Good piece Waleed I saw you on SBS and can see the inspiration for it. I don't know why people think Muslims are like paper dolls!

Great article. I'm already wincing at the thought of the bigotted posts set to appear here though...

The problem does not lie in the practise of Muslims of their religion. The problem happens when Islam is adopted as the basis of State law as it does not accomodate the democratic rights for others. It is the control freaks that threaten, "believe me of face threat". No true Islamic State can accomodate difference of religion. Observe the treatment of persons expressing religious dissent in Islamic communities, i.e. Salmon Rushdie.

Philo's logic is somewhat askew.

There is no logical conclusion that those attending a mosque or other Muslim organisation always wish to establish a theocratic government in Australia. I'm confident only a minority of Muslims would want this.

I'd liken Philo's fears to the Cubs or Brownies wishing to make their peculiar (but cute) customs mandatory in Australia.

I think Waleed is correct in effect saying that the PM would have been on mission impossible if he had sought a representative group of Muslims – witness the shambles earlier this week on Jennie Brockie’s Insight SBS. programme.

However I do think we should pull Waleed up on a couple of points:

Firstly, it is simply untrue to suggest that “the Muslims in Australia are as diverse as the world itself”. I remind Waleed that in the world today there are Christians Buddhists, etc, etc and the differences between such groups and Moslems are far, far greater that those within the Islamic community who after all are united by the call of the Minaret, despite what other differences they might have.

Secondly, Waleed advances the oft repeated claim that “Muslim Australia has, largely, come to feel alienated by the political conversation in this country”, seeking by so doing to advance the Muslim cause. Many sub groups within Australia, including other immigrant communities, the Christian Church, etc can say similar things. Muslims have to learn to fit in as best they can like the rest of us. They should not expect special privileges, and they do have to work hard at fitting in, so long as some within their community continue to hate the rest of us and remain willing to lend comfort and succour to the would be, could be Islamist terrorists living amongst them (and therefore us).

You are right. The level of intra-cultural variability is so high that assuming group homogeneity among those who declare themselves to be connected to or having shared values with other people who define themselves as Muslim, is absurd.

Similarly I believe that stereotyping a group based on specific cases that reflect individual and isolated behaviour (and nothing more) because the people or individuals involved in that case declare or feel an affiliation with others who define themselves as a belonging to the same group, is irrational.

Yep, totally agree Waleed,

on the flip side,

One size does fit all for xenophobic anti muslim, mono culturalist, true blue vein, redneck aussies.

The claim that the Muslim community “as a homogenous, coherent entity, simply does not exist” and that it is “a very diverse set of communities hailing from about 70 different nations and featuring a mind-boggling number of different cultures and languages” is undoubtedly true. It is also true of all other Australians. The difference is that the rest of us are not dominated by religion in everything we do and, if we do adhere to a religion it is a personal matter which does not clash with our secular policies of law and order, democracy and the rights of individuals. We don’t belong to a “Christian Australia” and, we do not recognise a “Muslim Australia”.

This “Muslim Australia” has, according to Waleed Aly, become concerned by some “negative images” such as the Tampa incident and mandatory detention of people illegally entering Australia; ASIO carrying out its lawful duty to combat terrorism, and “draconian” legislation with regard to terrorism. On the one hand we are told that Muslims in Australia are diverse just like the rest of us, but Waleed Aly claims to speak for “Muslim Australia”. I suggest that we are being told what Waleed Aly thinks.

“Wars with Afghanistan and Iraq” are also of concern to “Muslim Australia”. It’s strange that while many, if not most, of the people still prepared to stick with their countries welcomed the Taliban and Saddam being ousted, Muslim Australians, some of whom would have escaped these countries, have concerns about military action against the murderers still lurking there and deliberately (not accidentally) killing civilians.

I suspect that ordinary Muslims in Australia might just be getting on with their lives like the rest of us. I’d like to hear from some of them for a change instead of from so-called “community representatives” and self-styled experts.

"The difference is that the rest of us are not dominated by religion in everything we do"

Just because you define yourself as a Muslim does not mean it dominates every facet of you life.

For instance, I define myself as a Christian, but have never been to church and couldn't even tell you what the 10 commandments are. There are plenty of Muslim equivalents.

"The difference is that the rest of us are not dominated by religion in everything we do and, if we do adhere to a religion it is a personal matter which does not clash with our secular policies of law and order, democracy and the rights of individuals."

And if you read Cameron Riley's piece http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=216 you might want to reconsider you comment given the fact that there are democratic nations such as Indonesia, Bangladesh and Malaysia which have overwhelmingly adopted secular governments even though approximately 80% of their population defines themself as Muslim.

When did Waleed Aly claim to speak for all Australian Muslims? The most I've ever hear him say is that he speaks on behalf of his members that elected him. Sounds like a fair enough claim to me. Hardly self-appointed.

If anything, he's only ever said nobody can be the sole voice of Australian Muslims. In fact that's what this article is all about.

I think the identification of Muslim Australia is something that comes not from Muslims, but from government and society. The categorisation of Australian Muslims as one block is something that comes externally, not internally.

Sounds a bit rich to me to say we should just demand that Australian Muslims get on with it like everyone else. That would be fine, if - like with everyone else - we weren't demanding anything of Australian Muslims. I'm sure they'd love to move on, but it's a little difficult when you're being ordered to do the government's own security work for them (a task which is not in their power anyway). I think it's a good point that if the government's going to demand assistance, at the very least it can show a willingness to listen to Muslims.

And can we please stop asking Muslims to dob in terrorists. Like terrorists come with neon signs that point them out to other Muslims. Anyway, Australian Muslims have been providing intelligence to Australian authorities for ages. And that's more than people making demands of Muslims have usually done.

Waleed, another post for your 'nutbags' file.

My only problem with Islam is "Islam"...

I'm struggling to understand the psychology of how a person might, in today's world glorify National Socialism. Connection? simple, its founder did many wonderful things, had a lot of good ideas, swayed masses of people, was idolized by a generation, there was just one small matter ... the 'Jewish final solution' and a matter of 'master race'.

So, people look back today, and if they wish to persue NS. they must do some serious psychological re-alignment. They must first 'justify and rationalize' the 'liquidation of a few million people'. Then they must accept the underlying doctrines.

With Islam, I truly wonder at you and others state of mind, which has to do the same thing for the various documented (In Islamic sources) acts of atrocity, genocide, rape,torture and theft by Mohamed, which I might add will never go away. You must also adjust to the ideas of the 'eternal Quran' and its outlining of behavior of 'The Believers' which includes 'sex with those your right hand possesses'....

You also have to adjust to the idea of having up to 4 wives. This must be a struggle in the West where it is only legal to have one.

To expect thinking people to have any other than a realistic view of Islam and its spokespeople is optimistic in the extreme. Sure, there will be some on the left who are in denial about these things, but it doesn't change that they happened.

To describe such statements of history as 'vilification' is ludicrous.
I welcome any such statements about the sins of 'The Church' and have no thought whatsover to deny or rationalize them. I just point to Christ, and ask "compare... what do u see"? its easy.

But with Islam, there is no place to point to deflect the guilt and blame from your supposed prophet. The buck stops with him.

Look to Christ Jesus Waleed.. seek his forgiveness, His renewal, and you will discover life. When He returns, will you be ready ?

The fundamental misconception here was that Howard had a clear purpose when he set up the meeting. He didn't, he was simply paying lip-service to the need to be seen to "be doing something about domestic terrorism". In this way, he cannot be criticised for picking this person over that, since there was no real basis for selection or non-selection in the first place.

Think about it for a moment. If the objective is to "talk sense" to people who might do us harm, first you must identify them. Since it is unlikely you will be able to identify them, you have to select from people who by definition have no intention of harming anyone.

If there were the local Muslim equivalent of Sinn Fein, the IRA's so-called "political wing", talking with them might make some sense - he would be talking, if not to the organ-grinder, at least to the organ-grinder's monkey. But just to pick a few random civilians off the street for a chat seems particularly pointless.

So it was pure tokenism, and will continue to be so.

These meaningless gabfests have no more chance of improving our safety in the face of terrorist activity than would the simple enforcement of existing laws. It is pure public hand-wringing, nothing more, nothing less. Bush does it, Blair does it, so Howard does it too.

Waleed

Australian Muslims need to develop a substantial degree of trust with other Australians and the Australian Government - not the other way around as your final paragraph suggests.

Boaz_DAVID, what are you on about exactly? Not only is it hard to make sense of what you are saying, but you've thrown in an aggressive, attacking post amidst what I thought was some really interesting debating here. It has been a great discussion, but in regards to your posting - where does National Socialism fit in? And the whole thing about seeking Christ's forgiveness and all? What I would like to ask is this: Does it really matter?

Do we really need to judge the religion to decide whether we accept the people? Is there anything in Islam that is, in any real sense, different to any other religion we tolerate in Australia? What concerns me is that outside a forum like this, where people who are knowledgeable about the topic eloquently discuss their point of view, outside in the electorates, people know very little of Islam. What I think is utterly fantastic about people like Waleed Aly, is that finally we have an Islamic figure in our media, who can communicate with the masses.

This is not an attack, but listening to Muslim Clerics stumble with the English language when trying to explain an issue hinders their perception in the greater community. Waleed Aly is demonstrating quite a talent before the cameras and in print media and I really think the biggest plus out of all of this, is this unearthing of eloquent Muslim communicators that the Australian public can listen to and understand.

After that, make up whatever decision you like about the issue.

The Article is sort of right.
Many people of all cultures and races have become Muslim in the past. Although it is true that a large amount of Muslims are Arab, some are of African descent, European Descent, or East Asian descent. They all interpret the Koran in different ways. So, yeah, a representative sample of muslims is probably impossible. You might as well look for good representation amongst Christians, or Hindus or any other religion (some of which are far more diverse).

But I must say that I respectfully disagree with Waleed when he claims that the Australian Government must show that it is with the Muslim community. By providing Citizenship and state services, I think that the government as already done that. What is needed is for the Muslim community to announce in a "One Big Statement" kind of thing, that although it might disagree on politics, the Muslim community fully backs the people of this country and the freedoms given in the Consitution. I don't think they have done that yet. If they do, I'm sure that their image would improve.

I understand that there's racism on both sides of this issue, but that can be overcome quite easily, although some effort must be made by both sides. You can't expect results if you don't really work for it.

Waleed Aly simply reiterates to those who know, that certain ethnic groups will never mix in because they are just too racist and ethnocentric to see past their noses. As if every other community isn't diverse! There are many different European communities and Asian communities in Australia, they don't all need some preliminary check in with their particular ethnic boss before listening to and obeying the wishes of the wider Australian community. The fact that all the mosques are ethnically divided says everything, coupled with how they apparently all need representatives with the same coloured skin to speak for their communities - bigots! The NSW government has Italian-Australians in the key ministerial positions, I don't have to be worried that they will do "special ethnic favours" for only Italians, why should I be, we are all living in Australia now. Why would anyone even think otherwise unless Waleed is saying that a Lebanese only cares and does for the Lebanese,and so on.
Also, why condemn the ASIO raids? It uncovered an incredibly stupid bigot named Omran Bakri, and the only reason people who are guilty sometimes don't get charged is because our legal system is over complicated to protect citizens. However, Bakri should think himself lucky we don't run on the simplistic "sharia" as we would have cut his head off just for "appearing" seditious.
As for you bagging the mandatory detention, what does it specifically have to do with muslims anyway? Besides, I read the various HREOC reports into detention centres and the only "hell" in there is that created by the muslim culture. Single women have to stay locked in their rooms as young muslim men pressure them for sex. Muslim clerics from the Australain community can't be bothered to visit and perform religious duties. Why does the muslim community pretentd they care about muslims in detention when none of them help the ones who are there, it is only other left-wing Austaralians who do anything, and in my opinion there are worse things to worry about like kids on drugs at Cabramatta and the homeless.

A couple of things (from the Lateline muslim forum) no one seemed to pick up on.
But anyway, at that forum (Lateline) a muslim women called "sister" something, done a freudian slip when she admitted that most muslim mothers she knows despise their children having Australain or European freinds, she said they should just inspect their families closer to see if they are on the "same level".
Isn't this racism? Imagine if some Anglo mother from Campletown said it. Imagine. But the audience missed it, even Brockie missed it.
Another point is when a concerned Australian man made the observation that even after 88 Australians were killed in Bali no muslims were attacked besides maybe being called a name, then he went on to call the Hizb-ut-tahir representative a bigot (Hizb-ut-tahir are an Islamic group dedicated to turning the world into a muslim caliphate under sharia law, they support the stoning to death of gays and so-called adulterers), who clearly is a bigot, but the majority of the muslim audience laughed at him as though his words were out of place. A neo-nazi or just a white supremecist doesn't even say or espouse half the things some of these muslim groups like Hizb-ut-tahir espouse, but could you imagine what would happen if a white supremecist group did say such stuff? That they want the whole world to be their way. The most they ever do is demand the right to have their nation for their culture but they still get banned etc.
When the negro-muslim-american said to Jenny Brockie that his comments (which were that no muslim can be friends with kafir(us)) were taken out of context like a "soundbite", the whole muslim audience clapped and laughed in agreeance. To the average Australian out there, this tells us glowingly that the avarage muslim in the community doesn't think that bigotry is bigotry, somehow being muslim overrides it. This is what needs to change Waleed, the muslim racism towards everyone else, their hostility. Why do we only have this problem with the muslim community and not say the Greeks or Koreans?

ISSAN
Firstly, my post was primarily directed to the articles Author.
But
if you don't see the connection between my statement about National Socialism and Islam, please re-read my post, I made the connection specific and clearly. I'll briefly repeat here.
National Socialism cannot succeed unless people accept its founder, in order to progress the movement, an adherant must process known information about Hitlers activity and behavior re Jews and many others. They need to psychologicaly 'justify' such behavior before they can participate in the movement or they will experience cognitive dissonance (headache, conflict). A muslim must do the same in regard to the behavior of Mohamed. This places a 'knowledgeable' muslim smack bang in the middle of justifying Mohamed's atrocities, and participating in a movement which continues to rationalize/justify/commit them to this day. (911, beheadings,bombings ?) If this does not concern you, then perhaps you might like to re-think this ? If you desire documentary references I can provide them.(Already done repeatedly in the forum)

So, in response to your question "Is there anything about Islam.... worse than other religions" the answer is a resounding yes. Unless you can accept that women are only worth 50% of a man when it comes to legal testimony, and numerous other issues.

BURNSY, I looked in vain for reports of the sexual abuse you referred to, any source ?

UNCONQUERED SON. I have to agree with your criticism of Ali's position that the Aust Gov has to show support for the Islamic community... sounds very much like tail wagging dog to me. Other way around would be considered 'normal'

None of these problems would arise (at would at least be minimised)if we screened people coming here more effectively, with strategic questions on culture, religion and society requiring a committment from applicants, prior to coming. Citizenship/Residency would also be conditional on them having a clean slate in regard to such issues.
(which would include activism against government policy, including detention of illegal would be migrants, foreign policy etc)

The best defense against powerful but evil ideas is a confident personal committment to Christ.

"Muslim Australia will naturally listen to the government..."
"...the government must cultivate a substantial degree of trust with Muslim Australia. It must demonstrate to Australian Muslims that the government is with them."

The fact is that for Muslims, everybody else must accomodate them and their feelings. Oh yes, and it is never their fault. The burden is always on the other side. Why is it a 'favor' for Muslims to listen? and that Muslims 'naturally' my arse!

Muslims are intellectually dishonest and morally corrupt. They talk of peace and tolerance, and then kill and oppress. Look at Muslim societies.

Notice that terrorists are also never 'real' Muslims. It is kind of funny that those four young men were good Muslims on July 1 and on July 6. Before entering the tube on July 7, if anyone had asked, they would have certainly been considered 'good' outstanding Muslim men. When they boarded the trains they were still good Muslims. Twenty minutes later they were no longer 'good' Muslims, according to the Islamic community, but ignorant deceived young men. Now we have a tape from one of them saying that Britain, the most open tolerant Country in Europe, is evil and treats Muslims badly. Gratitude!

This is the one year aniversary of the Beslin tragedy, pulled off why who? The media always reported it was Chechen rebels, but why were they yellig "Allahu Akbar" (Allah is great!) and not "Free Chechnya"? Does this make you think? Or does the death of 300 children by people yelling "Allahu Akbar" have nothing to do with Islam?

Walleed, why should I trust a people that follows a man that was a torturer? Read your histories! Your great prophet was a thug. Oh yes, 4 wives for ye, 11 plus for me (by special dispensation, of course) and don't forget the slave girls. Great man, hum? Do you consider Mohammed a good man and example?

Tell me, Walheed, are you a good Muslim? Like a July 6 good Muslim?

Kactuz

This would some it up right. Paint them black and send them back.

The vitriol, bigotry and ignorance in the above posts is appalling.

Muslims have lived here for generations and are as Australian as the next person.

Waleed, you and your family would be honoured guests in my home any time.

Shoshana,

If you had been following posts on this Forum for sometime you would realise the high regard that almost all have for Waleed. The issue is not Muslims in Australia, the problem is Islam in Australia. We can respect most Muslims we cannot accept those wishing to enforce Islam upon Australia as a divine culture and law, by degrading, threatening and abusing women, and people who do not believe in Islam

Shoshana, you may be refering to me...

Please understand that these are serious issues. We are talking about oppression and discrimination, pain and suffering, rape and hate, torture and death. As you may have noticed, for some reason when we talk about all of these, we often end up talking about a certain religion. Guess which one?

Do you have a problem with people asking these questions and wanting answers? Is it "vitriol" or "bigotry" to demand that a group of people treat others as they want to be treated? Is it "ignorance" to ask them about events in their own histories?

Tell me, Shoshona, do you think a man that ordered body parts cut off, hot nails put through eyes and then let the victim die of thirst (finally) is a good person? Do you not think this might be relevant in determining the character of a person and a group that follows that person?

Notice the tone of the article - that tells you pretty much how Muslims see dialogue with others. Why is it a "favor" to Muslims to consider the opinion of the rest of society?

The reason I insist is because they don't answer. Can you imagine why?

The meeting of "moderate" Muslims with the PM is a bad joke. It is just Political Correctness. It is a waste of time. Radical Muslims kill, moderate Muslims make excuses - that is the way it is. Muslims will do what Muslims do. Wait, watch and see. I wish I could say otherwise, but the facts are pretty clear - and sad.

John AKA Kactuz

John AKA Kactuz

Thanks for your last paragraph. Spot on with me.

Cheers
Kay

I mix with Muslims from different countries on a regular basis, have lived with them for a few weeks, travelled with them. I find them unerringly polite, courteous and considerate. My experience seems to be very different from that of other posters.

I am not denying there are serious problems, of course not. But it is with a minority. Comments like " Paint them black and send them back” and “Muslims are intellectually dishonest and morally corrupt.” don’t help. Reads to me that whatever is said, it will be disbelieved if it’s a Muslim saying it.

