the right to tell another person how to behave if it is not against their religion/values (eg. no right to tell a Christian not to drink when in fact it is permissible under their religion); the support for boycotting (punishing a whole nation because of one cartoonist) is very weak under the Shariah

The Shaykh's personal opinion: remember such people say far worse things against God; speak to people because most of those who hate Muslims/Islam have never met a Muslim; people who do such things are seeking publicity so creating a furor by boycotting, demonstrating outside embassies, etc just gives them what they want; "He who laughs last..." : destiny is with those with strong family values, so raise kids that aren't spoilt and respect their elders.

cont..

cont..

Following the advice of the Shaykh to spend my time on more constructive pursuits, I will not be engaging any further in this thread. I certainly expect there will be those who'll try to misrepresent what the shaykh is saying. My response to this is: just listen to what the Shaykh has to say and make up our own mind. You can't discuss "the teachings of Islam" unless you listen to what is being taught to Muslims from those who have the knowledge and credentials to do so. This Shaykh has all of the above.
all the best

link:http://untotheone.com/index/dealing-with-blasphemers-of-the-prophet/
Note: you'll find 3 talks: the relevant section of the 2nd begins just before 5 minutes