Dearest Foxy,

I support the suggestions of Yuyutsu and Toni.

As for your interesting statement, that

"Islamic fundamentalism seems like an almost scandalous return to a medieval morality. I've written previously that it conjures forth images of women behind veils, of adulterers being stoned, of thieves having their hands cut off, of public floggings and executions, of martyrdom in holy wars, and, in extreme cases, of political fanaticism exemplified in aircraft hijackings and terrorist bombings"

you could have added: honour killings, child marriage, FGM, taking women into sex slavery, mass killing of men and boys, and so on.

So, what did you write which was inaccurate ? All of those, it seems, can be justified by some passage or other either in the Koran, or in following Hadiths (which, being more recent, would take precedence). You've said nothing wrong, or inaccurate, Foxy, even if some of those crimes are, indeed, newsworthy. 'Newsworthy' doesn't mean they aren't happening, even if they may not get into the Graudain or Fairfax papers.

Islam is not a 'race'. Islamism is one off-shoot, a very frequent and common one (actually in many forms) since 632 AD, from Islam. Not all Muslims are Islamists. Some are even perceived by others as apostates and unbelievers.

To attack Islamism (see your quote above) is most certainly not to attack all Muslims, or all of the people of the various 'races' to which Muslims may belong, i.e. pretty much all of the human race.

To condemn Islamism for its fascist brutality in furthering its uncivilized demands, is therefore not to attack Muslims. Let's bury that one, once and for all. Islamism is rightly attacked for its deeds, its purposes and its vile doctrines. I think the Left needs new bed-mates.

Lots of love,

Joe

Dear Is Mise,

No I have not read the Koran, nor the Bible, the Torah,
or any other holy book because I don't take any of
them literally. I judge people by the way they live their
lives not what's written in some book. If someone tells
me "it's God's will," My reaction is -"how do you know
what God's will is?" It's simply human interpretation.
And as some one once said - "The world is bleeding from
misinterpretation."

AJ Phillips,

<<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.>>

This depends how a person views Mother Teresa.

Surprised to read a columnist, questioning her sainthood, I found some "alternative facts", coming from New Internationalist, a socialist magazine.

The Author writing the opinion piece, Mari Marcel Thekaekara says: "Just before Mother Teresa’s canonisation, I wrote about how I grew up three minutes away from Mother Teresa’s convent. I'd detested her authoritarian ways and the dictatorial manner in which her order, and her nuns were controlled. At that stage, all of eighteen, full of the arrogance and self-righteousness of the young, I was vociferous about Mother Teresa, the petty, control freak."

She also says:

"No one had ever before done anything remotely like Mother Teresa’s order, namely picking up destitute and dying people off the pavements and giving them a clean place to die in dignity. So however much I disliked her petty, control freak ways – she read her nuns personal mail, they were allowed to write home only once or twice a year – I would be the first to admit that no one else did anything about the dying destitute people she rescued."

"Others, went too far in their criticism. Christopher Hitchens, stooped to appalling abuse levels calling her ‘a lying thieving Albanian dwarf’".

"I may not have personally liked the Mother. But neither can I – who could never replicate her sisters’ work of cleaning open sores and faeces, tending to leprosy patients and picking up live, aborted foetuses out of abortion clinic garbage pails – dare to hold forth about the work done for desperately poor people."

Mother Teresa is appreciated by some and not others. I would argue some people appreciate her sisters' work. Can I also recommend against the use of "pristine facts" or "legal elements" to try and close down the expressions of opinion from others.

Is Mise,

An ‘answer’ can be a solution or a mere response. I think phanto was referring to the former sense, you are obviously referring to the latter.

<<… I gave an answer that shewed that religion gave an answer where science can't, simple as that.>>

You’re forgetting about the placebo effect. That’s a scientific explanation.

<<The Church says that they happened so the Church gave an explanation.>>

And I say it was invisible pixies. There, now the Church and myself have given equally useful answers. Am I now superior to science in some way? Will you now hold me up as a source of information when science fails?

I don't think you will, and for the same reason you shouldn't be presenting religion as a source of answers.

NathanJ,

I don’t really care what Mother Teresa was like personally. It was her neglect of the suffering, while millions in donations disappeared to God-knows-where, that I have a problem with. So appalling were the conditions in which she kept the sick, that relatives weren’t even allowed to visit.

Of course, she preferred the hospitals in California when SHE wasn’t well. Apparently suffering is only virtuous and Christ-like when it’s endured by others.

<<Can I also recommend against the use of "pristine facts" or "legal elements" to try and close down the expressions of opinion from others.>>

You certainly can, NathanJ. I would recommend the same. That’s a pretty random thing to say, though.

Foxy:

“It was quite brave of you to try to present
to readers a different perspective from
the picture people get from the media about Islam.”

I don’t think Najla is brave – I think she is frightened. She does not like being a Muslim in a world where there is a lot of hostility to Islam and so she tries to smooth the waters as best she can.

Muslims should not justify their position. Either their religion is the truth or it is not. There is no room for deviation or compromise. What she wants is to try and bring non-Muslims around to her way of thinking so that she will not be challenged. She does not want to be challenged because that could raise doubts for her and it is the doubt that frightens her. If Islam is not the truth then her whole way of life is under threat.

She does not want to be understood – she wants to be left free of doubt. Understanding will not make people any less intolerant of Islam. You can be a world expert in Islam but still be intolerant of it. Explaining your faith does not alter the reality of what it is and to most westerners it is a primitive view of reality. No matter how much understanding we have of it nothing will make it any better.

She does not entertain the idea that Islam is not a primitive view of reality. She fully supports its teachings. There can be no compromise for them and certainly not enough for it to escape that fundamental description of being a primitive view of life and the world.

Moderate Muslims are a contradiction in terms because they will never be moderate enough to suit the west. They are not explaining Islam but pleading with the west to accept it.