My experience of belonging to a minority group is if the wider community is hostile, the minority group is less inclined to want to mix. Which isn’t helpful to anyone.

So maybe to further the discussion, can we establish common ground? Maybe Philo’s comments “The issue is not Muslims in Australia” could be a startig point.

Well the minority is like a cancer cut them out or it will spread. So put all the Muslims in jail. And only let the ones that don’t fail the interrogations back into the community.

In the current climate I think it would be helpful if we look at the sort of muslim leader that ordinary Australians would admire. The greatest of these, in my opinion, would be Kemal Ataturk, the father of modern Turkey, who was responsible for creating Turkey as a modern secular state where the muslim religion could be followed without it being a theocracy. One of the ironies of war is that when it is fought cleanly, as the Gallipoli campaign was, both sides respect each other afterwards. Of course Australia had a special relationship with Ataturk, as we gave him his start, as he was the commander of the forces opposing the diggers at Gallipoli. I am sure he would be as mortified at the perversion of the muslim religion that is being practiced by the terrorists as we are.

* And they wonder why I don't call myself Australian.

Boaz_DAVID, quite obviously it wasn't clear and defined, but thank you for the clarification. It is an extraordinarily broad brush you are stroking with here. Indeed, a lot of the posts here are, where we define an entire community by the actions of a few. You give no room for decency, compassion, respect or honour that is profound in the Islamic religion TODAY. And this is my point, David. You're backlash is based on interpretations of centuries old literature. You take no account of the evolution of the religion. And to say there hasn't been any, is a profound misconception. I'm not saying for one second there aren't any bad elements in Islam, and sure some of those elements exist in Australia - but I don't find them any more dangerous than the WASP's who gathered at the Sydney Forum last week to talk about - amongst other things - the return to the White Australia Policy.

Feel free to post links to whatever documentation you like David, I won't be reading any of it. Simply put, there is no absolute truth, there is no absolute interpretation. And historically, Christianity's treatment of women is only marginally better than that of Islam and certainly nothing to be proud of. Maybe that's not the why Christ wanted it - but in most circles, that is how it was interpreted. Get it?

Clearly we are divided into those who will vilify Islam no matter how succint, erudite, reasonable, rational and accessible an article may be. Such as the latest from Waleed Aly. Why take time to consider what muslims such as Waleed and Irfan are saying whan there is an opportunity to sink the boot in.

What creates hatred? Tolerance and acceptance or alienation and vilification?

Rhetorical questions - not seeking answers. Should be bleeding obvious even to the bigots on this forum.

NOW - back to the thread. John Howard's meeting was little more than a publicity stunt to give the appearance of 'doing something'. If it was serious about creating a highway for communication he would not have selected 'certain' muslims over others - Waleed states >>In particular there was a notable absence of women and young people<<
How true. But then Johnny wants a meeting on his terms - not anyone else's. Hence a meeting the went nowhere and achieved nothing. It was all about grandstanding.

Waleed points out that Islam is >>a very diverse set of communities hailing from about 70 different nations, featuring a mind-boggling number of different cultures and languages<<

A valid point, something women fighting for equality should be able to identify with. Not all muslims are the same, they are not a single cohesive homogenous group. This is why Howard's meeting went nowhere - it was mission impossible.

However, the diversity of muslim people is also a strength - they are not, in unity, campaigning for a take over of the western world - any more than feminists are vying for world domination. They are, to once again point out the bleeding obvious, human beings and like most of us are simply trying to get along.

It is only a MINORITY who are terrorists. Just like in Ireland it was only a MINORITY who caused havoc and terror.

To all who have thus far used this thread to vilify Islam, PLEASE read the article. Give an opinion - just for a change. Leave your hatred at the door. It achieves nothing and goes nowhere.

BOAZ_David, all you are really doing is downplaying the existence of culturally prescribed and equally horrendous acts of violence against women in White Western communities. Don't descend into illusions of false virtue, Christians are equally as violent.

kactuz writes... "They talk of peace and tolerance, and then kill and oppress. Look at Muslim societies."

kactuz, look at what's going on in New Orleans; rape, gang war, looting, shooting; at civilians and government personel etc. Did we get the same reports from Indonesia during the Tsunami disaster where 80% of the population is Muslim?

ISSAN
in order to respond meaningfully to your post I need to make reference to a couple of key words in it. "painting with a broad brush".

On that point, I'm not sure, but I suspect you are understanding my attack on the fundamental roots of Islam as meaning something of the order "Paint them black and send them back" to coin a phrase used here. Or.. 'all muslims are evil and bad'....

That has not been my contention, please re-examine my 'actual' contention and then we can proceed. I'm arguing that a knowledgable Muslim, (such as the author) who is aware of the behavior of the founder, must rationalise or justify some very awful acts, which I listed.

The 'average cultural muslim' who was simply born into the faith/tradition is on the surface no better or worse than you and I.... until... the pressure is applied against their faith, just as you are seeing a 'wasp' reaction to a percieved attack against the prevailing culture of Australia which is Anglo/Eurpean.
Pressure doesn't really change people, like money and power, it just shows what we are really like.

In psychological terms, this is the point where all people look back to their foundations, roots, scriptures, constitution etc. They seek comfort and support.

Now that, is the point which is critical in terms of social compatability and cohesian. When 2 groups find they are diametrically opposed, and become increasingly entrenched, it fuels disharmony which leads to aggression.

The only solution to this is pro-active government policy to minimise the likelihood.

You should be able to grapple with this without 'stonewalling' your opponent.

Xena... bless u .. defender of those who would regard you as "slut, trash,evil" because of your own public confession(here) of bisexuality. At least your a good 'aussie' in the sense of defending the underdog, but beware mate... the dog on the bottom also has teeth, which may end up biting 'you'.

Waleed, I must question the wisdom of selecting migrants from countries who don't have any understanding of our history or how we in Australia try to live up to the ideals of a democracy.

Our traditional allies are countries that are located in the West and we are more likely to side with those countries should hostilities demand it. Therefore, we are more likely to take action in Afghanistan fighting with the USA. It is most unlikely that we will fight alongside Afghanistan against the USA.

If I enter a mosque I will be required to remove my shoes. They are the rules I am asked to respect them even if I disagree. When people try and arrive here unlawfully they will go into a detention. That is a rule of ours which people should respect. By the way, people other than muslims are in our detention centres.

The dog wags the tail. The tail doesn't wag the dog.

Part 1
Kenny, spendocrat (keep on wincing, or is that mincing?), plantagenet (he's confident!), strayan ( he believes.....in over-complicated, pretentious tosser-speak), ranier (you seem to have developed the bad habit of cultural self-loathing) and Shoshana (wrapped in a mantle of righteousness).
[Deleted for being merely abusive.]
Taqiyya and smokescreens from the man who brought us the 2 Dannys (who fled here from Pakistan because of persecution by Muslims, only to have state sanctioned persecution by Muslims here) debacle and Salam Cafe ( here's a tip Waleed - try to stop everyone talking at once - and at least make an attempt to be interesting).
Waleed Ali displays the usual "we are the victims" mentality with "... forged by a series of negative images: Tampa, the mandatory detention of asylum seekers, ASIO raids that led to no arrests, draconian anti-terror legislation and wars with Afghanistan and Iraq." Draconian? I wonder what word he uses to describe stoning, public beheading, FGM, real torture, ie - teeth-pulling, electrodes in the eye of one's dick, amputation, eye-gouging etc.
The people most stressed out by the July 7 mass murder attacks in Britain?- Muslim Londoners. "We are the victims" strategy again.
"....featuring a mind-boggling number of different cultures and languages." Is this what we want for Australia?
Make it as complicated as possible and turn a vibrant culture into a mad scientist's nightmare? Mix lots of conflicting cultures and tribalism together and see what happens?-- Lebanon and the Balkans is what happens.
"...the Afghan cameleers who built so much of this country"- What a load of bollocks! Once again we have a Muslim re-writing history.... CONT. NEXT POST.

Part 2
".... the Muslim community is a vital ally, and a source of intelligence, in this struggle...... Muslims have demonstrated this repeatedly." - ASIO raids that led to no arrests? What we need is ASIO raids that lead to bulk arrests.
And why isn't John Howard having meetings with Buddhist, Atheist, Hindu, Christian or Jewish "leaders"?
Because none of them are grievance-mongers and have terror cells, hate speeches in mosques, religiously sanctioned deception, raping, murder of critics and apostates, bombings, honor-killings, FGM, forced marriages, discrimination against non-Muslims, calls for sharia law and global caliphate, drug-rings etc etc in nearly every country on this planet, except maybe Greenland and Iceland.
Also, the above religions/philosophies ALL have a "Golden Rule" -- Do unto others .... etc.
Islam and Satanism do not!
Any organization whose primary manual encourages the murder of non-believers is not a religion, it is (at best) a cult and it adherants should be treated accordingly. The Qur'an is such a book and contains no less than 19 separate passages REQUIRING its followers to kill non-believers.
Islamic terrorism cannot be defeated by sugarcoating the violent teachings of the Qur'an.We have to tell the truth and expose the Qur'an, not dissimulate the truth and play the game of taqiyya. Islam cannot be reformed, as Nazism cannot be reformed. The only way to combat Islamic terrorism is to denounce the Qur'an that teaches violence, hate and terrorism.
We who are opposed to the global jihad, HATE racist/totalitarian ideologies and our catchcry is the paradoxical "DEATH TO ALL FANATICS!"

Skid Marx, the majority of 250 000 Muslims Australian manage to go about their day without acting on the Qur'ans teachings that according to you are lessons on "violence, hate and terrorism." How do explain that? If the Qur'an has such explanatory and determining power over the lives of Muslim people, how do explain that only a handful of people in the Muslim community are behaving violently?

When you refer to the "primary manual [which] encourages the murder of non-believers", are you aware that the vast majority of Muslim Australians don't take that literally? Are you aware that the comments by fundamentalist Muslim clerics when they make a distinction between 'non-believers' and 'believers' aren't necessarily making a distinction between people who define themselves as Muslim and people who define themselves as Christian?

Strayan

And isn't it interesting that you refer to Muslim Australians - rather than Australian Muslims - that says it all for me.

To Shashana and all similar,

Was it bigotry and immoral for America or the UK to destroy Nazism both ideologically and physically? Is it bigotry to call a working class Australian who thinks his wife's place is in the kitchen & in bed a male pig? Is it bigotry and vitriol to try to stop, whether physically or ideologically or both, a philosophy that can't consider anyone different(kafir)a friend and who's fundamental code (sharia) openly admits is in conflict with basic human rights?
It is this general attitude that swims throughout the muslim world, and it is this attitude that leads to the millions of poor, low-skilled asian workers in the RICH GULF COUNTRIES being treated like animals, it is the second largest(behind the hundreds of millions of slaves that the Chinese regime are using to build up their empire)group of "slaves" that exist today in the world. Is it wrong or bigotted to be vocally against this? Or is it really that you and your ilk think the state of your "queesiness" more important than the lives of non-white people? That rather than point out an obvious problem (even if this is half of all muslims for example, it should make no difference unless one is a coward)of racism and gender apartheid, lest one of the "good guys" might feel smeared. Well I will tell you this : what of the rest of us? And anyway, how "good" is anyone if they can't seperate themselves from their race for five minutes to objectively anylise a real problem? Does every white person feel "targeted" when a black person points out the obvious racism of the kkk or a neo-nazi? Why should we?
We cannot attack even Bin Laden without the most moderate muslim taking offence, which they clearly show by not directly condemning him, because "I don't know the man". If this is how they think, why do they believe anything, why are they religious, they don't know Muhommed first hand.

Hey Strayan,
I saw those reports of rape and needless looting and I was disusted. But guess what, a couple of predominantly poor white areas right near the main city and there was looting for food and water sure, but not for grand pianos or tvs etc. There were no rapes there. I hate to point it out but I have to, but all the rapes and gangs shooting at police and such were blacks. Some Australians caught in there say they felt the anger from some black thugs targeting them because they were white.
Now, before I go, can I ask how I can say this any different? How can I portray a disgusting criminal & racial event and not offend some other black people? They shouldn't be offended if I point out a group of "black kkk" they should instead help me to denounce it.
I challenge anyone to explain to me how, short of igoring it,
one can communicate this racist event in some other non-offending manner!

Shoshana,

It is not a 'minority' of Muslims that are the problem. It is the majority - those who are are either indifferent, intimidated or outright hostile to Western civilization. Because of this Muslims create problems wherever they go. They are in denial. I see you also cannot answer a simple question. I see that you want don't want to ask yourself the hard questions. Muslims are diverse, yes, but the hate, anger and intolerance is a trademark of Islam wherever it is, in some places more, and in some places less, but it's always there.

Yes, dialogue such as this can cause ill feelings and make Muslims resentful - but not telling the truth and not facing reality is much much worse.

The issue is Muslims, and not just in Australia. A quote from Germany...
(quote) A peek into a mosque in Cologne-Müllheim, Berlin, Neukölln or Hamburg-Altona during Friday prayers is enough to see that hate sits deep within these groups and that nothing can be achieved by arguing with them.

That is where the not exactly peaceable writings of the (Maulawis), the so-called Islamic scholars, are pushed into the community. That is where schoolbooks with radical contents are distributed for free. We all used to believe that these were the confused thougts of a handful of illiterates. How naive! We finally comprehend that they want to destroy us and our ideals. Even here, in Germany ... (unquote)
From: http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2004/03/eine_muslimin_s.html

Ask yourself why this is. Ask yourself what is it that makes Islam universally synonymous with hate and anger. There are no moderate Muslims, only those who condemn terror (wink, wink) and then make excuses, saying that is not the real Islam.

Shoshana, you want common ground? You say there are problems with Islam, but your common ground is that "Muslims are not the issue." Stupid! Not logical! Here is my common ground: Torture is evil. People who torture are evil scum. Will you accept that as common ground? Can we agree on this?

Kactuz, AKA John, signing off.

PS: Kemal Ataturk was, in my opinion, a great man

Kactuz,

The fallacy in your argument is ‘muslim majority’. Most average muslims go on about the day to day life and I can say that from recent experience traveling across few countries. They adopt modernization and moderation in every aspect of their day to day lives. The loud minority is amplified with the media attention and thats not exclusive to Islam BTW.

Boaz,

Speaking of modernization or modern interpretation of the Quran, the 4 wives myth is and has always been a measure/permit used only for extreme conditions (stated as incomeless orphan or widow sponsorship) and the default in the Quran clearly is one wife. While I agree that this right was abused by Arabic culture, this is neither the norm nor a rule in Islam. But of course as someone who studied Islam you knew that but you have an amazing preference for half truth!

MS Burns,

Not seen the program you are talking about but as a parent I like to know who my daughter is socializing with and their families as well. My Catholic neighbours here are doing the very same thing. This has nothing to do with racism but common interest: if you are a tennis player you won’t be out playing with a bunch of footy fans!

David Palmer,

Religion in modern days is the logic for heart and minds of individuals to achieve inner peace, and good understanding and interaction with other humans and creatures around us.

Now, you and other people who criticize Islamist fanaticism are fanatics yourselves!
you refer on another posting to “Christian lands” in the middle east and Africa. Only individuals can have a religious belief of their choice and “Christian lands” concept should die in you first then you will be able to criticize Islamist extremism.

Xena,

Great to read your postings again, I had a long break in the Egypt and it was ‘nice warm’ 40 degrees as the locals called it.

Good morning fellow H :)

Now.. on the wives thing. Yes, I accept and agree that 'to a degree' your understanding is correct. But as you say I speak half truth, u also do this. There is the suggestion that 'have one for your religion' ... right ? :) yes.. bingo. So an extra wife can be 'merely' for the sake of religion? hmmmm...

Now, further, you paint the picture in a way which attempts to make it as acceptable as possible, but why am I doubtful about this ? Simple, the close association of sexual activity in the life of the prophet. "We used to say he had the sexual strength of 30 men" yep.. u know that one too, and it was in the context of 'he visited his wives one after the other in an hour or 2' which was why they made that comment.

Also, I've seen it in Islamic literature where they say "The rules for the masses don't apply to the Prophet" i.e. 'Do what I say, not what I do" I can give you a reference, but no need.

Ash, I fully understand that you have grown up with Islam, and that your sincere heart wishes to find no fault in it, because of your culture and upbringing. But an outsider looking at the full picture can see just one thing. A socially motivated man who had some kind of experience which convinced him sufficiently that he was somehow called of God, but who then used this increasingly as a tool for his own power and influence especially as he became more militarily powerful. I see so many 'revelations of convenience' which you seem to be blind to. The way in which he seems to fluctuate between the 'prophet' and the 'politician' and the 'schemer' are very obvious. Anyway... never mind, we can continue to debate.

You should know that such things are not recorded about Christ. There is a world/universe of difference. (and no, I don't accept our Scriptures are corrupted. that is an Islamic tool of self defense to say that)

Hey Ash, hope you didn't get sunburned ;-)

Now BD, I have altered the following excerpt from your post - hopefully you will have enough intelligence to determine why.

"David, I fully understand that you have grown up with Christianity, and that your sincere heart wishes to find no fault in it, because of your culture and upbringing. But an outsider looking at the full picture can see just one thing." That you are completely blind to and intolerant of the views of others. That you are on a 'crusade' to promote christianity as THE perfect religion and to completely demonise any other religions - currently Islam.

You are so insulting to other people - how many times do you have to be told that there is good and bad in ALL religions. Please, please stop this rant - you only make yourself look like an intolerant fool and you further the cause of any extremists.

BTW the topic is about John Howard's meeting with a limited range of representatives of Islam. Just so you know. You seem to lose the plot so easily.

Hi Kactuz. You ask me for my views on torture? I’ve been involved with torture and trauma survivors for years, including many from the Middle East, and Muslims from all over the world.

These are the people I mix with, they just want to get on with their lives. They are no threat to anyone.

“The authority of the Bible is not as appears to be in your mind Rob. You seem to suggest that you are expecting 100% unambiguous, literal statements about every area of life. In terms of culture and language this is not possible for any faith. Time changes meanings.
The authority to which we appeal, is that God in his providential wisdom has communicated His will and person to us in Christ. It is clearly a step of faith.”

Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 5 July 2005 9:46:07 AM
The Forum > Article Comments > Nutbags, McCarthyism and western Muslims

“Rob, the events of Joshua, and all references to judgements in the Old testament, must be read in full context, historical and theological, and I hope you will go back and start at Genesis, and then go right through to the end of Deuteronomy. Then keep going to Revelation :)

Try to enter into the feeling of the life in those days, the mood, the cultural and historical ethnic/tribal atmosphere. See how humanity progessed from 'So and so the son of .... who then became a tribe then a country/nation…..

Suffice to say, NO ONE who applies sound principles of understanding, that they would apply to every day life today, would ever think of using those events in any other way than to point to the specific judgement of God for particular reasons at a particular time, or, the defense of a nation. Extrapolating from those events to 'general principles, currently applicable' is just a no brainer, no legs, does not happen….”

Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 15 July 2005 1:12:56 PM
The Forum > Article Comments > Nutbags, McCarthyism and western Muslims

Now, just from these two quotes, it seems that BD, you can put a spin on what was read from your Bible, but you take literal interpretations from the Qu’ran. How is it remotely balanced to do this? As usual, you show your bias, narrow minded view of the world outside of your religion. Try arguing in a reasoned and balanced light for a change.

BD,

Not sure why every comment bring you to try and compare prophets (I don’t have this luxury cause I love Jesus and Mohamed equally).

First, in the Abrahamic religions polygamy was allowed to Abraham before anyone else (Take “Hagar as a wife” that is the Old Testament not the Quran).

Second, polygamy is not relevant to prophethood, Solomon was a king and prophet and so was David, according to your story, Lot was polygamous…with his own daughters..

Third, your typical ‘by the book’ missionary user manual argument: run away from the Quran and use a questionable hadith: a reference that is neither divine nor accurate in most cases. Hadith is regarded as good stories about the prophet collected 200 years later. Whatever conflicts the Quran is regraded as untrue but Muslims don’t have the filtration layer that you have. Early days of Christianity the church banned more than sixty bibles, imagine if they were still floating until today!

As for your denial that Islam became a religion and a fast growing one, you are far behind the rest of the world BD. The US and even parts of Europe moved on from the Judeo-Christian exclusive slogan and replaced it with the Abraham religions. Hope you will get there. Its 2005 now, denial preceeds acceptance according to Microsoft Bill Gates!.

Last on your assumptions: I didn’t grow up with “Islamic culture” and tradition but in the French Catholic De La Salle College in Cairo. I even used to play volley ball in the nearby church and listen to jokes about muslims all day.

BTW, Don’t you find it shameful for your ‘tolerance’ that the Quran states that good Christians (5: 155-177) can go to heaven while you guys claim exclusivity to it?...hmmm…

Hi Xena,

I got sunburnt actually and I didn’t notice but it was worth every ‘ouch’. The beach was great and had lots of fun with family and friends.

Cheers,

The religious, “I'm right, your wrong, my god is best, your god is worse, our understanding and implementation of our religious fantasies are right, your religious illusions are wrong.”

But you all still worship the same god. Really rational thinking with this lot.

The most common point within all posts by the religious, is that none of them every answer something that actually challenges their fallacies. All they can do is descend into scripture, by pass the question or disappear for a while.

Could it be that religion is unsustainable when faced with factual reality.

Could it be that unless the religious have psychological power and control over the populance, their beliefs are totally worthless and lose there relevance. If not, then why must they besiege us with the crap that history always shows us, leads only to violence

Could it be that the natural disasters that are starting to effect the countries of the dominant religious factions are messages from their god, (the creator of all) expressing his joy at the work they are doing within his creation. If so, it is so sad for those that are not at fault.

Why do the religions express their desire for equality and racial acceptance, then provide practices and examples that are the opposite.

There is no equality in Islam, or christianity, their practices belie that. Christians believe in patriarchy, you only have to read their posts to see that.

Muslims believe in the suppression of women and the destruction of all other social ways in preference to their own

In all forums, threads and posts, I have yet to read of one Muslim that class themselves as an Australian muslim and not a muslim Australian. A lot of christians are the same, christianity and its demands first, their country second. Great example, The USA, we all see where the Christian religious right have their priorities, in Iraq, not there own country and people. Even though Iraq has been invaded by their enemy, chritianity, the are still turning against themselves.

Yep, the religious sure have their acts together haven't they.

We will soon realise what Islam is about in Australia as Kurt Kennedy registers his new Political Party in the ACT "The Best Allah Party" and then into other States. His policy is to take control of the Senate and introduce Qur'anic laws in Australia. He stated that Bin Larden is a good Muslim, it will be interesting to see how and if moderate Muslims will rally behind this attempt at grabbing power to introduce Shari'ah. John Howard now has a(serpent)I meant subtle rival, for his place. Arabic Christians who fled the Middle East because of Islamic persecution are insensed by this move, and are speaking out.

Philo

If what you say is true - I am apalled and indeed frightened.

strayan, how do you know what "... majority of 250 000 Muslims " are up to? Do you perhaps "know" 10-20? And given the Muslim practice of taqiyya, are you sure that when their outward facade is friendly, inside they're not thinking you're a kaffir dog? When Muslims are a minority in Infidel lands, they're not so blatant (they plot violence in secret) and practice lesser jihads; demographic - outbreeding us (they reproduce at rates 3-4 times higher than us), propaganda (seems to be working, judging by some of the posts here) and by Da’wa - the Call to Islam (converts in prisons, "marginalized" minorities etc).
..."according to you are lessons on "violence, hate and terrorism."" Not according to me. If you'd bothered to research the Qur'an, hadith and sira' and learnt basic history (only 1350 years, check out India, Persia, Egypt, Afghanistan, Middle East, Armenia, the Balkans etc, all those [superior to Islam] civilizations, temples, libraries, statues, art works etc destroyed forever, all those people exterminated - 60-80 million Hindus in a 200 year period ) you wouldn't ask such stupid questions.
If you're so hip, explain where I've got it wrong - check these out: Qur'an 9:5, 9:29, 8:12, 5:51, 33:60, 4:34, 4:15, 33:26, 47:4, 48:29, 5:41and Tabari IX:69, Bukhari:V4B52N268, Ishaq:519 and Ishaq:365/Tabari VII:94. These cover supremecism, terrorism, deception, dhimmitude and misogyny. There are more. And don't take my word for it, see what ex-Muslims (they've been there, done that) like Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina and Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali have to say. Incidentally, they all have received death-threats for apostacy and live in the West.
"are you aware that the vast majority of Muslim Australians don't take that literally?" How do you know this? Or do you "wish" it were true? I've been studying these loons for a long time.As a devout Atheist, EXCUSE ME! for criticizing an ideology that wants me dead!
If you're gonna write in and give your opinion, do a bit of research first and get some FACTS.
Just because you 'wish' or 'guess' something is true doesn't make it right.

Fellow Human...

Listen carefully. Please understand that my position is that the 'muslim majority’ is INDIFFERENT and in DENIAL. Those are carefully chosen words. Most are not evil or criminals, but they cannot be counted upon to stand up for equality and human rights. Yes, they will condemn terror, but usually with a caveat. They also refuse to apply the standards to themselves that they demand for others. I can only conclude, as a group, that Muslims cannot be trusted.

Those are hard words, but they are based upon a mountain of evidence: history, current events, the situation of minorities and other groups in Islamic societies, and tons of posts on the Internet (such as here) trying to reason with Muslims and find common ground.

I read 10-15 Muslims blogs daily and Islamic information sites. I have tried to debate on Islamic sites, but my posts are deleted. I wish every person - Muslims and non-Muslim - as well as every person in the West would read the opinions on this site.

There is a dark under-current to Islam that says when it is in control, non-Muslims will be very sorry if they offend it in any way. Muslims may let you live, but you must shut up and be third class citizens (see http://www.copts.net/demands.asp).

Shoshana. I didn't ask 'about' torture. I asked you to condemn people who torture. You won't, you can't. See, folks - that's my point. This whole "Mohammed is a torturer" is just the point of the Islamic Iceberg that treatens to sink democratic, liberal socities. Can you trust a people who not only won't condemn a torturer, but add PBUM (Praise be unto him, my arse) after his name and consider him an example to emulate?

I am just about had it with dialogue. For two months I have been trying to get a Muslim to either deny their own histories, or admit that their great prophet of Islam was scum. With one half-hearted exception (doubted the stories), it has been futile.

The implications of this are monumental, and frightening. Think about this!

Kactuz

FellowH

In sound biblical interpretation, we must see 'who' said what.
It was SARAH who told Abraham to take Hagar, and it was the cultural thing to do then, but it was by no means God's will, as shown by the promise that Abraham would bear a child thru Sarah.
We cannot take every phrase uttered by every person and use it to justify all things. Mr half truth :)
Polygamy is an intresting study for sure, but by the time of Mohamed, there had been 600yrs of "An elder will be the husband of ONE wife" etc etc. It seems Mohamed was not in the loop when that value was made known, or perhaps it just did not 'suit his personality, preference passions and plan' ?

WHO...IS A PROPHET

Ash, the old testament clearly distinguishes between 'Prophet' and 'King' but allows for a degree of 'prophetic utterance' from kings, such as David, and Solomon. Now, if you look closely at the book of Kings, and especially at the works of prophet Amos, you will see that such cruelty is acceptable to God. You also find in both Solomon and David's case repentance for wrong doing. Not in Mohameds
True prophets, were those like Isaiah, Jeremiah,Ezekiel, Amos etc etc.

If you use the behavior of kings as a basis for doctrine, then why not use some of the bad kings ? clearly that is firstly unbiblical and secondly plain dangerous and even silly.

'GOOD CHRISTIANS' can goto heaven in an Islamic world ? then why does anyone need to become Muslim or confess "Mohamed is Allah's messenger" or.. will that make them a 'good' Christian. Sorry, the only person of any background who will be in Glory is he/she who has turned from sin and believed in Christ. "There is no other name under heaven, by which we must be saved" and that includes Mohamed. We are no more exclusive than scripture. So, i urge you to come to Him.
You were brought up by ur parents dude.. u were 'educated' at Delasalle.

BD,

I am simply quoting what the reference that muslims believe is a word of God and you know my reference is correct. Was pointing that Muslims that Good Christians can go to heaven as per above quote. You don’t have anything similar in your teachings although you claim you are more tolerant and accommodating.

SkidMatrix,

You spend too much time on answering-islam.org (ever noticed everything against Islam have a .org in it. $$$) but don’t hold us accountable for your ignorance mate. You made it up, repeated it to yourself until you believed it.

Kaktuz,

Copts.net is mostly by Christian separatism and most of it is not even endorsed by Pope Shenouda of the Alexandria Church. Why are they then supporting and voting for the existing president in the first democratic elections? They have Coptic Christmas as a public holiday and the Egyptian treasure among other key figures are Christians. What is happening in Egypt however is Theo-nepotism in some extreme cases: a Christian business operator will hire only Christians and some muslims do the same.

Some interfaith discrimination there is pure tribalism: ie a Christian copt girl will be killed by her family if she marries a muslim or a protestant (only be thrown out if she marries a Catholic). I lived in Egypt for 29 years.

Alchemist,

I am an Australian muslim suffering from a reverse oppression from the women in my life: my wife and two daughters. Even on father’s day had to make breakfast, change nappies, wash the dishes.

Seriously now, agree there is oppression against women in the world, but Islam is the least faith in the Abrahamic religions that could preach it. Medieval Europe burnt 400,000 women with red hair and green eyes. From 1940 to 1960 French men raped more than 2 million women in Algeria (after killing 1 million). How is that Islam related?

My point is: fanaticism is not exclusive to Islam. As soon as the religion comes out of hearts & mind to become land, resource, policy, wealth related, then it is all bad practice of a good religion

To all:

Re Philo's mention of an 'Islamic political party' in Australia, I actually thought he was joking at first, then I checked it out, its real. Very 'Sharia' oriented, and specifically 'Islamic'.

Now, I feel totally vindicated in my previous comments concerning Islam and "Political Stability". I've said that in connection with 2 other points.

1/ Social Cohesian.
2/ Cultural Compatability.
3/ Political Stability.

The REASON I mention political stability (if anyone can remember back far enough) is because I KNOW from personal experience how easy it is to manipulate democracy even though you may have less than 2% of the population. Having lived IN such a seat, and having influence over radio broadcasts which were listened to IN that seat.. one realizes the potential, specially when most of the people in that seat do not share the prevailing governments values/goals.

If a government is having just a ONE seat majority, to lose '1' seat will mean a change of government, a change of chief minister, and a re-shaping of the history of the country.

I'm often going on about the danger of ethnic/religious minorities who are quite conversant with these realities, and now we are SEEING IT BEFORE OUR EYES........

In the same way Family First, or the 'Religious Right' (so called) can use its influence, so can an extremist group like 'Best Allah' party ? (what a name ) They may well be able to capture the vote of sufficient 'dissillusioned muslims' and win just 'one' seat, which would give them signficant deal making power.

Ash.... u can say what you like, but we know history, little anecdotes mean nothing. Read about Siege of Vienna, and the Battle of Tours. You mob tried to take over the world buddy, we wont let that ever happen again... ever... ever :)

Boaz, every so often you should take your own advice, and apply it rigorously to your own posts.

>>We cannot take every phrase uttered by every person and use it to justify all things.<<

But this is exactly and precisely and consistently what you have been up to in your references to Islam, its laws and customs. You have been unashamedly selective, unremittingly one-eyed and persistently censorious in your approach, and seem to take pleasure in doing so.

The article to which you are attaching your comments makes the point that "one size doesn't fit all". You clearly disagree, but instead of discussing the point, you simply charge ahead as if it were completely obvious that you are right.

Have you ever considered self-awareness training? It might help, you know.

"Medieval Europe burnt 400,000 women with red hair and green eyes"

Come on FH?!

If this were true, then Europe wouldn't have survived (nor would red heads with green eyes!) Can you sight where this 'fact' came from? Can you express it as a % of the total of the Medieval European population. Which city had the best kill rate?

If you do analyse this kind of statement, you will see how silly it really is... and thank your/our Christian God that those De La Salle brothers were able to give you an education, more than those rich sheiks offer their subjects...

Reality Check,

First there is no real doc on the number of women burnt in medieval
Europe (canadian Burning times said 9 millions and genocide.org said documented 150,000).

Second, does the number really matter? I guess we can tell Algerians to feel better than French killed "only" 1 million?

And whats with the "Christian God" ...how big is your ego? I did not hear anything similar from French monks in 14 years of education.

pppplease!.
:):)

MS Burns, your remarks are spot on. If a couple of Australians bombed the Eifel tower, I'd be ashamed to be an Australian and I would surely denounce them. I would want to know why and how a couple of aussies could have done such an act. If I was an Australian living in France, I would be furious that these Australian terrorists had undermined the reputatation of aussies as peace lovers and made the French suspicious of me. However, if I secretly approved of the actions because of say eg. french nuclear testing in the pacific, then I would probably wanna harp on about that issue and while not saying that the Aussie terrorists were right to bomb the Eifel tower, I may not be aggressively condemning them. I'd be trying to hint that they kinda deserved it.

I think most aussie muslims are trying to say that the West deserves what they get from Osama Bin laden/terrosrism, that they kinda asked for it. Their issues are the usual; Israel/Palestine/Iraq. They may not approve of his tactics, but they feel empathy for his cause.

To all posters

The topic on this thread is about Howard's meeting with a select number of Muslim leaders. I believe that Waleed's point was that the meeting was not inclusive enough to be of benefit to anyone. I have tried to put this simply. I hope this brief summary isn't too difficult to follow.

Now, the bulk of posts on this thread have been about how 'bad' Islam apparently is - this is completely OFF TOPIC. In fact not a single post on this thread by Boaz refers to the topic at all.

This constitutes a complete lack of courtesy to others on this forum who would like to discuss the thread.

There is a plethora of Islam bashing throughout OLO - now, kiddies, just this once could we please have some comment relating to the topic - regardless of your personal feelings about Islam or Christianity or flying broomsticks.

Please, anyone?

I am sure the Prime Minister thought long and hard about who he would invite to the Summit. No matter who he decided on there would undoubtedly be Muslims and Muslim groups who felt they had been left out.
Just perusing the list of 51 organisations who wrote to the PM when they were excluded makes one realise how big the problem is [see Statement at http://www.dawa.net.au/Statement%20to%20the%20delegates%20of%20the%20PMs%20summit%20220805.pdf ]
Of course leaving out those who are more 'radical' (though in the Statement they reject such terms] runs the risk of marginalising and separating the Islamic community further. Some leaders said that those not invited would not be inclined - or required - to listen when told how to act by those who attended.
Then there is the question of what really is the belief of Muslims and how do these groups differ in their application of those beliefs...
The Islamic Council of Victoria, for which Waleed Aly is a spokesman, says on its website,
"The main objectives of the ICV according to the constitution are:
(1) To vigilantly maintain and apply the true Islamic doctrines as, contained in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah as practiced by the Holy Prophet Mohamed (May Allah's Blessings and Mercy be Upon Him) at all times in the carrying out of the objects of this Constitution."
Other groups would also claim that as their focus. The question is how this really plays out in practice.

“Ash.... u can say what you like, but we know history, little anecdotes mean nothing. Read about Siege of Vienna, and the Battle of Tours.”

And the same can be said about Christianity…

“You mob tried to take over the world buddy, we wont let that ever happen again... ever... ever :) “

If only we could say the same for Christianity….

Reason.

Read the Pact of Umar and then look at the world, where 'Christianity' is the prevailing cultural flavor, and ask. "Who is the preferrable"? "Under whom is their greater freedom ?"

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pact-umar.html

You are confusing 'Christianity' with 'territorial expansion' and blending the 2. I repeat (as I've done on numerous occasions) when you can justify your statement in terms of Christs teaching, example I'll consider you have made a 'killer point'. Until then, please learn to differentiate between human greed and lust for power, and the Biblical Christian faith.

In regard to Islam, the same cannot be said. This is so fundamental and crucial, I'm a bit concerned that you are not actually looking at the facts as they stand.

With regard to the topic, "No one Muslim fits all" sure, when referring to how various Islamic groups practice their faith. But looking at the foundation which they are all based on, then we have the worry. They are all based on Mohamed and the Quran and Hadith.

Some are more like Ash and Irfan, others are more like Sheik Imran. The important question is "Which is closer to the example and teaching of their founder".....

Boaz - "the important question is" will you ever make a post on this thread which makes a clear and plausible comment on Waleed's article?

Fellow Human,
it's all good and well to reflect on horrible events in history, but what we are on about with the muslim atrocities is happenning today, not last century. Just take the millions of low-skilled Asian workers in the Rich Arab Gulf states alone and this is a disgusting form of slavery. Or indeed, what of the gender apartheid in those same states? Or the condoning by most muslims worldwide of the terrorist attacks in London and New York? That's right, they all condoned it with their constant "it's bad BUT...". Millions of British citizens marched against Blair entering the iraq war, so what justifies blowing up innocent Brits who are probably on their side?
I would give them more political credit if they strictly attacked political or government targets (although I happen to disagree with them entirely) rather than innocent people. But I know why they attacked innocent people on their way to work. Because they want to burn some "white flesh", that's why the Bali bombers called their operation "white meat", they simply want to hurt white people. Iraq and Afganistan could be a severe injustice (I don't personally think so, I happen to think that the system of Capitalism is the best option the middle east has of picking themselves up out of "dull culture", just like the Europeans used capitalism and representative government to "de-border" them. Look at Europe today compared to fifty years ago!)but this cannot justify the slaughter of innocent people whom many of which actually were against these wars. What's even worse is when it is condemned with a qualifying "but" by all the muslims world-wide. This is simply revenge; not a political statement.
Remember to note next time you hear a muslim extremist (like sheik Omran or the Hizb-ut-tahir brothers etc.)say "I condemn the killing of innocent non-combatants", they actually mean not kafir (meaning kafir-us-are all guilty by default)and also all kafir are ragarded as combatants. So, remember this next time you hear one of those extremist guys say this next time, and keep an eye out for their huge smirk.

