I know the thread's moved on but just wanted to make a few observation concerning the sub-thread drawing parallels between the Bible and the Mohammadian holy scripts in regards to violence against others.

There can be no doubt that both have passages that presage and excuse violence in the name of their deity. But there is one fundamental difference which, if ignored, makes that discussion fraught.

Hirsi Ali observes, and she's neither the alone or the first in doing so, that the Koran can be sub-divided into the Meccan Koran and the Medinan Koran based on where they were 'written' or espoused by Mohamed. Its over-simplifying things, but essentially the Meccan Koran contains all of the 'Love-Thy-Neighbour' type of admonitions while the Medinan Koran contains the entreaties to kill and enslave the infidel. There are good historic reasons for this, which revolve around the relative strength of Mohamed's strategic position while in each of those cities.

Equally the Old Testament could be said to contain the 'Kill-thy-Neighbour' scripts while the NT is the equivalent to the Meccan scripts.

But here's the thing..the NT supersedes the OT for Christians where they conflict, while the more violent Medinan verses supersede the Meccan verses. Indeed Mohamed specifically told his followers that later verses take precedence where they are in conflict. (Jesus said something similar as I recall).

I think this is why it appears to be rather easy to radicalise those who were previously 'moderate' muslims. Moderate muslims tend to follow the Meccan texts and that is why we have large swathes of non-violent muslims and muslim countries. But if the fundamentalists can get hold of a believer and then expose them to the Medinan texts and the fact that they are both later and to be preferred, well, we aren't a million miles from a suicide bomber.

That, clearly, means that there are significant hurdles in trying to assimilate muslims into our (or any) community and why a violent generation can grow from moderate parents. The trick for the moderates will be to find a way to make the Meccan texts supreme.

To GrahamY

Islam teaches Muslims to fight, kill, and maim non Muslims, even those non Muslims that Muslims do not even know exist. That is the essential message of the Koran. I know that there are peace, love and mung bean passages in the Koran, but as Hirsan Ali has pointed out, those were put in at around the time when Mohammad was still weak and not sure of his power base. Once he was established, the mask came off and he became the mass murdering warlord who's written passages in his his religion's scriptures openly preached violence to spread itself.

The most notable aspect of every "moderate" Muslim, whether it is Nabila or Walled Ali, is that they will never, ever, criticise those quotes within the Koran or the Hadiths which openly preach violence towards non Muslims. Nowhere will any of them say that these passages must be abolished. The Bible has been edited so many times that the very latest version could have been printed by the Australian Human Rights Commission. Until the so called "moderate" Muslims call for the most offensive passages in their Koran to be stricken, I regard their endless platitudes with great suspicion and deep mistrust.

Nazis were just Germans, and Germans on the whole are nice people. Ku Klux Klansmen are just southern US whites, and southern US whites are very nice and polite people. But when any group of nice people embrace an extremist ideology they become collectively dangerous, especially when their ideology makes no pretence of being able to live in peace with the people that their ideology declares as their mortal enemies.

The funniest thing about your post is that you say that we "should not deal in stereotypes from either side." You then claimed that there are people contributing to this thread "who do not want to have an honest conversation." Prejudging and labelling those who oppose Nabila's obvious pro Islam propaganda as "dishonest", is stereotyping.

Lastly, Christianity does not oppose capitol punishment. the Ten Commandments state that "Thou Shalt Not Murder". "Murder" is defined as "unlawful killing."

GY: Najla is on the side of those who want to have an honest conversation. But reading this thread, too many don't want that conversation.

Graham, I do want to have an honest conversation. That’s why I ask questions, all of which are never answered directly & always deflected. How do you have a conversation with anyone like that. They always say we don’t understand Islam. Well I have been studying Islam since 1967 when I went to Malaysia. I was given a Malay/English Translation by the Imam of the oldest Mosque in South East Asia in Malacca. I do have a fair understanding & I’m learning more every day. The Hadith’s are the Rulings on the Koran by numerous Imams over the past 1300 years & make very interesting reading.

I can’t speak for others but I do know there are many who do want a real conversation. We are not getting that from the adherents & defenders of Islam. Especially adherents like our friend Iftikha in England.

Religion is mostly habit from our parents. If your parents are Catholic, then you grew up knowing all about Catholicity & you were taught not to like Other Protestant Denominations. If you were OPD they you were taught to hate Catholics. I guess if you were brought up Sunni you hated Si & Visa versa. Luckily Christians as a whole stopped killing each other about 300 years ago. Moslems haven’t reached that point yet & won’t for another 1000 years, if at all.

I saw a doco about Mother Teresa & the Nuns said she was a dragon & very abusive towards her Nuns.

Phanto,

"“Religion provides explanations for things that science can't”

Such as?"

The miracles at Lourdes for starters, or can you provide some rational explanation for what doctors have said to be medically inexplicable?

Toni,

Taqiyya seems to be a real issue, I haven't heard one Muslim say that what is written about it in Muslim religious writings is not current and does not apply to all Muslims.

mhaze,

The difference between dark matter and gods is that there is evidence for dark matter. Your analogy is invalid.

Also, Jesus never said anything about the New Testament superseding the Old Testament when they conflict. In fact, in the sermon on the mount Jesus specifically endorsed the Old Testament in its entirety.

--

Jayb,

Yes, Mother Teresa was a cynical fraud who left so many to suffer untreated and in pain because she believed in the virtues of suffering. Just imagine what she could have done if the millions she received in donations went to treating her victims.

--

Is Mise,

phanto simply asked a question, and a valid one at that. If you want to claim that the so-called miracle healings at Lordes are examples of divine intervention, then the onus is on you to prove that. Like I said the last time we discussed this, mistaking a lack of rational explanations for the alleged healings as evidence of divine intervention is the Argument from Ignorance fallacy, and expecting others to disprove them is the Shifting of the Burden of Proof fallacy. None of this changes because we're on another thread now.