“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 ?