It's probably OK not to be too worried about Kurt Kennedy and his Islamist Party. See his (pre-conversion) manifesto for the 2004 ACT election (http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/44687/20041015/freedom.homemail.com.au/), which indicates he may well be an industrial grade nutbag. Although someone on ACT politics blog knows him and suggests he's crazy like a fox, and simply trying to scam money from the unwitting. His earlier manifesto has about as much credibility as that of the Sun-Ripened Warm Tomato Party, which contested a NSW Upper House election. But without the playfulness.

<<<Muslim Australia has, largely, come to feel alienated by the political conversation in this country. Its impression of government has been forged by a series of negative images: Tampa, the mandatory detention of asylum seekers, ASIO raids that led to no arrests, draconian anti-terror legislation and wars with Afghanistan and Iraq. Remedial work is required.>>>

aargh.. naggging women :)

1/ Alienation. by political conversation or by religious dictates about food which would prevent most if not all serious muslims from coming to your home and sharing a meal.

2/ Negative Images. Tampa, etc.. hmm are all these negative images aimed at all muslims ? But the dewsy is this 'Iraq and Afghanistan'..

Waleed.. what the heck do you mean ? ! Afghanistan was a huge training camp for Islamic terrorists, Iraq, was the removal of a brutal, murderous, hateful, raping,pillaging, torturing disgusting dictator.... so why is the 'Islamic community'complaining about these ? I can only guess that in regard to Iraq, most of those doing the complaining are Sunnis ? or deluded Shia's (anyone who complains about those who have given them the political power that Sadaam denied them is delusional.)

Not all of 'Muslim Australia' ?... (I take exception to that term immediately. "Australian Muslims" if you please.) was represented at the Howard talkfest. Ok.. so we could have brought many others, and the diversity would have been totally unproductive, They would have whined about foreign policy etc...sorry.. we have an elected government who decides our foreign policy in our national best interests.

To be frank, we are not interested in the opinions of the Quranic Muslims. I have zero time for those who (like yourself) on the ICV who's goals are to promote Islam 'as practiced by Mohamed' I read in

Quran 4.24 Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess"

In context. this means 'married women who you have captured', u can have sex with. RIGHT DOWN TO TODAY ! because this is the 'holy and noble Quran' which is 'eternal and abiding'......unchanging...or did I miss something ?

All I am saying is; learn to differentiate between Islam, muslim and Islamists.
If the Gulf states have Asian workers who accept a tax free low pay. Purely economical formulas, to source cheap labour like outsourcing (Most recruiter for cheap labour there are American companies who, btw, source Mexican labour to the US building industry).

What does all of that have to do with religion? You just want to see religion in it that’s all.

Second on method of expression, I do agree we should be doing a lot more in the face of extremism but average muslims are not used to marching in the streets to denounce or support. You made an assumption that if muslims are not in the streets denouncing then they are OK with it because this is how you express yourself. Sorry your prejudism and assumptions are your responsibility alone. Islam have a single reference which does not support or endorce any sort, form, shape of terrorism or murder.

BD,

You remind of the good old missionary, read my muslim jokes on making fun of Islam! : ) : )

boaz, are you saying that the sum of human nature is his/her religion? that our nature will always acquiesce to the dictates of religious text? So it is in a Muslim's nature to rape and murder from the day they are born? That it is impossible for a Muslim to decide that rape and murder is wrong? What a ridiculous idea. Where does that leave people who believe Christ was nothing more than a charlatan trying to bed a prostitute, or believe that Mohammad fell in love with a rival chief's wife, or that Moses was a man who smoked too many illegal substances? How do we define our natures - we don't have a religion to give us that definition. I'm thinking I'm a pretty good bloke, actually.

I'm sorry, I just find it hard to believe that people are incapable of following the law because of religion. Most of Muslim Australia - yes, I think the semantic crap about what comes first is childish too - seem to be juggling the two just fine. You might get the occassional black sheep, but that's no different to any other society. The London bombings killed only a score more than Martin Bryant in Tasmania. Yet when that tragedy occurred, not much was said about teaching Australian values to White Australia.

Finally, I get to the point with Waleed Aly's article. I think the Muslim Community is speaking to the wrong person. John Howard is the last person the Muslim's need to convince. The people they need to speak to are the people in our state school's, our retirement homes, our workplaces. There are so many organisations representing the Muslim community, it really should be taken advantage of - mobilise the masses and instead of speaking to one man who ceased representing Australia five years ago, speak to the people themselves. I think their approach is a little askew.

Fellow_Human (Part-time_Android?).
I've never heard of answering-islam.org, but I'll check it out. Enough with the insults and your titanic denial.
Is that all you've got? I made it up? Did you stamp your foot in petulance and have a hissy-fit? My ignorance eh? Come on smarty-pants, PROVE ME WRONG.
Incidentally, I love what you did with my nom de guerre (SkidMatrix). It has an Iain M. Banks/Thomas Pynchon-esque sound to it. Thanx, matey-boy.
I eagerly await your refutation.

Trinity - Please have the common decency to 'shut your festering gob' and stop being so earnest. Skip the bits you don't want to read. What are you? Some kind of thread-nazi? You fill me with inertia.

Graham Young, Chief Editor, OLO.
So, you've had complaints about one phrase I wrote (now deleted), alluding to the sycophantic posturing of some OLO posters.
If it is offensive to use a quote from "Rick" from the TV comedy "The Young Ones", then I am disappointed that the complainants are so thin skinned and lily-livered that they can't engage ME in robust debate and have to scuttle to "sir" to tell me to stop being horrid. I hope I don't get deleted for the Monty Python quote above.
Let me get this straight; when in Muslim lands, Infidels have to moderate their behaviour so as not to offend Muslims and when in Infidel lands Infidels have to moderate their behaviour so as not to offend Muslims?
That seems fair. Tell that to Salman Rushdie and the ghost of Theo van Gogh!
Freedom of speech is the freedom to be inflammatory and deliberately provocative.

I was watching Lateline last night and saw Waleed make some good points about the new laws against terrorism. Those who value their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression should be very concerned.

Much love to all

Yes, I also saw that. Waleed, you came across really well, very sensible and articulate :)

Those new proposals do sound rather dodgy. You could be held for questioning for 14 days without charge?! No thank you.

Nick I,

John Howard has won two elections and consolidated his majority in the past five years - sounds like the people think he represents Australia just fine.

Its a pity you resort to such a stupid off the cuff dig at JH when what the rest of what you said made sense. Everyone should be out there engaging with the communities they live in - it grows social capital and creates trust.

t.u.s.

SkidMatrix,

Apples & oranges in the mix.
First Theo Van Gogh story: pure tribalism. The man made a movie calling all Muslims goat fu…ers..Now you go into a bar in Houston Texas and call all Texan Americans the same word….lets see if any parts of you will come back. Another example, last year a Christian monk in Egypt was forcing women into pervert sexual relations after their confession. The man was arrested and the local newspaper that talked about the incident was destroyed by local Christians. A clear sign of tribalism is the extended blanket that link belief, race and actions.

Second, Salman Rushdie and “Le loup et le Chaperon rouge” known as Irshad Manji:

While I am not defending the Iranian regime fatwa at the time, There is a lot of what we call “Fatwa best sellers” which is in essence a simple formula for desperate writers:

Pick a controversial subject, invoke anger and then market the book.
I read a couple of Irshad Manji book: her lack of understanding of Islam can only be superseded with her self conflicting writing style.
None of the Loup & et le Chaperon rouge writers have substance in my view.

It would be interesting to know what sense of compassion the various Muslim groups attending their talkfest on terrorism today, has for Americans who lost loved ones in the twin towers on this very aniversary day [9/11].

Though America is largely a rough and decadent society, there are many individuals who pray for a spiritual change in the life of the nation and they are not proposing changes in laws by committing terrorist acts, but personal moral change of hearts and minds that can only happen from within the individual themselves.

Fellow_Human. What on earth are you wittering on about? Apples & oranges in the mix? What drugs are you on?
In a previous post I invited you to PROVE ME WRONG after you said that I "made it up". I threw down the gauntlet and you picked up a bogey-encrusted handkerchief. You have all the debating skills of a squirrel and the vegetable-cunning of a potato. I'm still waiting for your refutation (no ridiculous tangents please) of the original issues.
As for "Theo Van Gogh story: pure tribalism. The man made a movie calling all Muslims goat fu…ers."
Tribalism? Van Gogh made a documentary, written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Dutch MP and ex-Muslim, called Submission (Islam), about the plight of Muslim women and the Qur'anic texts that promote wife beating and subjugation (see Qur'an 4:15, 4:34, 2:223, Tabari IX:113, Tabari I:280, Ishaq:496 and Bukhari, vol.7, book 72, no.715). He made the quote "goat fu…ers" in an interview some time before he made Submission. Are you saying he DESERVED to have his throat slit and have Islamic mumbo-jumbo stuck to his chest with a dagger, for daring to criticise Islam? Critics of Islam, and there are multitudes of them, have the absolute right to speak the truth -- which is apparently what you seem incapable of facing or seeing exposed.
"...Christian monk in Egypt was forcing women into pervert sexual relations..." tribalism, Theo Van Gogh - what, exactly, is your point? Salman Rushdie......Irshad Manji (never read her, but will now)? "None...have substance in my view". If you don't like it, don't read it. Was Rushdie calling for the destruction of Western culture? Death to unbelievers? Dhimmitude? Global dominance? Honestly, expecting logical debate with you and some of the other drabs in this forum is like expecting ravens to sing Be-bop underwater.

I, too, saw Lateline with Waleed Ali (nice tie, shame about the dodgy rhetoric).
Yes, those who value their rights to freedom of speech should be very concerned. But not about the new proposed anti-terrorism laws (in fact, I'd like to see a much more aggressive approach).
Why is it so hard for so many people to make the distinction between freedom of speech and speech that is directed toward the destruction of the society that gave us freedom of speech in the first place, and replace it with a 'fear society'? Freedom of speech was not meant to be and should not be taken to be a death wish.
"Those new proposals do sound rather dodgy" eh? Calling for the demise of Australia as it is presently constituted and its subjugation under Islamic law is to be protected as freedom of expression? Have Western societies no right to protect themselves from the spread of such ideas?
Trouble is, Islam as a religion does not have much time for such decadent, Western, Secular-Judaeo-Christian notions as freedom of speech (except to use it to eventually eradicate it) — and, more dangerously still, there are altogether too many leftists around prepared to pay obeisance to such repulsive and authoritarian instincts.
There is a time for peace and there is a time for war. When you are attacked, you must fight back. If you choose peace, when the enemy wants to kill you, you have chosen death.
More abhorrent than war is making peace with evil. In the words of the 18th Century British parliamentarian Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Those who advocate peace with Islam are fools.
Let's remove these masks of deception. Those who advocate “peace” and demand more appeasements and concessions for Muslims are not really working for peace. They are either the enemy itself, or the “useful idiots” working for the enemy.

Allan Behm is a strategy and risk adviser. From 1990 to 1994 he was responsible for national counter-terrorism policy in the Attorney-General's Department. He makes the following observations regarding the new terrorism laws in an article in the Age.

"What these measures fail to grasp is that terrorist cells cannot be eliminated using the traditional tools of legislation and law enforcement. They are not like criminal conspiracies that have structure, leaders, management and bureaucracy. Terrorist cells are ephemeral: they coalesce around specific terrorist operations, then mutate as other opportunities appear. They are opportunistic rather than targeted, which explains why terrorist events cannot be prevented absolutely. What governments, acting co-operatively, must do is to attack the causes and motives of terrorism by addressing the issues that alienate vulnerable communities and generate radicalism.

Australian governments have traditionally shied away from granting what are tantamount to royal commission powers to the police. The scope for abuse is too great. Yet the apparently unlimited scope of the notice to produce "information that will assist with the investigation of terrorism and other serious offences" has the potential to undermine both legal professional privilege and the protection of media sources. Similarly, the preventive detention proposal is far too open-ended, and lacks any sunset provisions that would remove it from the statute books when it is no longer needed. What is more alarming, however, is that these stern measures are unsupported by argument and evidence of threat. Nor is there any analysis of their likely effectiveness. And accountability is totally overlooked. It is here that one might suspect the victory of politics over reason.

Australia will not be more secure by becoming less free: our real defence is the rule of law, inclusiveness and prosperity.

http://theage.com.au/news/opinion/taking-away-freedom-wont-make-country-safer/2005/09/11/1126377201189.html

To Fellow Human,
I challenge you to prove to me that most of the "low-skilled" workers in the "RICH" gulf states are not from predominantly Phillipines, Indonesia, malaysia, etc.
And they are treated inhumanly. In the case of the Philipino workers, the money that they send home to their country amounts to the single biggest income source for their national economy. In a case study done by "Jane A. Margold, on Philipino migrant workers in the middle east", she found that many are not paid, abused, racially humiliated, etc. The only reason it still is allowed to happen is because the workers are poor and cannot defend themsleves.
Anyway, how does this connect to Islam? Well, I was getting at the concept of "dimitude" and various other things mentioned in the Quaran that tell muslims to disrespect others who are different. This is clearly a strong reason, since Islam has been a part of Arab culture for 1400 years. Also, if you take a little look at any islamic country, especially the Arab ones, you will find extreme divisions based on ethnicity and religion. Another more recent reason I think this is the genocide currently happenning in Sudan, where blacks are being swept out by the Arab militias. Why do we hear almost nothing from the muslim world?
Take Keysar Trad alone, a representative of the Lebanese Muslim Association, in 2002 at UWS there was a conference on "Islam & Homosexuality"(see the "GreenLeft Weekly website for links). Present was a certain Sheik Shadi who called for gays to be stoned to death in Australia and Keysar Trad, standing next to him, then told all muslim Australians to ignore discrimination laws when it comes to dealing with gays. This is just one of a thousand things I could bring up about the leaders who regular muslims like yourself do not denounce or even care to denounce. How do you expect other Austarlians to not think that your whole community is bigotted and racist and never fitting in out of disrespect?

Usual Suspect,

Sorry mate, was not having a dig. Just counting words. What I meant is that John Howard will accept the efforts of the Muslim community in Australia and will even put forward their arguments and grievances to the Australian Community on their behalf. He's the middle man between Muslims and mainstream Australia because Muslims have little in the way of representation that is coherent and eloquent. But I think everyone prefers it when people fight their own battles and Muslims going to Howard is not the way i would push this. I think it would be better for Muslims to get out in the community themselves and cut out the middle man and confront the elements of our society that are sceptical of their efforts.

Hope that clears things

Talks with Muslims are useless, unless both sides are honest. This is not the case. The PM is being PC and the Muslims are not being sincere. Yes, they may be 'moderates' and they might even believe their own words, but it is all empty noises.

What we have is a fundamental 'disconnect' between Muslims and non-Muslims - or two different worlds. Consider this, for 2 months I have been trying to find a Muslim who will condemn Mohammed for acts of torture described in Islamic histories. I have tried Islamic Q&A sites, blogs, forums and even sent emails to Imams. I have individually challenged Waleed Aly, Irfan Yusuf , Bashir Goth, Xena, Unconquered, Rancitas, Rossco, Shoshana, Trinity and Fellow Human here at OLO and none of them will condemn torture if done by Islam's prophet. This is a project I started to see if I could find common ground on basic principles -- and there should be nothing easier than this…. If a certain group cannot condemn torture except when others do it, then there is no common ground and dialogue is useless (I have saved the posts, replies and entire threads and I'll put them on the Internet). The project is over. It is impossible.

That shows you how far apart we are. I would never sit at a table to negotiate with people that think some torture is justifiable. Islam has a deep dark problem and it is up to the Muslims themselves to fix it. They, however, are in even deeper denial and cannot even consider the problem, much less resolve it.

Things will get much worse, and there is nothing we can do about it -- except tell the truth. Don't count on the politicians to do it, they have no spines. Our dear leaders can meet with Muslims and they can say sweet things to each other until the cows come home, and nothing will change. The differences are too great. Bad times are coming and there will be major Muslim rioting in Western countries with 5 years (probably Sweden, Holland or England).

Kactu

Kactuz, are we talking about the same kind of torture that is being dished out at Guantanamo Bay? I'd imagine some muslims find it hard to sit at a table with a government willing to imprison hundreds of people for years without trial.

We could sit here and discuss every issue you and others may have with Islam and it will be a tit-for-tat argument because everything you complain about regarding muslims is reflected in your own society. And that reflection has nothing to do with Islam's influence either.

I like the word 'disconnected'. Here, I agree in part, that Australia has several disconnected communities struggling to fit in. Islam the obvious, but by no means alone. Now, with all due respect to John Howard, Muslims can't expect he will fly their flag on this issue, because Howard is like any other politician in that he will apply a spin that gives him the best possible light in the view of the population. But with better exchanges of information, better understanding, an actual, educated, experience-based approach to deal with issues (not just nitpick Islamic quotes here and there in the hopes of defaming an unproven prophet) Australians will generate a better understanding of what Islam is (which is thoroughly different to the opinions of people like Boaz, 963 etc) lessening the risk of Islamic vilification and threats of terrorism. Dialogue, communal interaction, a barbie and a beer: does anyone here think that muslims out there don't indulge in this iconic Australian act? That they don't get excited about the Melbourn Cup, the AFL Grand Final, the fact that we're about to lose the ashes? Point is, stop drawing your arguments on age old texts that should have been burned with women's bras forty years ago and go out there, Muslim and non-muslim alike, and learn what it is to be in the other shoe.

Phew! This sure is fun!

Nick I,
Obviously you are not talking to Muslims that follow their religion - with this question. Quote, "Dialogue, communal interaction, a barbie and a beer: does anyone here think that muslims out there don't indulge in this iconic Australian act?"

Try offering your devout Muslim friend a beer and a piece of steak you have brought from your local butcher. How often have you done this?

You naively make a similarity of interrigation of armed enemies of freedom kept in Guantanamo Bay with centuries of Muslim torture on innocent people and of Aid workers etc. You have got to be joking! You are totally offensive to intelligent and justice! Quote, "Kactuz, are we talking about the same kind of torture that is being dished out at Guantanamo Bay? I'd imagine some muslims find it hard to sit at a table with a government willing to imprison hundreds of people for years without trial."

Obviously you are a threat to Western society, and the protection of the innocent

I'm not a threat to anyone. Flattered though.

My problem with the likes of you is that those Muslims who do eat a steak and have a beer are completely and utterly counted out regarding this issue. You behave as if they don't matter, they're not on the statistical radar sheet, they deserve no recognition whatsoever. Worse still, you believe they are minority! That's what's offensive to the intellectual.

Secondly, how many Australians follow Christianity to the letter? Why is it okay for them to stray but Muslims dare not? Oh, of course, in your succint, black and white world, Muslim's don't moderate, don't enjoy life, they exist only to kill non-muslims.

