So redneck, suppose some Catholics or Prodestants were to gang rape some young women. Would you expect them to and all their 'kind' to ship off back to where they came from?

Or perhaps you would argue that in such cases, religion was not an influence? In other words, if muslims gang rape women it because they subscribe to the Koran and identify as Islamic, but when Christians gang rape women it's got nothing to do their subscription to the Bible or their Christian faith.

If religion doesn't cause gang rape (and I don't believe it does) then I hypothesize it has something to do with tribal mentality emerging in communities of the marginlised and disposessed, and guess what, that's the fault of Australian 'Westernised' society

Red.
Jesus did clearly teach an 'us/them'. Those who know Him and turn from sin, believe in the gospel are forgiven and become Gods adopted children. Those who don't are on the outside of God's grace.

The difference is that Jesus refers to 'the lost' as sheep for whom a good shepherd will search and look until he finds them. He will rejoice with all his friends when it is brought back, he continually says "The son of man will be killed, (for you)" and he steadfastly continued on to the place he knew where crucifixion awaited.

He told us to love our enemies, not fight them.

He told us that to even lust after woman is tantamount to adultery,

He exposed the hypocricy of the Scribes, Pharisees and Lawyers. But he restrained Peter from slicing and dicing any more ears of the cops who came to arrest Him.

In summary, there is a universe of difference in the 'mood' and tone of Christ, His words and life, which is relfected in the lives of those who truly know Him, (as opposed to those who use His name for material or socio political gain)

Such was not the case with Mohammed, who had many fights, raids, wars and killings. He stood by while his soldiers enjoyed 'coitus interuptus' with newly captive girls, without comdemning them. The old testament is rough in spots, but at least captives were given a time of grieving before they could be approached with marraige in mind.

Irfan I appreciate your moderate tone (though you say we 'hate' you :) which we don't. But we don't appreciate the decline of our social fabric perpetrated by radicals. You do well to condemn them.

You also appear to be very resilient :) it must not be easy enduring the various criticisms we make on the foundation of your own faith.
Remember "Pain b4 Gain"

Its funny, but when I have my Muslim friends over to my house for dinner, they don’t turn up in traditional Arab garb (maybe it’s the deceptive behaviour that they display towards infidels?). After they leave, I generally don’t feel the need to check my house for concealed bombs and assorted weaponry. Furthermore, they’ve never raped my wife and they’ve never tried to convert me. You may not even realize that they were Muslim unless you asked.....Deception again? Or ignorance and prejudice by some of the other posters in this forum?

I’d certainly rather spend time with them than someone who was trying to force feed me an extremist form of Christian flavoured hatred...

Keep up the good work Irfan.

Also, BOAS_David – get a grip. Do you really think that we care about a local government planning issue in Michigan USA? I don’t see the relevance to this post. Sydney has more than enough planning issues of its own (it’s just they don’t involve Muslims!)

On a recent Lateline programme an American commentator gave the real reason for the shocking human relations now existing between Christianity and Islam. He pointed out that in many ways religion has very little to do with it. He did not mention the term “blowback” but the term itself was originated by the CIA who warned that their tactics against Middle East nations, and certain Third World countries could cause international friction in the future.

The above would not surprise anyone studying International Relations in our universities. As the US commentator pointed out, most Islamic terrorism has been carried out not by poor or destitute Muslims but by the more intellectual and priveleged. Such was proven in 9/11 as well as the recent London bombings, and of course, every one knows bin Laden is related to the most respected of Saudi-Arabian families.

Many people desperately fed-up with news of Islamic attacks, would say either to close down the Humanities areas of our universities or put the curriculums under surveillance, as was done in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

However, this would not get to the core of the problem because former students who had learnt in the universities about “blowback” and “payback” might also need to be quietened down with a warning they could be penalised.

On the other hand, this could give certain of our more zealous leaders a kind of satisfaction that the mention of a car-boot holding a bomb far bigger than one to fit in a haversack, might keep our public more patriotic and forced to respect those already in power.

As intimated by the American commentator - part of the answer could be for both America and Britain to get out of Middle East territory admitting they’d only been in there since WW1 mostly for oil and strategem. But such thoughts might only be a pipe dream, especially as for years now we have had the well-publicised US promise of a New World Order as well as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

Boaz I did not make a fatal blunder in my thoughts. You are. Your snide little comments, baseless assertions and general attitude in these columns suggests a hatred of anything that challenges your opinions. What I was on about has nothing to do what you are on about. So what if I embrace political correctness. What's that got to do with anything. It (PCness) doesn't signify weakness in my view but strength. Being PC, among many other things, to my understanding is not letting external factors that have nothing to do with the argument, such as sexuality, race, class, religion etc be brought into a converstion to disparage anothers ideas. For instance:you said: "...pc trendy social 'think'ers (I use that term very loosely)." That I come across as politically correct has little to do with what I was conveying. Indeed, I think it is more trendy now for people to be politcally incorrect than it is to be respectful of others and their ideas. You seem to take issue with the term "Think". I always try to say "I think" out of respect to others who may have another opinion -that idea you will find in most books on dealing with conflictual people. continued

Boaz continued I'm digressing. You can spend your time underming anti-terrorist articles like Irfan's all you like it doesn't change the fact that people like Irfan engender goodwill which is, I think, a very positive thing. Re: your confusing link between communism and deportation: You said So and So said: "If the communist manifesto declares violent overthrow of the bourgois', then vetting immigrants for 'communist' views and rejecting them accordingly is a wise approach to national security." I disagree because it would be racist. If immigrants or otherwise take violent action against their fellow country men based on learned hatreds then that is wrong - that is very politically incorrect. One characteristic of political correctness is it tries to put humanity before ideology. Thus violent overthrow of an elected government is politcally incorrect. Wealthy people can be real heartless but they are still people. Political incorrectness I would suggest involves a similar thinking patterns to fascism which is, ironically, what violence ultimately engenders.
Old saying: "Just because you live in a zoo you don't have to behave like an animal." You can be as politically incorrect as you like I intend to try and maintain a respectful and positive approach - I don't need to revert to the language equivalant of violence to express myself. Most of your assertions re: Irfan's article, etc are, I think, incorrect.