http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050628/wl_mideast_afp/oicyemen

Perhaps Mr Aly would like explain why it is that the OIC is pushing for a seat on the UN Security Council. See URL reference

Then explain why the source of their beliefs references some 160 verses dealing with jihad/violence to others, including women.

I agree with you that the majority of Muslims in Australia would be and indeed are, very peaceful people and wish no harm to anyone despite what their teachings says. But the trouble is how does one differentiate the jihadists from the more normal ones. Obviously the normal ones are ignoring the violent elements of their teachings.

I to have a Nutbag file..its called TOOI The Oddities Of Islam

garra you said "B-D just doesn't seem to be able to comprehend ..., to those of us who are not religious, the actions and rantings of fundamentalist and evangelist Christians are every bit as distasteful as those of fundamentalist Muslims."

Please give us some evidence of statements by the former group for comparison with the all too publicly available statements in the media from Islamists.

I, like you, follow no religion but I havent heard reports of south american catholics declaring war on the "Islamic conspiracy" nor pacific islander evangelists' battle-cry against Islam. I've see no reports of beheadings by american born-agains, no syrian flag-burning by german lutherans nor caricatures of iran as the "Great Satan" from english anglicans. Yet we are all bombarded daily with this hysterical, offensive claptrap from Islamists everywhere. Even the 'moderate' language from official hardliners is hair-raising for secular people...such as this today.

Islamic revolution 'to cover the globe'
Ramita Navai, Tehran
July 01, 2005
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15783115%255E2703,00.html

IRAN'S ultra-conservative President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has thrown down a challenge to the West by declaring that his election victory marked the dawn of a new Islamic revolution that would spread around the world.

"Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution of 1384 (the current Iranian year) will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world," he said. "The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world."

C'mon garra, they dont want democracy and we dont want Islamists. Where does this leave us but to tone down our rhetoric and improve our argument. Our forebears staged crusades, today Islamists provide the more imperialist, reactionary and violent talk - where is their radical voice of reconciliation? Why are they all about bloody revolution and not about peace? Why don't they provide evidence to back up their arguments instead of ugly hyperbole about others? What are their practical solutions for their societies? They need to move forward and and clean up their own behaviour and language if they wish to taken seriously.

Ro,

I should have been more explicit, I suppose, but the context of my comment was the written statements in these forums by those who identify themselves as Christian and Muslim, respectively - except that the latter group invariably post reasonable, considered comments in polite tones, while the former group includes a small number of individuals who take every opportunity to denigrate those who don't share their extreme beliefs.

I agree that militant Islamists are a real problem where they are in the ascendancy (e.g. in Iran), as are fundamentalist Christians (e.g. in the U.S.A.). However, the very one-sided examples you provide to illustrate Islamist extremism could easily be countered by examples of Christian violence and other idiocies (e.g. bombings perpetrated by anti-abortion extremists, murder of human rights workers organised by so-called Christians, the refusal by the Catholic church to allow the use of condoms etc etc) - but that would mean engaging in the kind of pissing contest that unfortunately characterises these forums all too often.

Extremism by fundamentalist and/or evangelistic Christians will only foment extremism by their Muslim counterparts. I don't think we need either here.

Hi Ro,

It is unfortunate that our media is shallow on the middle east and just happy to publish a ‘spicy headline’. The Iranian revolution (by the Ayatollahs in the 70s through away the shah) supposing to bring social justice, jobs, better wealth distribution, etc..

The failing of the delivering on these very basic needs of any society was the only thing that brought the existing President to power through free elections. Iranians, like others, are tired of Billionaires ayatollah who are just comfy with the status go.

Bottomline, if they had free economy and social justice they wouldn’t have voted for this guy.

Hi Bigmal,

Jihad in Islam is neither holy war nor violence. The first is a western media slogan and the second is some of the negative influence of tribal Arabian culture.
The meanings of Jihad in the verses you refer to are always in the context of: resisting temptations, striving for better self, caring for your parents, sponsoring the widow and the orphan and last, defending your country from the aggressor.

The fundamentalist ideology used the last form (a verse in the Koran that says: no aggression except on tyrants) and reshaped it over the last few decades to allow preemptive strikes against what they would label as a tyrant. (even though ignoring the explicit teachings of no harm to civilians).

The statement used by any radical group is always using this word “fighting tyrants, ending tyranny”. Radical groups who assassinated Egyptian president Sadat in 1980 used the same ideology.
Ironically, this statement is not only in common between radical Islamist only but with any fundamentalist of any religion. How many times did you read ‘fighting tyrants, ending tyranny’ in some US officials statements?

JustDan,

You are a breath of fresh air! God bless the kindness of your heart.

AK

For those trying to bring even handed comment to this thread - JustDan, garra, Fellow_Human (and others), thanks.
There are some great posts here.

Comparing "Apples with apples" is an important concept in debate, keep up the good work.

R0bert

RO ! thanx, your observations about Garra's attacks on me, are most welcome, as are your comments about what he appears to be 'missing' in his 'totally balanced, unbiased' outpourings. I give credit where credit is due, as for Irfan when he noted with sadness the application of the Blashpemy laws in Pakistan against hapless Christians and other minority groups.He spoke truth, and I applauded that.

Garra
I note, about life and people, that if you give them enough rope, they will eventually save us the trouble and hang themselves. You just did that.
I invite you to demonstrate your claim that I have ==>
QUOTE
"take every opportunity to DENIGRATE THOSE don't share their extreme beliefs."
UNQUOTE.

Now, lets examine this statement of yours and look for examples of bias and blinkered outlook. The phrase "denigrate those" is an interesting one. Can you show me one example of my making a PERSONAL attack on either Irfan or Ash ? because 'denigrate those' means just that. You didn't say "critically examined the belief systems of..." you said "Denigrate THOSE".. I.E. you are saying I make personal attacks on individuals with whom I disagree, and that I do this at EVERY OPPORTUNITY.

I do recall mentioning history, scriptures, etc, but I don't recall calling Ash or Irfan 'morons, stupid, idiots, lame brains' and the such like which would constitute evidence of your 'unbiased' claim.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone outside of Christ (including you) is one for whom He died, if you or others choose not to accept Christ, you don't need to worry about me attacking you for that, its your free will choice.

I will nevertheless, attempt to point out the problems with 'other gospels' as I see them. (Continued)