Brillant article......who would of thought that sometimes to be reminded that a simple thing as common sense can make things clearer.
Or is it that people sometimes forget the simple things and unknowingly make things more complicated than it should be.
Bashir, well done and hope to hear from you again.

Bashir Goth's common sense logic applies equally to Christian Religions as it does to Islam.I am equally horrified by the suicide bombing round the world as I am to the carnage perpetrated on the civilian, non-combatants in Palestine and Iraq.
Maracas

Brilliant article, especially the Somali anecdote!

I won't call the article 'brilliant' :) but I will call it compassionate and heart warming.

Written from what seems to me the perspective of a 'cultural' Muslim (not a criticism, simply an observation) ie.. one who enjoys family life and community, and the company of family and friends.

Its almost as though the "Islam" to such a person is no more important than the various social taboos or rituals of any society.
Its just 'his religion'. Again, not a criticism, just an observation.

The difficult and challenging part of this coin, is that it has another side.

It is that side, which is promoted by the the Arabian connected Imam. or been educated in a Pakistani Madrassa, where the Glory of Islam is hammered into young impressionable minds as they rock back and forth memorizing the Quran, and due to the influence of the religious teachers, they also build up a fanciful and erroneous picture of 'The enemies of Islam and its prophet'.

There is ample evidence that there are small groups of like minded connected people in all areas where Islam exists.

Perhaps one way of 'testing' for such, would be to have suspect Muslims hold the Quran above his head and swear alliegance in the name of Allah and Mohammed to the country he is now residing in. Renounce fighting and violence in the name of Allah and Islam. I seriously doubt if any hard core fanatic would do this.

Jesus, made it quite clear that there are no grounds whatsoever for his followers taking up arms in His name. "Do good to those who persecute you" is enough to squash any validity of "Christian terrorism"

These are simple facts of life, we as a community, all want to live in harmony, friendship and co-existence. But while there are those who are taught "This is THE way and we will 'MAKE' them walk in it".... we have a problem.

Boaz, I think you may have missed the entire point of the article. It refers to Muslims only for an example - presumably because this is the culture the author knows most about.

However, we who have been brought up in a non-Muslim environment recognize these words only too well:

>>Therefore, I would rather call these people devoid of common sense and deprived of human feelings. These [fundamentalists] make a habit of covering themselves with clouds of pomposity; they like to hide behind out-of-context religious jargon; they love to reach out for history and holy texts to run away from taking a responsible position on obvious common sense issues.<<

I'm trying very hard to tell you something here, Boaz, don't make me spell it out for you.

Bashir Goth that was very a life-affirming piece of work.
Nevertheless, I don't think text in itself and history are negatives. It is how people use them to justify things that our human sense immediately knows to be wrong. I read the term commmon sense as you use it to mean that universal feeling that we all share in certain circumstances. Sometimes though it is used to mean common agreement (even if it is nonsense). Your detractors will probably remind you of this.
Most people regret the death of any innocent human or any human for that matter. Sadly, some have a sense of schadenfreude (secret joy of someones misfortune). I think that in Australia there are sadly peole who are secretly pleased that terrorists activity has increased. It gives them an excuse to have a go at people of different race or religion. Rather than attacking terrorism they seem determined to promote racist thinking and indulge in cultural supremacism. This negative politics they think will help "make one nation out of many tribes". Guess who. Yes. Bolt speak. He also says that reverse would be deadly. Now, I think, that is racist and cultural supremist nonsense. You will never get 20 million people to all embody the same thinking, religion and lifetstyles. A mono-culture. No way. Individualism is a trait that marks Australia. We, for christ sake, we started punk. The Saints out of Brisbane were throwing them back and knocking it out before Johny Rotten. No wait a minute - punk culture must rule supreme. No mohawk-no job, no tats-no entry to pubs, no safety pins no shooling - like that minority you conform of you get nothing. Stagger a mile through alleyways and backstreets with the straights coming down you before you talk of this one nation. The only way we can be one is if all allow for the others difference. Thank you for your insight Bashir.