And lastly Philo, and this is the bit that I truly find hilarious, you JUSTIFY the use of torture to interrogate those at Guantanemo Bay, just as some Muslims justify Mohammed's apparent use of such tactics. I still haven't heard what Mamdouh Habib was charged with - that's right they released him because they couldn't charge him with anything - after three years of imprisonment. Sorry mate, but that is a terrible form of hypocrisy you've just demonstrated.

Cheers!

Dear Nick

I'm not too thrilled with your characterization of my comments on Islam as being inaccurate. All that I've said is well sourced.

The point I've been making all along, is that it does not matter a scrap how people have 're-spun' a religion to give it a more friendly face, it rests on the same foundation, and that foundation is mohamed.

The other point I've progressed, is the contrast between Christ and Mohamed. In the case of the latter, there is a continuous line of violent aggression (which is usually couched in 'defensive' terminology for theological reasons) where we see repeated references to 'raids' in both the Quran and the Hadith.

The form of torture engaged in by Mohamed was of a particularly gruesome kind of which Ogrish.com would salivate at the thought of displaying. (cutting off hands and feet, gouging out/hot metal rods into the eyes. then letting the victims die a slow miserable death)
Numerous other references exist, which even without any additional adjectives stand out as horrifying in the extreme.(Hadith refs)
To actually recommend/command torture to obtain information is what one might expect from a General, but not a prophet of "Allah the Merciful"

Like I also said. If someone painted a 'friendly/progressive' face on National Socialism, but kept "MeinKampf" as its foundation document, it would not change the abhorrent nature of the ideology.

So Nick, if you wish to take issue with my comments, ur most welcome, but please, stick to the facts and demonstrate the problems with them, rather than including me with others as u did.
Keep up the posts

Nick I,
Any Muslim who downs a beer and steak at an Aussie friend's barbi has no problem assimilating. His halel adherence to his religion is not an issue, unless it is sublimated merely to win and deceive his friend.

The extremity of you mind is born out in expressions like this: "Oh, of course, in your succint, black and white world, Muslim's don't moderate, don't enjoy life, they exist only to kill non-muslims."

Your support of Mamdouh Habib indicates you agenda to undermine Australian cultural values of gainful employment, and truthfulness.

BD, I don't for a second question your sources. On the contrary I think it is quite impressive. I just think it is unfortunate that your postings come across as an overwhelming negative of adherents to Islam (It's just the impression you give, that's how I'm reading it). You have a problem with Islam, as stated by you, but I don't understand the lack of scope for Muslims to know what is right and wrong, despite what Mohammad's history entails.

Philo - I don't support anyone. I believe in justice though and the fundamental idea of innocent until proven guilty, which was clearly overlooked in Mamdouh Habib's case. Secondly, don't avoid the topic by picking on an inconsequential comment like that, when I would rather discuss your hypocritic nature. Once you've clarified that, then I will be more than happy to talk about Australian Values and how they don't exist in Australia anymore.

:)

Yes Nick, I see your point, most of what I post in an Islamic related threads is indeed negative. Bear in mind, I'm not negative towards "Muslims" as I think my interaction with Fellow Human should demonstrate.

I suppose in some ways I'm always reacting to the incredible stifling of free speech which I see in Islamic forums.. have a peek at a few and you will see that the slightest negative or questioning comment about Mohamed is seen as defacto 'evil' and worthy of banning.
You can also gain an insight into how Islam is clearly regarded as a Political/social/legal/religous entity. Verrrrry scary stuff.

One I read yesterday even looked at how the questions were couched.

<<"I'm sensing that some questions are only meant to mock our faith">>

i.e. you canNOT question Mohamed or Islam in any Islamic forum, you can only ask questions based on the assumption of the pre-eminence and truth of Islam. How much MORE would they enforce this if they held government ? (or enough political clout to make deals)

That is the very problem with Islam, once it is in power, that mentality will be enforced by legal means as well as religious, and this is why I am absolutely passionate about the Catch the Fire case, they tried it there too, which is why the Danny's are willing to be Jailed over this issue.

Dear BD,

On your last comment, people react differently to criticism of their faith (you are an angel compare to people I bumped into before).
Again this is culture related and not religion driven. Likely you will get the same reaction if you critisize a middle eastern christian or jew if you dare to question the Trinity or the God given land beliefs!.

AK

BOAZ_David and Fellow_Human

You both crack me up!

I think that you are both good blokes = even if I do not share your beliefs.

Cheers
Kay

BD, Philo & co.
2 points. First how can Islam be the problem & not individual muslims? Do not individual muslims comprise Islam in this country? If you answer something like "oh when they get in power their religion would dictate that they do this or that foul thing" then how can they be good? If you're saying that muslims would, when directed by their religion perform evil acts, then you are saying muslims are evil. So enough of this nonsense of muslims good but Islam bad.
Second Gobbels was diabolicly inspired in his propaganda. He used this as his guiding principle. When we speak of an evil act performed by an individual belonging to a group we hate then that act says something about the group [i.e. the group is evil, twisted, etc]. But if one of our people does the exact same thing that person is just an individual, not even a true Aryan & his act says NOTHING about the group.
Now let's compare what BD, Philo & co say. A muslim kills people, well that just shows us how evil Islam or muslims as a group are. But a christian kills people, well that christian was just a crackpot, a fanatic, not a true christian. just a lone individual. His act says NOTHING bad about christians or christianity. Sounds frighteningly similar to Gobbels' guiding principle doesn't it?

Part 1
To the misinformed half-wit, Nick L, about 'torture' at Guantanamo Bay.
Sucked in by Islamofascist propaganda, or pro-jihadi? Refute this if you can:
Gitmo is "a camp where the medical staff outnumber the prisoners." You'll get swifter, cleaner and more efficient treatment than most Australians do under Medicare. The only gulag in history where the detainees leave in better health and weighing more than when they arrive. This means they're in much better shape when they return to their hectic schedule of killing infidels: Of the more than 200 detainees who've been released, 12 have since been recaptured on the battlefield.
No serious allegation of torture at Gitmo has been substantiated. In the al-Qaida training manual Rule 18 reads: When held captive by infidels, members must "complain to the court of mistreatment while in prison" and say that "torture was inflicted on them." Useful idiots will believe these thugs over Americans.
Out of about 24,000 interrogations at Guantanamo, there were seven confirmed cases of abuse, all of which were relatively minor. In the eyes of history, compared to any other camp in any other war, this is an astonishingly small number. Two of the documented offenses involved “female interrogators who, on their own initiative, touched and spoke to detainees in a sexually suggestive manner.” Not exactly torture, is it?.
They’re getting better than they deserve.
Released Prisoners receive a new copy of the Qur'an plus a free pair of blue jeans in their new size: the average detainee puts on 13 pounds during his stay, thanks to the “mustard-baked dill fish”, “baked Tandoori chicken breast” and other delicacies. These and other recipes from Gitmo’s kitchen have now been collected by some Internet wags and published as The Gitmo Cookbook. CONT.

Part 2
Imagine, if in WW2, nazi prisoners were given a copy of Mein Kampf! These killers get a copy of the Qur'an and the guards have to handle them with kid-gloves. If anything, the Yanks are too soft.
Christina Aguilera records are played at full volume to soften up detainees. Glove puppets are used to 'satirize detainee's association with Al Qaeda'. A female interrogator took the unusual approach to wear down a detainee by reading a Harry Potter book aloud for hours. A picture of a 9/11 victim was taped to a detainee's trousers. Torture?
Republican and Democrat politicians toured Gitmo, and even the looniest of the bunch - Sheila Jackson Lee, had to grudgingly admit it didn’t seem all that bad.
Abuse definitely exists at Gitmo, but it fails to receive the press attention it deserves: it’s the relentless, merciless attacks on American servicemen by these thugs. Many of them fight their captors at every opportunity, openly bragging of their desire to kill Americans. One has promised that, if released, he would find MPs in their homes through the internet, break into their houses at night, and “cut the throats of them and their families like sheep.” Others claim authority/vindication to kill women, children, and anyone who opposes their jihadist mission authorized by the Qur'an (that hangs in every cell from a specially-designed holder intended to protect it from touching the floor). They attack guards whenever the soldiers enter their cells, trying to reach up under facemasks to gouge eyes and tear mouths. They make weapons and try to stab the guards or grab and break limbs as the guards pass them food.
If Rumsfeld had wanted to be “culturally sensitive” to the detainees, he’d simply have herded them on to some Afghan soccer pitch and shot them as the half-time entertainment, the way Mullah Omar’s boys liked to do things.

Skids,
If you believe the propaganda the US releases regarding Gitmo, I expect you believe ‘reality tv’ represents a view of the real world. At least it’s entertaining for you….

Nick,

I am not unaware of any American soldiers from Gitmo establishing a religion, nor do I know of anybody that thinks they did great things. The same is not true for Mohammed. Muslims cannot praise him enough, and never a word of disappoval. Of course, if torture, slavery, murder and sleeping with little girls is OK for you, then ‘Mo’ is your man!

I would like you to give me the reference(s) regarding your statement “just as some Muslims justify Mohammed's apparent use of such tactics.” Since I was talking about torture, I assume by “tactics” that is what you mean. Please provide references because I would like to read the comments and justifications of the prophet torturing people from an Islamic perspective. My finding is that Muslims prefer to ignore much of Mohammed’s actions, as if they never happened. If you bring the subject up with them face to face, they look at you and say “So?” “Duhhhhhh” or “You don’t understand”. It is like the zombies in the “Night of the living Dead” movie, walking with glazed, unblinking eyes.

It would be almost be funny if it weren’t about people, their lives and the future. As I have said, there is no way we can have honest dialogue with Muslims unless they can be honest about basic issues such as torture. This same standard applies for everybody: Christans, athiests, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, etc... No exceptions!

This issue is symptomatic of the larger issue of trust and the ability to live together. This is why Muslim’s condemn terror and the terror continues. You cannot be against terror and hold Islam’s prophet in high regard. There are just too many accounts of evil deeds against often innocent and unsuspecting people. What is it, about 30+ recorded raids (including unprovoked surprise attacks) on caravans and villages by the prophet and his men? Then there were the spoils – prisoners, slaves, women to be taken and given as booty. Great man this?

If Muslims cannot condemn these things, there should be no dialogue.

Kactuz

PS: I hate beer!

Kaktuz,

Your sources of information are entertaining.
Please read historians work on the life of Mohamed (Karen Armstrong, George Sale and William Muir).

Your views are your truth, not mine and not other muslims.

AK

Bosk,
To recognise what we are saying is based in the very foundations and attitudes and behaviour of the founder who constructs the doctrine and practise of the religion.

The term Muslim like Christian is a generic term refering to people who classify themselves as following the religion.

Islam founded in Abraham, they claim, however he worshipped El Shaddai only as God - monotheism. The Arab Mahomet 630 BC attracted to his Jewish friends pure religion gave it new character by cleansing the nation of infidels and enforcing totalitarian shari'ah. A draconian law built upon ancient Israeli law and subsequent additions till the Babylonian Talmud 600BC. For them adherence to law is the foundation of the religion and the nation purity.

The nominal followers of this religion are often non-violent and delightful people, who do not behave with the fanaticism of Mahomet. However when reminded of their committment to Allah by Immams are envigorated to follow the example as set by their prophet.

Compare persons who are nominally Christian who frequently act outside the principles of the doctrine and behaviour of Christ and when reminded of Christ are brought to check against His attitudes and behaviour. He makes individual appeal to those who should follow godly behaviour and does not see Nationalism as his kingdom. I suggest you study the behaviour and doctrine set by these two men.

Quote, "Now let's compare what BD, Philo & co say. A muslim kills people, well that just shows us how evil Islam or muslims as a group are. But a christian kills people, well that christian was just a crackpot, a fanatic, not a true christian. just a lone individual. His act says NOTHING bad about christians or christianity. Sounds frighteningly similar to Gobbels' guiding principle doesn't it?

Kactuz, maybe I've been misread or am misreading something here - but the distinct impression I received from a number of posts is that to believe in Islam and their prophet Mohammad is to justify his actions and see them in the glowing light that is his divine intervention. Therefore, without questioning Mohammad or his actions, implicity you're agreeing with their use. I think David Boaz has been a strong advocate of this position amongst others. That's where the comment has come from. Secondly, I wasn't aiming to argue that point. If you say they're hard to talk to about such things, that they dismiss such accusation and the like - and that in turn gives the impression of dishonest conduct, so be it. My experience with Muslims is vastly different, that's all. What I really wanted to point out was that Philo was justifying torture at GITMO in his post and that seemed at odds with a lot of what was said, seeing as we abhor the fact that Mohammad committed those very acts.

Skid Marx - just simply, what was Mamdouh Habib charged with? Nothing. Imprisoned for three year for...what again, nothing. Now I don't know what your post is about because I stopped reading it after the first line. Clearly you're misplaced here. Everyone else seems capable of engaging without stooping to your immature levels. Who are you when someone (rarely I imagine) cares?

To Bosk and Nick

we are getting closer to some truth here, but its a step by step process.

F.H. avert your eyes mate :) dont look !

Ok..Bosk first. Please try to grasp this, Lets say we talk about 3 faiths. Christianity, Buddhism and Islam.

How do we differentiate between the 3 ? Simple. In terms of the foundations, and teaching of each, which in turn are based on the person(s) who delivered these messages. This is important, from a credibility viewpoint.

To keep this simple, I'll use just ONE example, to do with Enemies and those against you.

BUDDHISM "follow the noble 8fold way, the 4fold path. 'right thinking' etc etc.. to achieve enlightenment.

CHRISTIANITY: "Love those who persecute you, if you love only those who are kind to you, what gain do you have?, do not even the sinners love those like themselves ?" (Jesus)

ISLAM 'fight in the way of Allah, strike terror into the hearts of the infidels' ( a couple of joined quotes)

Now Bosk, are u seeing any difference ? I sure hope so, cos if not I'm booking you into prep-school again :)

So, clearly, a person claiming to be a Christian who goes and 'fights' is not being true to Christ, but a Muslim who fights IS being true to Mohammed/Quran.

So, this is why we can say a 'Christian' who goes on a land grabbing crusade is 'NOT' reflecting Christ, and a Muslim who does the same IS reflecting Mohamed.

Now, of great importance. Why is condemning the religion not the same as comdemning the followers ? Your question. Simple, we have enough common sense to know that 'most' Muslims are like Fellow Human, though probably less knowledgable, and who just want to get on with life.

The problem somes at the other end, the politicized, the radicalized, the motivated. They are the threat, and it is the Quran and Hadith which is their fuel.

Skid Matrix,

What the heck is Judea Christianity? The term is offending to most Jewish people I know as they neither believe in Jesus nor Christianity being a religion! Sorry I am not good with religious cocktails!

Anyway, back to Theo Van Gogh, he can write what he likes; I described the reaction of the man who killed him as act of tribalism. People act at their own risk and hence the example I gave you re Texas. Knock yourself out criticising Muslims and Islam (Salman Rushdie and Irshad Manji do, the only one not making money out of it is poor Boaz David with more than a 1000 posts of criticism. No offence intended BD).

MS Burns,

First, the Quran teaches Muslims to be accepting to other humans and creatures on the earth and it is God who judges all of us by our intent at the day of resurrection. Christians and Jews are named “people of the book” and have closer ties with Muslims as they have been throughout history.

Second, the inhumane treatment is also in North American farms treating Mexican and Latin farmers (they actually call them ‘wet-backs’ and not workers).

Both these examples are in breach of their religious teachings. Mohamed (pbuh) asked to “give the worker his fair pay before his sweat dries”. Not sure what Jesus said on this one but BD can help.

Philo/BD,

One error in your comment if I may: Muslims believe in the Quran and asked to follow its peaceful teachings. You cannot compare that to Christians who follow the teachings of Christ (the bible is predominantly Christ biography).

All the Quran teachings are peaceful, graceful and tolerant towards other people and creatures. Even the reference to ‘fight those who fight you and shall not transgress” have clear self defence rules (ie fighting an invading army example). Those who kill others “shall be judged as if they killed whole mankind” that’s where the Quran stands.

Mohamed (pbuh) biography has different sources and we usually discredit what conflicts with the Quran (which I believe is the opposite in your case).

Nick,

I can't even get Muslims to acknowledge Mohammud's actions in their own writings (including the Koran), much less question them, and - heaven forbid - actually condemn them. He is 'wonderful' and a great 'example,' remember? That is the soul of my issue with Islamic practive and theory. It is not that they don't know these things, they refuse to contemplate the consequences of what they mean.

FH

"All the Quran teachings are peaceful, graceful and tolerant towards other people"

Come on, FH, you are not talking to bedposts here. Most of us have been around and we have read the Quran (I use http://quranbrowser.com). That "all" word is clearly PR for the PC folks. As you know, the Koran is a "pick and choose" thing - if you want verses to justify hate and oppression, they are there, if you want love and kindness, you have that too. It isn't exactly well written, as far as being consistent and clear.

Also, nobody is more guilty of misquoting and reading the Koran out of context than Muslims themselves. They read into it what they want to hear, and ignore the context and even the basic meaning of simple words (its kind of like that prophet thing - you know what I'm talking about).

Could you explain how that "slay them WHEREEVER ye find them" (2:190) verse fits in with your "self-defense" theory. Maybe it is preemptive self-defense!

And that "As if they killed the whole of mankind" verse (5:032) is easily the #1 misquoted verse of all time, anywhere, anybook. Only once have I seen a Muslim quote it accurately (out of about 1000 times).

Does anybody know what the first few words of that verse are? It is a real bummer, for Muslims anyway. No wonder they always omit the first line.

Kactuz....

JESUS LESSONS IN SELF DEFENCE- lesson No 1:

Matthew. 5:10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of
righteousness, theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute and
falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven,
for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were
before you.
13 “You are the salt of the earth.

Lesson No2:
Matthew. 5:44 But I tell you: Love your enemies [Some late manuscripts
enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who
hate you] and pray for those who persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his
sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the
righteous and the unrighteous.
46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get?
Are not even the tax collectors doing that?
47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing
more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Lesson 3:
Mathew. 10:16 I am sending you out like sheep among wolves.
Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.
17 “Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to
the local councils and flog you in their synagogues.
18 On my account you will be brought before governors and
kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles.
19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or
how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say,
...
21 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child;
children will rebel against their parents and have them put to
death.
22 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm
to the end will be saved.

[cont]

AMEN ! Philo.. way2go mate...

F.H. ..I told you not to see what I wrote.. now you have to be punished :))

I should not be comparing Mohamed with Christ, there is no comparison.
Most of what I say is by way of 'information', but it does not leave the reader with anywhere to go, just to 'run from'.

Jesus did (humanly speaking) what not even a truckload of Zarkawi's could do and he did it without any bomb, without any sword, without any army. He transformed an empire. Can anyone point to an Empire which was renewed from the inside out in such a way ?

In saying this, we need to look further than just the historical curiosity of the events, but to the cause itself. Just 'what' is it, about being (truly) 'Christian' that overcomes such hatred, -hatred which refused to believe anything good about the faith, and attempted to destroy it, and its adherants by even feeding them to wild beasts as a public spectacle, executions, torture... all without retribution, except that of the most effective kind, "Love those who persecute you" as Philo so ably pointed out.

Paul: 1Therefore, since through God's mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. 2Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 3 (IICor4)

And so we do this, albeit in our stumbling ways,

5For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. 6For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness,"[a]made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

May that light, shine in each heart here.

Kaktuz,

The full verse you refer to:
2:189 And fight those who fight you and shall not transgress.
2:190 Slay them where you find them and chase them out (of your land) from wher they chased you out and don’t fight them at the holy mosque unless they fight you first..
2:191 Until they stop their aggression so if they do don’t fight them God is merciful and forgiving.

There is no cherry picking except by people like you and BD.
A $9.95 translation of the Quoran by Pickthall or Oxford have the same meanings.

Sorry won’t be responding to your ‘intellectually deceitful postings’.

BD/Philo,

I am aware of what your religion teaches.

We are not allowed to compare prophets but you have this luxury of comparing and judging.

BD, as mentioned above, I will respond to smart intellectual postings and not your misleading postings.

Cheers,

Fellow Human,
Just a quick note to let you know that there are many average non-Muslims out there who do not alienate or denounce your beliefs. Keep reveal the truth of your faith and be strong. There is no reason why religions cannot co-exist and I look forward to the days when Islam, Judaism, Christianity, all the other beliefs and secularism can work together to contribute peace and good will to this world.

PBUY Brother.

FH, You're the one that mentioned self-defense, not I. I just said that "Kill them wherever you find them" is a rather strange idea of self-defense. In fact, it's a good translation; most modern Muslim translators prefer not to use "trangressors" because that opens a can of worms (who are the transgressors?). They prefer "aggressors" or "those who fight against you" ...a dubious translation, but much easier to explain to infidels (aka transgressors).

FH, I really don't care if you reply to my posts. I do this because I want people to think. I want people to study the issues, ask questions, read the Koran, visit Islamic sites (ex:Islamonline.com or Soundvision.com) and www.faithfreedom.org (a Muslim favorite, specially the debates), read the discussions at OLO or BjornStaerk, talk to Muslims and to non-Muslims that have lived under Islam - and then make up their minds. Does anybody have a problem with this?

I did not question the context of that verse, just your "self-defense" remark. I did mention the context of the one about "killing all of mankind".

It must be said the gods (small g) have a sense of humor. They gave Muslims this great verse "…whoever kills a man … it is as if the killed all of mankind." In fact, it is so good that Muslims just have to use it. They can't resist the temptation. The problem is that they commit intellectual whoredom by doing so (excuse the hyperbole, but it's appropriate) because they know they are using it out of context, but the temptation is just too great. Most of the time they get away with it, because people are too ignorant or PC to say "that's wrong!".

Would any of you Muslims care to tell me the first few words of this great verse (5:32) and who it is talking about, and please explain why they are always omitted when Muslim quote it. There is also the matter of the little exception clause in the middle that is also often excluded, sometimes with "…" and more often without any indication that parts are missing.

Lesson 5 on self-defense:
Matthew. 24:4 Jesus said: “Watch out that no-one deceives you.
5 Many will come in my name, claiming, `I am the Christ,’
[Or Messiah] and will deceive.
6 You will hear of wars and rumours of wars, but see that
you are not alarmed. …
…
9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to
death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.
10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will
betray and hate each other,
11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.
12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will
grow cold,
13 he who endures faithful to the end will be saved.

Matthew 6: 38 An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 but I say unto you, resist not him that is evil:
but whosoever smites you on thy right cheek,
turn to him the other.

Lesson 6:
Luke. 11:46 Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you,
because you load people with burdens they can hardly
carry, and you will not lift one finger to help them.
47 “You build tombs for the prophets, and
it was your forefathers who killed them.
48 So you testify that you approve of what your forefathers did;
they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs.
49 Because of this, God in his wisdom said, `I will send them
prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others
they will persecute.’
50 Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the
blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the
beginning of the world,
51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was
killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this
generation will be held responsible for it all.
52 “You experts in the law, have taken
away the key to knowledge. You have not
entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”
[contwhichprophetdowefollow?]

F.H. now u make it incumbent on me to respond, and give balance to what you said in your last post.

Firstly THANKyou for demonstrating my very point, which was that Islam has an unbroken line of violence associated with the defense and propogation of the faith. You would say it is always 'defensive' and then, that the limits cannot be transgressed, but you also know that Mohamed had people EXECUTED "Some you killed, some you took captive" with the Battle of (genocide of) Banu Qurayza as the background. He also made numerous RAIDs.. (offensive)

That is from the Quran, so let there be no accusation of 'cherry picking' as you put it, as my point was soundly validated by not only the verses (whether they are defensive or offensive makes no difference to my 'point' about violence) but also by your expanding of them.

You would also be aware of the Hadith (which is the foundation along with the Quran for Islamic law) where in one mouthful it is 'condemned' to cut down trees of enemies then in the next mouthful it is suddenly 'allowed'. This also applies to the killing of women and children. "Forbidden....then "circumstances where it is persmissable" Please don't make me drag up chapter and verse, I believe you know these already. (but if I must, I will)

One very obvious reason you are not allowed to 'compare prophets' is that compared to Christ, who told Johns disiples "Go, tell John, that the blind receive there sight, the sick are healed, the crippled made whole, the dead raised" when they asked him "Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another"... there IS no comparison.

F.H. you say u love Jesus, .. I ask 'which' Jesus, the 'pruned down' humanized Islamic version ? or the Biblical one ? the one who is God manifest in the Flesh, Son of man/Son of God, "In Him dwells the fullnes of Godhead bodily".... is it this one?

Reason,

Your nickname is a context of who you are.
Your encouragement will give me more resilience!

PBUY

Kaktuz,

I don’t mind other opinions and sites ( I actually see all these sites including infidels.com, scripturesofAmerica.org, etc..).
I just see them as ‘cheap sales’ and not religious debates as you call them.
When a site blabbers how good their religion is and then deceive and misrepresent the Islamic faith it means (to me) that they don’t follow their own teachings.

Not sure what you mean about blanks in the translations: The verse 5:29 onwards talk about the sons of Adam and 5:32 talks about the Israelites. (Children of Jacob and those who follows Moses teachings).

BD,

You forgot we talked about this topic before and I explained the logic behind it.

The only difference between the Islamic version and the Christian version of Jesus is whether he was God/Son of God.
I believe the Islamic version of Jesus story because it makes more sense to me. Paul’ theory no matter how noble his intent was comes with a heavy price of wiping out the first commandment “God is One”. The issue with that (for me) it is taking your faith out of the monotheism camp or at least keep you on the fence.

The issue with you guys is that you never really debated or thought of this issue long enough throught your history.

Peace

Nick I. - An ideologue is someone prepared to suppress what he suspects to be true.
You are a willing Dhimmi. You sympathize with the jihadists and defend terrorism and "hope to feed the crocodile so that you are eaten last" because on some level you are deathly afraid of the violence you know they are capable of. You, as a result of your self-centered cowardly fear, have become a quisling, ready to betray your civilization for a few more years of hedonism.You have ceded the playground to the bullies.
".... I don't know what your post is about because I stopped reading it after the first line. Clearly you're misplaced ..." - If you didn't read it, how do you 'know' I'm 'misplaced'?
"Everyone else seems capable of engaging without stooping to your immature levels." Is that everyone in the world or people with your morally repugnant mind-set?
Habib had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, personally trained two of the hijackers in martial arts and planned to hijack a plane. A six-year Australian police and intelligence probe found that Habib first contacted al-Qaeda during a trip to Pakistan in March/April 1998.
Later in the US, he met a group linked to two terrorist events: the murder of Rabbi Meir Kahane in November 1990 and al-Qaeda's 1993 bombing of the WTC. He attended the trial of El Sayyid Nosair, who was charged with Kahane's murder and faced trial in New York in 199. During the trial, Habib made Egyptian friends, including Ibrahim El-Gabrowny and Mahmud Abouhalima who were later convicted and jailed for their role in the 1993 WTC bombing. All were followers of Egyptian cleric Abdul Rahman, the 'Blind Sheik', charged in 1993 with Kahane's murder and with plotting terrorist attacks in the US and the murder of Egyptian president Mubarak. The 'Blind Sheik' was a long-time friend of OBL.
Habib returned home but stayed in touch with his new friends, becoming a defender of Abdul Rahman's innocence.
DFAT travel records show he was next in Pakistan and Afghanistan..... CONTINUED.

...... in December 1999 and January 2000, when he is believed to have contacted Lashkar-e-Taiba militants, who have links with al-Qaeda. Travel records show Habib again travelled to Pakistan, then Afghanistan, from March to May, 2000, where he again met with al-Qaeda.
In November the same year he again entered Pakistan. This time he met with LET.
By July 2001, the time of Habib's last visit to both countries, LET and al-Qaeda were sharing training methods, camps, and personnel. Witnesses have pinpointed Habib at the advanced al-Qaeda/LET camp from August 2001.
Detained militants have revealed there are four levels of training in the Afghanistan camps, each lasting one month. The advanced course that Habib attended can only be reached after graduating lower level camps. Three other terrorist detainees have identified Habib as being present at several of the camps, including the al-Qaeda graduate course he is accused of attending for two months from August 2001. He is also alleged to have been in contact in Afghanistan with the man who once led LET's military committee, Mohammed Atef, before he was killed during an airstrike in Kabul, in late 2001. He is believed to have met in Afghanistan - David Hicks and Jack Thomas - arrested last year on terrorism charges. ASIO intercepted a telephone conversation between Habib and his wife shortly before 9/11, in which he warned of a looming "big event" in the US. The call originated in Pakistan. It mirrored several other conversations between accused terrorists that were tapped around the same time by the Pakistani Internal Security Department. The interception was made by ASIO, who placed Habib on a watch list.
Captured in Pakistan just after the 9/11 attacks and transferred to Egypt, he claimed he was tortured (see al-Qaeda training manual). May 2002 - Gitmo.
Members of Sydney's Muslim community noted his passionate advocacy of JIHAD. He is unlikely to face prosecution in Australia because most anti-terror legislation started in July 2002, after his capture in Pakistan.
If you think the above is 'nothing', you're an imbecile.

Skid Marx =,
I agree with you on Mamdouh Habib. However he by being free here in Australia acts as a good lead to any terrorist activity being planned here.

Which prophet do we listen too?
Abraham was the first prophet to introduce monotheism, which caused conflict with his father who worshipped many gods. Abraham is the ancient ancestor of many Middle Eastern tribes as well as the religious head of Judaism and Islam. Christianity upholds Abraham only as the spiritual head of faith in only one God. He's the founder of the idea: the religious belief. Though Jews and Arabs believe this they also claim lineage from him.

Though Jesus was a Jew he claimed God as his Father because he did not represent Abraham [note this conflict in NT]. His claim was his kingdom was not a political kingdom based upon National Mosaic law, but spiritual of the heart and mind based upon spiritual and social behaviours that expressed principles not governed by minimalist acceptable behaviours. He called upon the individual to apply themselves to the absolute of their devotion to love God and neighbour with all one's being, in mind, body and soul.

In ancient times there were thought to be many gods governing all types of physical activity. Terrestrial gods governing things on the Earth and cellestial gods governing things in the heavens. This multiplicity of gods was debunked 4,000 years ago by Abraham as he perceived all events coordinated under one unifying power, except man who seemed in rebellion against the best design and practise of nature and relationships.

Since the universe had one unified principle - hence the conclusion there was but one God over all and in all. Where there is life there are cycles of maintenance and decay operating that identify a unity. The unity gives notion to the singleness of design of life in the universe. That One God gave life its character and design.

However who has revealed the character of this God? We have conflicting views! Did Jesus get it right or Mahomet?

Callow_Human -
Your bogus naivete regarding "What the heck is Judea Christianity? ... is offending to most Jewish people.... they neither believe in Jesus nor Christianity being a religion!....I am not good with religious cocktails!" cuts no ice with me. I clearly wrote "...Western, Secular-Judaeo-Christian notions..." You know perfectly well what it means. You reek of deception, smokescreens, random-pedantry and obscurantism.
Tribalism? I don't think so. Unless you call Islamic jihad ideology 'tribalism':
Mohammed Bouyeri, 26, was on welfare, was born in Holland, and spoke excellent Dutch. His “manifesto,” pinned with a knife on Theo van Gogh’s chest, quoted the Qur'an. He enjoyed dual Dutch/Moroccan citizenship. He was recruited by radical imam Mahmud El-Shershaby, in the De Baarsjes neighborhood, a known center of Islamic radicalism. Bouyeri was also influenced by a schoolmate, Samir Azzouz, a failed would-be martyr arrested in Ukraine in 2002 en route to Chechnya.
The Islamist group he belonged to, the Hofstad Network (Hofstadgroep), was involved in the same type of activities and "organized" itself in the same way as other al-Qaeda 'clone' terrorist networks that were detected waging jihad recently in Europe.
He dreamed of replacing the Dutch government with an Islamic theocracy, and was supported by a network of
like-minded fanatics (where have I heard that before?).
During his trial, Bouyeri said that he had acted in the name of Islam and felt no pain for van Gogh’s family. After reciting Islamic prayers, he told the courtroom that if given the chance he would "do exactly the same thing again".
"What moved me to do what I did was purely my faith," he told the court. "I was motivated by the law that commands me to cut off the head of anyone who insults Allah and his prophet."
Another example of Europe’s suicide-by-immigration.

Reason (how oxymoronic) -
I don't watch ANY ‘reality tv’. I get my 'propaganda' from Left/Right/Centrist media sources, anti and pro jihadist blogs worldwide.
What propaganda do YOU believe? Al-Jazeera, Al-Manar, Al-Majd TV, Air America, moveon.org , SBS, ABC

F.H. it is not 'mis' representing the Islamic faith to say that it is 'as political as it is spiritual' and that Mohamed epitomized "Islam" in his life.

It is most accurate to claim that he is used as the 'ideal' example based on uncountable Islamic sites.

Given that he is the example, it is not unreasonable nor misrepresentational to point out his own behavior, in order to draw attention to flawed claim to divine representation he made.

We have gone over some ground, including the incidents I've referred to, and you said you pointed out the logic of it.

But that logic only confirms what I've been saying all along, that Islam is 'political/Judicial/spiritual/military' its a whole of life thing. But it seeks to enforce with law, issues which can only be of the heart.

For me, Christ is all and in all and over all. The Alpha and the Omega, God in the flesh, LORD of Lords and KING of kings, God the son, and the Son of God, the way, truth and life, the one who we come to when thirsty, never to thirst again, who opens our blind eyes, heals our wounded hearts, renews our troubled minds, strengthens our crippled souls and leads us into righteousness.
He is the bread of life, the fountain of joy, the Light of the world the giver of peace. When we follow Him we don't walk in darkness.
He 'is' our peace. Thru Him we have access to God. "I and the Father are one".

He said "I, if I be lifted up (on the cross) will draw all men to myself". He is drawing you now, will you come ?

Charlotte Elliot was an invalid for most of her life who felt useless for God, she wrote this hymn

Just as I am, without one plea,
But that Thy blood was shed for me,
And that Thou biddest me come to Thee,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come

If you have time, read this article
9/11 And The Sport of God at http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0909-36.htm

it answered a few things for me...

it ends by saying

"Christian realists aren't afraid to love. But just as the Irishman who came upon a brawl in the street and asked, "Is this a private fight or can anyone get in it?" we have to take that love where the action is. Or the world will remain a theatre of war between fundamentalists".

Kill unbelievers or live a servant life?
Abraham sought homeland for family, he never coveted land or control over people. His generosity toward Lot’s family and fellow citizens is noteworthy. However when Joshua was establishing Israel he destroyed all who worshipped polytheistic gods. Sound familiar? Mahomet likewise, was about gaining exclusive territory to establish shari’ah laws to govern belief and behaviour. Similarly the Holy Roman Empire calling itself Christian was about gaining territory and not about ones personal relationship to God, in fact they stifled individual conscience and intellectual conviction by indoctrination. They tortured intellectual dissidents by burning them alive. This behaviour is totally unlike the message of Jesus; compare Lesson 2 on God’s attitude toward unbelievers. “He sends rain upon the just and unjust,” by feeding and allowing all to prosper by his grace.

Lesson 7 self defense:
Jesus accusers:
John 5:16 Because Jesus was doing things on the Sabbath, the
Jews persecuted him.
17 Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this
very day, and I, too, am working.”
18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not
only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling
God his own Father, making himself equal with God

His arrest:
Matthew 26: 47, Judas, one of the twelve, came, with a great multitude with swords and staves, from the priests and elders of the Temple. 48 Now he betrayed him with a sign, saying, “Whoever I shall kiss, that is he: take him”. 49 And Judas came to Jesus, and said, “Hail, Rabbi”; and kissed him. 50 Jesus said unto him, “Friend, do that for which you have come”. Then the [Jewish elders] came and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. 51 One of them that was with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said unto him, “Put up again thy sword into its place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”

RANIER
I had a read of that article. I see where the author is coming from, but I hope the answers you feel were answered don't make you think you have arrived at the end of the issue just yet. There is more.

<<Suddenly we were immersed in the pathology of a "holy war" as defined by fundamentalists on both sides>>

Did you note that Robertson on this occasion, backed up by Falwell, pointed to GOD's judgement. (critical point) The Bin Ladins of this world and of Islam will be flying the planes and planting the bombs in direct obedience to their scriptures.

The mention of the judgements on the various 'ites' in the Old testament referred to in the article, left out an important point.
They were judged, (the attacks were in fact delayed as they had not yet reached the point of no return, by their own life choices)

Those events were not 'teaching of doctrine' nor were they in any sense authorizations of a general nature for embarking on war by Jews or Christians.

A recurring theme in the Old Testament is the judgement OF GOD..... who used 'the nations' to judge Israel. "Nebadchadnezzer king of Babylon, MY SERVANT" says God, destroyed and exiled the Jews.

So in conclusion, for Christians, the only possible understanding of human conflict is that God is the judge, not man. Islam, being a political movement as well as spiritual, provides for military action directly in the name of God.

So, there should be no 'fundamentalist' Christian movement for war.
At least, not one based on Scripture. I'll grant that some conservative Christians may be involved in trying to influence the White house, (The Emperor, in Romans 13 technospeak) but there can never be a legitimate 'Christian' armed military attack on anyone else.
Cheers

BD,

God bless you and keep you always on the right path : )

Skid Matrix,

Please move from the narrow definition of tribalism. It is neither related to race nor place of birth. Tribalism is when a person/group loses all sorts of reason and feel so threatened by ‘difference’ in opinion / religion/ position that they can only resort to violence. It is what kills 12-19,000 americans for disagreeing over religion, relationships and also what killed 52 Italian soccer fans in England.

The term “I did that because of my faith’ was used by the assasins of Sadat, Rabin and everyone who acted horribly throughout history towards an individual, a group or a race used the same statement; Hitler’s persecution of Jews was driven by his Christian Jihad and not Islam (Check German government archives, Hitlers’ speeches).
Freedom of speech never came with a security guarantee. Its is a risk that people have to take and accept for being leaders, reformists..etc

As for your ‘secular Judeo-christian democracy myth, please read more on world’ systems analysis and theories like Dr Emmanuel Wallerstein: Today’s democracy was founded by the French revolution who forced the separation of Religion and state which we, as modern day muslims, trying to achieve in the modernisation of Muslims dominated country. Just thought I would stop you before your “Judeo Christian culture takes credit of building the pyramids as well.

Finally, stop writing like a 12 year old and take it easy.. its only opinion sharing site on how do we all improve our lives.

Peace,

How Muslims treat Jews.

Jews were being told by the Palestinian Authority that if we leave our Synagogues in tack in Gaza they will destroy them. It brings to mind the history of these Islamic monsters and their lack of respect towards our Holy Places and our Bible (Tenach). During the period of 1948 through 1967 they destroyed over 40 Synagogues in the Old City of Jerusalem, turning many of them into toilets. But then we don’t have to have a long memory to remember what they did to Joseph’s Tomb and other Holy Places in the past 5 years.

In contrast we allow them to not only live among us in Israel but we also give them the same government medical care given to the Jewish population and all the other welfare benefits of which most of them take full advantage of. As you travel through the countryside of Israel you will notice thousands of Arab villages, I might add where Jews are not welcome. But if you go to any of our shopping centers or cities you will find Arabs everywhere you look and they feel safe, after all we don’t wrap bombs around ourselves to kill them, they are greeted by the Jews with a big Shalom (peace).

A small section in the Old City of Jerusalem is the Jewish Quarters and in this section of the Old City you can find Moslem Mosques not only are they not destroyed but kept in good shape, viewed by thousands of tourist each day but seldom are they ever told what they are looking at as they walk by

Fellow_Human,

Answering your post Saturday, 17th:
Quote, “The only difference between the Islamic version and the Christian version of Jesus is whether he was God/Son of God”.

The Qur’anic account of events surrounding Mary’s virgin conception of Jesus was based upon documents circulated in Alexandria 600BC. The Roman Church formulated the idea that Jesus conception made him God; that the sperm was from God, so on this basis it made him a Son of God. The concept God without human sperm created Jesus in Mary's womb is spurious, and Mahomet unsuspecting included it in the Qur’an [Qur’an 3: 40 – 48].

Jesus conception without human sperm is the foundation of the doctrine that God's son was born as a man. That God implanted Jesus in Mary’s womb. This spurious inclusion undermines the authority of the Qur’an as factual. It appeals to Roman Catholics who formulated the doctrine, that Jesus miraculous conception made him a Son of God. It is a misrepresentation of incarnation that makes God human, rather than God being fully revealed in humanity.

God is revealed in spiritual terms by godly behaviour, events of the miraculous, qualities of character, wisdom and attitude. The apostle John identifies this in his Gospel 1: 12 –14, and in John 3: 5 – 8. This identifies what being born of God as a Son of God means. John in his letter 1 John 1: 1 – 11, uses the term spermatozoa in a figurative way on how we are born of the seed of God. The seed is the Word of God that changes us to the image of God and motivates faith and devotion.

The Trinitarian doctrine was established in the 3rd century by the Roman Church to cope with spatial concepts of God being revealed as a man. However God is not revealed as a man, but through a man Christ Jesus. God is expressed in moral character and not as flesh and blood. Catholics misrepresent God in flesh and blood in the communion sacraments. The revelation of God is spiritual not physical.

Paul never used Jesus birth to identify his divine authority; he hardly mentions it. Paul uses Jesus resurrection as approval to accept Jesus divine authority. Jesus conception doesn't identify him as God; it identifies him as Saviour. God was manifest in his words, actions, attitudes and character. It's these things that identify God was manifest in Jesus. Don’t just believe his words. Observe his life; similarly God is manifest in more than doctrine and law. God is manifest in action, attitude character and wisdom. His holy sinless life was exactly the expression of the Spirit of God to man – follow him.

You misrepresent Paul who taught there is but one God and Jesus has made him known.

Quote, “Paul’ theory no matter how noble his intent was comes with a heavy price of wiping out the first commandment “God is One”. The issue with that (for me) it is taking your faith out of the monotheism camp or at least keep you on the fence”
______________________________________________________________

What does the “Judaea Christian” values mean?
The former foundations of Western Society has been built upon the moral and ethical values of Judaism while interpreting them with the compassion and forgiveness of Christ. We don't stone adulterous women or unbelievers, but rather counsel them to repentance, forgiveness and faith. Unbelievers are not lesser persons, but are potential saints. As Jesus taught it rains on the just and the unjust without discrimination, so we should also bless the unjust. Believers are not better people only forgiven of their offences.

To say that Western Nations are today Christian is a sweeping statement as it depends on who is educating the conscience of the nation. Most moral values today is taught in Television programmes and represents the evil of human behaviour from the lives of its scriptwriters. Few people attend religious and ethical studies, they act on what appeals to their base ego. “If it fells good, it must be OK”. The Christian’s conscience holds one back from self-indulgence and teaches responsibility for others and our personal action.

Fellow_Human,
The Roman Church doctrine of Jesus being a Son of God is based upon the sourse of sperm that fathered him. The Qur’an 3: 47 gives implication to the performance of a divine miracle by God implanting Jesus in the womb of Mary without human sperm. “’Lord’ Mary said, ‘How can I bear a child when no man has touched me? God replied: ‘Even thus. God creates whom He will. When He decrees a thing He need only say: ”Be” and it is.‘”

This is not the teaching of the New Testament, it identifies that the seed came by a rod out of lineage of David and is a specially selacted child to be a Saviour. The conception account by James the son of Joseph states the eligible young men from the lineage of David were summoned by Zecharias to bring their rods to the Temple. Zacharias acted upon the precedent set by Isaiah 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD.

Recognising Jesus as "God" has nothing to do with his physical person [John 1: 12 - 14]. It has everything to do with the demeanour, character, attitudes, wisdom, actions, words and life. To recognise Jesus is the Son of God is the acknowledgement that in these spiritual qualities his spirit was God incarnate [expressed in human character]. It does not mean he is a seperate god, it means he expressed the purity and mind of God. God is not a physical being with limited dimension; He is the omnipresent spirit that is expressed through his Creation. In man he is expressed by godly behaviour.

Nowhere does God speak directly to Mary as identified in the Qur'an, but a messenger from the Temple well known to her, who was responsible for protecting the divine revelation given to Israel

Account by James son of Joseph present at Jesus birth.

James 8:12 The priest said unto Joseph: Unto thee hath it fallen to take the virgin of the Lord and keep her.
13 And Joseph refused, saying: I've sons, and am an old man, but she is a girl: lest I became a laughing-stock to the children of Israel

James, 9: 6 Mary ...took the pitcher and went to fill it with water: and a voice saying: Hail, thou art highly favoured; the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
8 And she looked about her to the right hand and left, to see where this voice came: filled with trembling she went to her house and set down the pitcher, and took the purple and sat down upon her seat and drew out the thread.
9 And behold a messenger of the Lord stood before her saying: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace before the Lord of all things, and thou shalt conceive according to his word.
10 When she heard it, questioned in herself, what does this mean? Mary was not afraid of the messenger because she had seen him frequently at the temple, and was well acquainted with him.
11 The Lord is with thee and thou shall conceive. I do not intend anything inconsistent with your vow of chastity in my greeting, for thou hast made chastity thy choice.
12 Mary replied, “Shall I conceive by the blessing of the living God, and bring forth after the manner of all fertile women? I have made a vow to the Lord, never to lie with a man, and how can I become pregnant without the entry of a man?”
13 And the messenger of the Lord said: Not so, Mary, the power of the Lord shall overshadow thee: wherefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of the Highest.
14 The child that shall be born of thee thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins

Philo,

Impressed with your deep understanding of Jesus story in the Quran.
“Jesus being a miracle and the spirit from God” is what Muslims believe.

One key difference however, the word “spirit from God” is used across the Quran for blessed special human beings: ie Abraham, good believers, etc. God talks about himself as super entity with nothing of its creatures associated to him or resemble him.
The spirit from God does not make them God nor divine.

Good discussion, thanks for the clarification re Paul.

Fellow_Human,
From what I have understood of Mahomet's teaching concerning Jesus it came from a renegade Coptic Priest who taught that Jesus was not human but a spirit that God implanted in the womb of Mary, who could not die but ascended to heaven.

This is not what I uphold. It does not stack up against the body of contemporary secular history written about him. Jesus was very human and those of his close friends defend this, especially John who in the end of the first century saw such false teaching emerge [1 John 2: 18 - 23]. His letters to the churches identify that those who believe such doctrine are the antichrist. Jesus was not just a spirit. He even denies this himself after his resurrection by the statement, "a spirit does not posess flesh and bone as you see me to have [Luke 24: 39}."

Christian faith is in the fact of the historical humanity of Jesus, who by his life demonstrated moral character and sacrificial loving attitudes and he called us to follow him [1 John 2: 6]. The spirit of the antichrist that John identified merely upholds a body of false doctrine and fails to follow the example he set for living as godly humans in this world.

Philo,

The first part of ur message is not correct. Jesus to us, Muslims, is a human conceived by the Virgin Mary with no biological father. The word spirit means he was sent to the Israelites to correct their literalism and re-enforce the spiritual understanding of the Mosaic law. When they denounced his message after all his miracles, Jesus was asked to preach to the non-israelites the real meaning of monotheism and re-explain “God chosen” people.

When he was persecuted and tortured, the Quran states that he was protected by his ascension and that he is to come back at the end of days.
There is 33 references in the Quran to the story of Jesus.

Thanks for the discussion,

I have to adopt F.H.s position on this matter.

I think brother Philo is bringing the "orthodox" view of Christ to us here, though, I was under the impression that the orthodox view had the same as mainstream evangelical/reformed view re Jesus miraculous conception. The difference I understood was that Orthodox would not say Christ 'proceeded from the Father AND the Spirit'. Guess I need to look further into this.

So, I'm a bit confused as to which "Orthodoxy" Br Philo is presenting here.

On one issue we can be confident. If we limit our understanding of Christ to what scripture says, and not what it does not say, we can be on safe ground. It is up to us to put all the evidence together, and work out in our own minds where we stand. The Church councils have been helpful on much of this, no need to re-invent the wheel, but too much focus on them, leads one to a rather dry and formal 'doctrinal' Jesus rather than a Living Saviour who lives in our hearts and minds each day by His Spirit.

The gospels are pretty simple really, the kingdom of God and the 'king' and our relationship to Him.... repentance, or rejection.

We are also on safe ground in 1 Corinthians 15:1-5

1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand
...3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]:

that Christ died
for our sins
according to the Scriptures,
4that he was buried,
that he was raised on the third day
according to the Scriptures,
5and that he appeared to Peter,[b] and
then to the Twelve. 6After that,
he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living

BD,
When I call myself orthodox monotheist I mean: I do not accept there are three persons in a Godhead. When we identify persons we isolate their personal spirit, their independent character. No such concept exists in God. I believe there is but one God who is manifest in one Spirit. The Spirit of the eternal father, was the same spirit manifest in Christ Jesus, and manifest in his spiritual children. There are not three seperate independent personal spirits that uphold a trinity.

Trinity diversifies identity which is contrary to the emphasis of Christ Jesus himself. There is but one Spirit the Spirit of God manifset in attitudes of character, acts over nature, wisdom and revelation.

Jesus as a human did have spatial recognition and a human spirit but this does not define him as God. He constantly revealed his humanity and spoke of himself as son of man, by his appeals to God to work a miracle through acts in his presence. His words were from God, his acts were from God, without God being manifest through his humanity he could do nothing; He states this himself.

Our recognition of God in him is not the focus on his humanity but the admiration of character, acts and wisdom that expressed God. It is the theologians attempt to give God seperate spatial identity [i.e. A Father, a Son and A Holy Spirit] that has resulted in the doctrine of trinity. God is to be worshipped for how he was manifest in his servant Christ Jesus.

The name in Matthew 28: 19 is singular and identifies one - God, similarly the name in Isaiah 9: 6 refers to only one - God.

Fellow_Human,
In your post you state: "One key difference however, the word “spirit from God” is used across the Quran for blessed special human beings: ie Abraham, good believers, etc." You seem to be identifying the persons own spirit as from God implanted at birth. In this case there are many spirits. Whereas I identify the character of God is other than the human spirit and is reborn in the repentant heart who follows the word of God. The human spirit seeks selfpreservation, while the spirit of God seeks the Glory of God.

Both the Torah and Hebrew scriptures indicate we were made in moral character to resemble the holy nature of God. "Let us make man in our image", Genesis 1: 26 - 27, 5: 1, 9: 6; and the teachings of Christ [Messiah] Jesus calls us to be holy in character even as God. God is understood by the absolute purity of his character. Even the Qur'an gives God many names that define character.

Quote, "God talks about himself as super entity with nothing of its creatures associated to him or resemble him."

Jesus identifies that to be "born of God" is not our natural human spirit, but born of the "Holy Spirit" John 1: 12 - 14. The Holy Spirit is only one Spirit that is very God. What you define has reference to the natural human spirit. Quote, "The spirit from God does not make them God nor divine."

Human flesh and blood does not make us godly, only the single spirit that is God incarnate. Ephesians 1: 4, 30; Heb 6: 4.
____________________________________

The nature of the antichrist:
1. Posesses the spirit of Cain who killed his brother.
2. Claims to be the true revelation from God that indwelt the Zealot Jews.
3. Jesus warned would come from the desert and claim to be the true Messiah who will deliver the true believers from paganism nationalism [Matthew 4: 1 - 11].
4. Will deceive most of the spiritual world at the end of the age.
5. Violence will be the nature of his campaign.

Philo,

Thank you for explaining your opinions and faith, I wasn't aware that you consider the Holy Spirit as God. I can see the differences between Roman Catholicism and your sect.

Most 'Anti Christ' stories in some of the hadith are similar though they have no basis in the Quran.

Peace,

Philo.... let me be adventurous :)

are u a Jehovah's witness ?

Cheers
Boaz

BOAZ_David,
I am not a JW.

I have carefully researched the scripture for myself without commentary and can only conclude the spirit manifest upon the life of Jesus was the Spirit of God. If I am a witness to God, I'm a witness to the fact that God was in Jesus Christ reconciling sinners to Himself.

God does not have dimentional or spatial form and no one has ever seen God [John 1: 18], not even the disciples. What the disciples saw was the Glory of God revealed, his grace and truth demonstrated in the life and actions of Jesus. Jesus a flesh and blood human being has faithfully declared God. The Spirit that was manifest in Jesus was the true expression of eternal God. This does not make his humanity God, his humanity was a chosen vehicle through which the Spirit of God demonstrated His character. Jesus had to yeild his spirit to the will of God, "not my will but your will be done". A careful reading of the apostle John will give the relationship between Jesus and God [or Father as Jesus addressed God].

Hi everyone,

The nature of Christ, according to the RC teaching, is both human and divine- two natures, one person. You're spot on, Philo when you say that we learn about the Divinity through the Humanity.
Just as it was through the Disobedience of a man that humanity lost original privileges, it was through the Obedience of a Man- who is also Divine and therefore infinitely capeable of Atoning- that we were Redeemed.
At the same time as being Divine, Christ has a human body and soul. He is "a man like us in all things but sin". There are two basic faculties of the soul- the intellect and the will. Christ, being "perfectus deus, perfectus homo", has a human intellect and a human will (And a human body and Divinity). (The Humanity and the Divinity of Christ are in "Hypostatic Union", forming one Person). His entire life He spent "growing in wisdom and in favour with God"- His human will conforming to His Divine Will- but His human personality is not oppressed, but we can see His human compassion at the wedding feast at Cana leading to His first public miracle(Jn:2).
You are right, there are natural, human inclinations to prefer alternative choices, "not my will be done but yours"- but it is precisely through this obedience that we were Redeemed. Great stuff.
Sorry it's a bit long but realistically, there are so many things to know about Christ, in fact "if all were written down, the world itself would not hold the books recording them." (Last sentence in John)

We being human cannot perecive the divine nature of God apart from material reality, the eternal nature of God is revealed in his handiwork [Rom 1: 20]. God is other than spatial but in manifest to us in the spatial. Jesus is the chosen Christ through whom God revealed His salvation and character. Love is a spiritual reality, and we learn of God's love by the sacrifice of love shown by Christ Jesus atoning for sin that nailed him to the cross.

Well said Jose.. !
Not exactly what Philo was saying :) but I believe it is what he 'should' be saying...
Philo, I understand your points, but I think you make an error in seeking to relate all the teaching about Christ into 'one' direction, and limiting his Divinity by His humanity. This was in fact an early point of contention in the church, but I don't want to argue all that history now, specially seeing as the topic is about Muslims fitting all.

TURKEY and the EU.
Turkish muslims generally are less 'fundamental' or extreme in their Islam, but the point in history which I've made repeated mention of in these forums, (no one else seems to think it matters) which was the Seige of Vienna, in 1680ish... is the VERY thing which is causing opposition to Turkey's membership in the EU TODAY !

The amazing and to me, irrational thing is how historically ignorant or 'denialist' people far away can call the Austrians 'xenophobic' simply because they have suspicions about a country which tried to enslave them in recent memory not once but a number of times.

Its hardly 'xenophobic' for Aussie WW2 diggers who suffered under Japanese cruelty to have grave reservations about close ties with Japan, if anything it is abundantly realistic.

The real problem is 'irrational' xenophobia, whereas much of it has a sound historical or dogmatic basis. (i.e. in the dogma of a particular race-Nazism)

So, while its not correct to say "All Muslims" are this way or that, it is nevertheless accurate to claim "All Muslims can be assessed on the basis of Islam". So, if Islam has inherent problems or threatening aspects, it would not be irrational xenophobia to have a worry or 2 about them.

David, your comment makes sense, that if there are inherent problems or threatening aspects then concern would be reasonable. I don't know Islamic doctrines very well, are there any stand-out inherent problems?
(By the way, Philo if you'd like to send me an email joseph_howard@hotmail.com I'd be happy to discuss the idea of God, the Trinity, etc with you)

Boaz, sometimes I wonder where you get this stuff from.

>>Turkish muslims generally are less 'fundamental' or extreme in their Islam, but the point in history which I've made repeated mention of in these forums, (no one else seems to think it matters) which was the Seige of Vienna, in 1680ish... is the VERY thing which is causing opposition to Turkey's membership in the EU TODAY !<<

The reason "no one else seems to think it matters", dear Boaz, is because it doesn't.

We all know that European memories are long - ask an Irishman about the Battle of the Boyne - but to consider that the Ottoman Empire's various campaigns into sixteenth and seventeenth century Europe have any relevance to whether Turkey is admitted to twentyfirst century EU is nonsense.

Cyprus alone is a thousand times more relevant. Twentieth century Armenian history has some bearing on the discussions, but that is about as much as history-as-history will contribute to the debate. The rest of the considerations will be utterly bureaucratic, in that the greatest impact in joining the EU is having your legal system and economy become subservient to the EU.

The machinations that will be interesting to the rest of the world will include the efforts required by Turkey to come to terms with some of the cultural issues, and in this context their being a Muslim nation will of course be central. And very, very interesting.

I personally don't believe that Turkey should pay the price required, or be comfortable with the compromises and concessions that Germany and France in particular will demand. But I am equally sure that money will eventually talk loudest, much to the future despair of the Turkish people.

But Vienna? The sieges (the first in 1529, by the way, the last in 1683) have absolutely no context here, and it is mischievous to suggest they have.

Talking of them though reminds me of one aspect that has always puzzled me - the role that the 20,000 christians played in the 1529 siege, as members of Sultan Suleiman's janissary corps. Care to comment?

Jose, probably the simplest way to see such 'stand out' issues re Islam is do a search on the post history in this forum on myself and John Kactuz, both have contributed to that theme.

My main concerns are in the area of the actions and behavior of the founder, and how this relfects on his legitimacy as a messenger of God, when compared to say John the baptist and our Lord.

The problem arises when you have the Islamic council of Vic claiming that it promotes Islam based on the Quran and 'as practiced' by Mohamed, so, you look through Islamic sources on his 'practice' and note reports of a) Murder b) Torture c) Gratuitous Sexual gratification d) Genocide of Jews e) Attacks/theft on others property, etc...makes one have serious reservations about 'as practiced by' in the mission statement of a local Islamic body.

Some web searches will reveal a lot of propoganda, but if you sift through the unneccessary expletives and adjectives of the authors, you can actually evaluate information objectively. "Answering Islam" is quite a good site, well referenced and sourced.

Philo, you seem to have the view that Jesus was conceived 'naturally' as in a human father. I reject this on the basis of scripture. Mary was a virgin, clearly stated mate. See commentary on Luke 1:18 I think and that area.
Cheers all

Jose,
Id be happy to transmit directly on the subject of the nature of Christ, so expect an email. Thanks!

BOAZ_David,
I can respect your position as I grew up [and remain] in a church and attended Bible College that believed in the virgin birth meaning God fertilised the ovum within Mary. In a biblical sense He did, by His approval and Jesus being the chosen Christ, this is evidence by his mighty deeds.

However Zacharias the Priest determined the role for Mary that she was to be fertilised of the seed of David. [Read the first hand accounts from the family of Joseph recorded by James the elder step brother of Jesus and you will discover that Mary was artificially inseminated by collected sperm from young men from the lineage of David by an appointed messenger from the Temple with whom Mary was well aquainted.]

The seed of David means just that, it is the fertlising component of sperm from the lineage of David. Mary did not fertlise the ovum within her as she was also of the royal tribe of Judah. Zecharias John the Baptisers father was in close contact with the Essenes, and the Essenes used artificial insemination when desiring children so as to retain their religious purity.

Salome who was the midwife at the birth of Jesus verified that the hymen was intact which meant that Mary had not engaged in normal sexual intercourse with a man. This was respectful of Mary's own vow of chastity.

Quote, "Philo, you seem to have the view that Jesus was conceived 'naturally' as in a human father. I reject this on the basis of scripture. Mary was a virgin, clearly stated mate. See commentary on Luke 1:18 I think and that area."

Hi Pericles, yes, I most certainly would like to comment on that incident. Hmm.. hey... chill on the date pedantry pls..

Now.. 'where does Boaz get this stuff from'... well FYI I got it from a news commentary that very day. It was pointed out specificially that memory of the seige of Vienna is very much alive and is indeed causing many Europeans to hesitate on accepting Turkey into the EU.

Cyprus is quite likely an issue for the same reason, or in fact reminds them OF that earlier incident.

Now as for the Jannisaries.. yes most curious, but does show how 'nominal' was their Christianity. I find the 'end' of the Janissary saga more interesting than the beginning, where they actually called the tune for a while, becoming increasingly aware of their own strategic importance to the Sultan and seeking to be remunerated accordingly.

They represented a typical sovereigns use of a distinct group apart from the core group, that sovereigns tend to keep, as military buffers against disloyalty among those more closely connected with potential rivals among the core group.

But I also find the use of the Janissaries a tragic thing. It saddens me greatly that those of Christian background would feel a greater sense of loyalty to a Muslim soveriegn than their own identity. They were the Sultans finest soldiers also, a further tragedy that those so strong, had in the first place been overwhelmed by numbers rather than skill and strength...if my reading of the times and events is correct.

Ironic also that now, that same nation of Turkey must plead for admission into the 'Christian Club' so to speak. A Buddhist might say "karma", I'm more on the 'reaping what you sow' line.

Hows your pilgrimage of life going... anywhere near Damascus yet?
I'll pray on.

>>FYI I got it from a news commentary that very day.<<

Care to mention the source?

>>Cyprus is quite likely an issue for the same reason, or in fact reminds them OF that earlier incident.<<

Errr, no. Cyprus is an issue today because there is still a dispute between Greece and Turkey as to who owns the place. There is no evidence of any connection between this game - in which the British played a few hands over the centuries - and the siege of Vienna. None.

>>Ironic also that now, that same nation of Turkey must plead for admission into the 'Christian Club' so to speak. <<

The EU is of interest to Turkey for purely economic reasons. I happen to think they are making a mistake, as I think the EU project is about to experience some fairly tough years, but rest assured, their joining will not be as a result of their "pleading", but from a hard nosed "how does Europe benefit" assessment.

I am aware that you delight in making the tiniest issue into a massive battle between your good and the rest of the world's evil. But it will continue to be my duty to stop you and explain things a little to you when the bow you draw becomes too long.

Not impressed with your review of the "Christians in the Janissary episode". They were just bad Christians, right? Nothing to do with real Christians, of course.

Love to hear your version of the Massacre at Al-Aqsa Mosque during the First Crusade, though. Pretty nasty stuff, wouldn't you say?

Pericles,
the source was ABC News Radio, reporting as they do on such topics. The reason it grabbed my attention was that it surprised me to hear it.
As you say, I'm always trying to see the grand scheme of things, and a little bit of validation is always welcome. I don't think the bow was any longer than it was reported.

Yes, your cynicism about 'good Christians' and 'bad Christians' being used to explain all acceptable/unacceptable behavior is noted.

The fundamental issue here is just that.. the fundamentals. It is quite proper to compare the behavior of any person naming Christ as Savior, with the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. So, it is obviously correct to assess historical accounts of actions in this light. The Al Aksa massacre included.

You see, a person is not a Christian because they were baptized, christened, sprayed with holy water, taken to church by parents, attended sunday school. A Christian is a 'Christs-one'.

As those who had crucified Jesus asked Peter "What shall we do now ?"
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

I perceive that you take a very cultural view of Christian-ness.

Back to the Jannisaries. I would need to refresh my reading, but to explain their willingness to attack fellow Christians, one might need to look at how their people were treated by the Byzantines or other powers, one might gain insight to their motives.

I met a young coptic Christian of Egyptian background on Saturday, and due to the ill treatment by Muslims, he said if he had the chance he would blow up every Mosque in Egypt, as his uncle had been slain in his own house by jealous Muslims. This attitude also has to be compared with Scripture.

Please understand my continuing cynicism Boaz. You state that "...the source was ABC News Radio, reporting as they do on such topics. The reason it grabbed my attention was that it surprised me to hear it."

That's it? A fleeting sound-bite - that was sufficiently off-centre that you mentally queried it yourself - was enough for you to write categorically "but the point in history which I've made repeated mention of in these forums, (no one else seems to think it matters) which was the Seige of Vienna, in 1680ish... is the VERY thing which is causing opposition to Turkey's membership in the EU TODAY !"

Unconvincing, I'm afraid.

Twentieth and twentyfirst century Turkey is a radically different country to that which existed in "1680ish". The most disruptive change - from old-think Ottoman Empire to new-think Republic of Turkey - occurred when Ataturk established the republic of Turkey, in stark and deliberate contrast to its Ottoman Empire history, in 1923.

People can change, countries can change. I say again, the Siege of Vienna in "1680ish" has about as much bearing on the possible accession of Turkey to the EU as Ned Kelly has on the outcome of Australia's next election.

Pericles,
while it might be my own view about history and its impact on current thinking in EU member nations, which seems anecdotally validated by such 'sound bites' as you describe them. I don't expect all and sundry to be 'convinced' by such arguments by me.

Convinced of....what ? All I'm claiming is that such events effect peoples outlook. To what degree is the issue which would need to be examined further.

But I suggest, that we can only undersand the present in the light of the past, and that includes the mental outlook of people.

While Turkey may be a different nation now compared to then, the memory in the Euro side may not have faded quite as much as Turkey has changed, and the 'sound bite' you described would suggest as much.

Does it occur to you as to why such a sound bite may have come about in the first place ? It cannot have been just 'dreamt up' by some reporter without any connection to real people. But of course, it might reflect just the one view of the single person interviewed, but it didn't come across that way.

But in terms of the topic, I would classify Turkey as on the moderate end of the Islamic spectrum, and it would be quite wrong to say it is to be tarred with the same brush as Pakistan, Bangladesh or Saudi Arabia.

But Islam, as a faith, should be assessed in the light of its own teachings, no matter how the current crop of Muslims may variously be behaving.

You possess the remarkable talent, Boaz, to leave me even more confused as to your position after every post.

I think what puzzles me is that someone of your obvious and undoubted intelligence can write consecutively...

>>"You see, a person is not a Christian because they were baptized, christened, sprayed with holy water,"<<

and

>>"those who had crucified Jesus asked Peter "What shall we do now ?"
...Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you"

without seeing the inherent confusion that such a juxtaposition creates.

I can quite see your point - that christian-ness comes from within - but if that is the case, why can't you judge muslim-ness on the same basis?

But if in fact you side with Paul, and see christian-ness as a product of repentance and baptism, doesn't this invalidate your previous sentence?

By the same token, when you casually throw off a line about the Turkish application to join the EU, it appears to be without any kind of analysis or processing on your part.

You then confuse matters further by claiming "the memory in the Euro side may not have faded quite as much as Turkey has changed, and the 'sound bite' you described would suggest as much"

Boaz, I hate to remind you, but it was *your* sound bite, not mine. *I* didn't describe it, *you* did. It was I who questioned its provenance, suggesting that it was a poor basis upon which to translate a transient opinion into some form of categorical "fact". To add later that "it might reflect just the one view of the single person interviewed, but it didn't come across that way" is sloppy thinking.

And that, by the way, is what I found "unconvincing" - I have no brief to judge whether others find your arguments compelling. But when the internal logic is so flawed, I feel justified in pointing it out.

PERICLES .. Well done :) I was half anticipating a response like that, and I am glad you are noticing that point about 'not a christian due to Baptism, but then... "Repent and be baptized".. exactly.

Firstly, you are quite right in saying that 'Christian-ness' comes from within, which is indeed my point.

Let me clarify.

1/ Repent.... turn from all known sin, embrace Christ as Lord and Savior
2/ Be baptized, as the outward symbol of the inner transaction, and also as a sign and early step of obedience to one's new King. "Go into all the world, make disciples, baptizing them... teaching them... to obey all I have commanded you" etc.. Math 28.19

Part of discipleship .. is baptism. Like the left and right leg of a pair of trousers.

On "why can't I regard Muslims in the same way.. inner quality"

In a cultural and human sense, yes, one can view Muslims as having varying degrees of inner committment to Allah. But in the "Islamic" sense, its not about a heart "transaction" which we describe in Christian circles as 'Salvation'. Its just on going obedience to Allah which begins from birth, that is why people can be 'born' Muslims, and its correct doctrinally for them, but such is not the case in regard to the Gospel of Christ. A person is 'saved' when they turn, and repent and embrace Christ as Savior.

Knowing your astute mind, I will this time anticipate the obvious question "What about young people, too young to 'hear/repent' etc, and what about 'heathen who have no chance to hear'.... yes, its a difficult question to satisfactorily answer.

My position is tending towards an appreciation of Romans 1, (you will need to read it with this question in mind) and a conviction of the ultimate justice and foresight of the Almighty.

I honestly cannot answer this dilemna, and I'm left with Romans 1, Romans Ch 9-11 and this "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right" Gen 18.25 in a similar context actually.

You astound me, Boaz, honest you do. Did you say this with a straight face, I wonder, or are you being deliberately provoking with your artlessness?

>>"On "why can't I regard Muslims in the same way.. inner quality"

In a cultural and human sense, yes, one can view Muslims as having varying degrees of inner committment to Allah. But in the "Islamic" sense, its not about a heart "transaction" which we describe in Christian circles as 'Salvation'. Its just on going obedience to Allah which begins from birth, that is why people can be 'born' Muslims, and its correct doctrinally for them, but such is not the case in regard to the Gospel of Christ. A person is 'saved' when they turn, and repent and embrace Christ as Savior."<<

You insist on saying that there is only one way that a person can be good, and that is to be a baptised christian. Plus of course the "inner goodness" that conveniently rules out all those Nazis...

Wow. No wonder you see evil in the rustle of a veil, or the swish of a burnous. You would have seen evil in Gandhi. Evil in Ataturk. Evil in Anne Frank. Evil on every street corner.

How on earth do you make it through the day?

Pericles
You are not understanding. You say I see 'evil' in everything. What I see is a world where there are those 'In Christ' and those outside.

On Muslims/Islam/Heart transaction, -you are misconstruing my attempt to point out a fundamental difference in faiths, with the attribution of 'evil' towards Muslims, Ghandi and even Ann Frank because of this.

The point I'm making about Islam, is that it does not teach that a 'faith transaction' is what saves a person. Indeed it does emphasise the need to obey God from the heart, but not in a saving sense. It teaches earthly obedience to a prophet and a religious state and in the end, maybe you will, maybe you wont....be accepted by Allah.

You can be 'born' a Muslim, you can only be 'born again' to become a Christian. The gospel of Christ teaches exactly that.
I think you are reading more into what I'm saying than is there, or.. perhaps I'm just making it clear enough. I'll continue trying.

In referring to knowing Christ, it can only be a matter of the heart, a relationship of on going repentance and faith. People can follow Christs teaching, yet not be 'In Christ'

The point I'm making, is that we are either in Christ, or outside of Him. For those outside of Christ, the scriptural position is that of God as Shepherd, searching and seeking the lost. I don't know why you spin it as me viewing people as 'evil'. As far as I'm concerned we are all sinners and in need of saving Grace.

I get through the day quite well thanx knowing my sins are forgiven.
Perhaps my literary skills are yet in need of some further sanctification.

You regular attention to my apparent lack of logic is noted, and appreciated, I can only benefit from this.

Boaz, it isn't so much the logic, it's the consistency.

You regularly excuse the evil actions of people who call themselves christians by pointing out that they are not really christians at all, since being a true christian comes from behavioural factors, as well as simply wearing the label. This is of course very convenient as a construct, since it automatically excludes anyone who misbehaves from qualifying under your definition of christian.

My concern is that you do not apply the same structure to Muslims. You don't seem to accept that there is a difference between terrorists who describe themselves as Muslim, and folk who bear the same religious label, but wouldn't harm a fly.

In pursuing this line, you are aiding and abetting the rabble-rouser contingent, who have objectives far more sinister and damaging to society than yours. While you may occasionally become tedious in your one-eyed evangelism, it is relatively harmless stuff. You do however provide intellectual comfort to those who have a deep and visceral hatred of any form of difference, and who every so often show their intolerance on these message boards.

This is why I suggested you track down Mosley's "My Life", where you can see a graphic illustration of a highly intelligent person who is so completely wrapped up in his notions of right and wrong, he fails to see the impact on people less smart than himself.

Pericles..... glad you mentioned the point...

<<You regularly excuse the evil actions of people who call themselves christians by pointing out that they are not really christians at all>>

because if that is the message I've communicated then I definitely deserve a rebuke of the strongest kind. I've certainly not intended to 'excuse' acts of brutality, in fact I condemn them along with all fair minded people. I've made reference to Srebrenica, but not to 'excuse' the Serbs, as much as to illustrate exactly what was done by Muslims to Jews at Badr.

If I've labored the 'they are not true Christians'... it is not to justify or excuse, but to explain. In fairness also, I have to point to Cromwell as one of those who was clearly a committed Christian, but who, at some point, seems to have allowed his power and historical circumstances to push him in a rather merciless direction. Though, from what I've read, he did give opposing forces in Ireland the opportunity to surrender and have peace prior to attack.

This does not lessen his deeds, specially when one considers that some of those at the rough end of the military stick he wielded were there because of stupid ego based decisions by Nobles in charge of them.

Regarding 'aiding and abetting/giving comfort to' those who are far more dangerous than myself. I think you have a point there, but this seems unavoidable to me, and in the long run it will always boil down to how clearly we articulate and promote a true understanding of Scripture.

But no matter how well we put our case, we will not be able to stop a Hitler from using the 'cleansing of the temple' incident to 'prove' that a) All Jews are bad b) we must cleanse our society of them

I must make Mosely my Christmas reading :) But he will be competing with the fact that THIS year, I'll have access to a boat.
Cheers

Can I butt into your conversation?
Jesus said that a relationship with God is identified by the spirit that forms attitude and behaviour as he taught. True Christians accept and act in the nature of the spirit of Christ teaching that he is the true spirit from God. People wear tags in an endeavour to give tribal / family identity but that does not identify them with the practise of the truth. We must identify the spirit of the person, and ask who do they represent?

When it comes to weighing up Christianity, we shouldn't look at the sinful actions of those who are Christians but don't live Christian lives, like David's pointing out, they cannot be considered truly Christian. As Christ said, "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples; that you have love one for another."
When weighing up Christianity, we should look at the life of Christ, and the lives of the Saints.
(By the way, Philo, did my 2 emails work? If not, I'll try again)

It seems that christians and muslims do not trust or respect each other enough. We want them to behave as christians and they want to behave 100% as in their countries. We have some basic values and principals, as the human rights, civil rights, democratic principals. These values and principals are not necessary for all or only from christian.Personaly I can not accept the violation of the human rights, civil rights or democratic principals for any reason!

aNTONIS,
Perhaps for everyones benefit you could expound further what these values, rights and democratic principles are that you will not surrender, or of which allow violation.

Quote,"These values and principals are not necessary for all or only from christian.Personaly I can not accept the violation of the human rights, civil rights or democratic principals for any reason!

Waleed

You've got a problem, I worked with muslims for over 7 years. I've also worked with many of the ethnic groups in this country and overseas.

They all hate your religion and culture.

That's Chinese, Vietnamese, Moari, Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian, Arab, Persian, Italian and Greek.

Why? Long before the terrorism it was the criminality and welfare abuse.

Seriously, you've got little to worry about from Anglo Aussies, but these people really hate you.