Edit those little mistakes of mine yourselves please. When I said "before you talk" of one nation, I meant all those opportuntists who are using the current situation to further their own ideas such as a mono-nation. I did in no way mean to suggest that "you" was you Bashir.
One of the greatest acts of terrorism was the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima. A survivor of that horror said these, I think, very wise words to an Australian. "You are not my enemy; war is our enemy." I think that we need to remember that above all else terrorism and war are our enemy.

Bashir Goth (love your surname, sorry I haven't grown up yet) - A superb and lyrically written article full of well ..... common sense. I feel uplifted just for having read it.

Loved the somali anecdote too.

Common sense and text sense: I know which makes sense.

Well common sense tells me that the only effective solution to the terrorist problem is to eradicate the moronic social policy of multiculturalism. Commonsense tells me that whereever there is Islam, there is conflict. Look at the tragic state of Europe, what a mess. Muslims should never have been let in, especially en masse. They are let in by the fifth column, to become the fifth column.

End immigration and for god's sake, abolish multiculturalism.

I appreciated the sentiment in this article.

When confronted with this subject matter in this type of forum, the responses are inevitably polarised. I feel it is sad that a fellow human has been forced to justify his religion. We are largely a naive country and I take the chance whenever I can to learn from new Australians. They appreciate what it is we have here. That being said, whenever a religion is explicit, conflict and inevitably violence and prejudice ensue and i don't feel it has to be this way although history would suggest otherwise.

The only way forward is respect, and personally I don't know how you enforce such a moral quality. We have no choice but to live amongst one another, no choice. We do have a choice when it comes to expressing our religion in such a way as to flaunt it.

My Grandfather who himself is a religious man expressed to me once a sentiment I hold dear to this day. When asked about his opinion (as he would never put it forward if not asked on this topic) regarding preachers (preachers in nature as well as occupation), he told me he felt the best way to express your religion was to live your life and set a good example. If then, someone approached you and asked why it was that you seemed to lead a good life and be happy, then you could share your practices and / or beliefs. To do otherwise is to, in your own way, pass moral judgement.

I feel if everyone were to adopt this sentiment life would be somewhat more enjoyable.

That being said, the only times I find myself tingling with nationalistic pride is when i see examples of true, accepting, tolerant multiculturalism at work in this great nation made of all nations.

Rancitas, Bolt hater I see, I am sorry but your comment that “You will never get 20 million people to all embody the same thinking, religion and lifetstyles”. That is a very simplistic statement that even he who should not be named is not suggesting. So please read what people say not what you think they say. (Common problem in debates)
Oh where has English language teaching failed?
Anyway COMMON SENSE says, as you do, that you cannot get the same thinking, religion or lifestyle as the people with different views on this forum prove. In fact history proves that you can accept the differences and hold onto your mother culture without losing them and still be involved and an integral part of Australian culture. The Italians and Greeks did it after World War 2 (my parents being prime examples) and people of Asian origin and descent are successfully doing it now especially seen in the hard work ethic in schooling. So COMMON SENSE says if these groups can, others can as well. You are right, Australia loves individualism but we love the team player as well.
Your comment “It gives them an excuse to have a go at people of different race or religion. Rather than attacking terrorism they seem determined to promote racist thinking and indulge in cultural supremacism.” Agree some people do have that intention. I think the majority do not. But do not forget that this article was written titled
Muslim to Muslim - people of humble common sense ask ‘why?
A Muslim is asking the question. COMMON SENSE says that others can ask as well. To attack them if they are non-Mulsim for asking questions is in itself racist. Why should Australians ask a question of another culture? Using the Australian term “fair go mate”

Good sentiments, Bashir, but second book of the Koran includes such a gem as an order to fight until there is no religion left except Islam.

There are other surahs telling us to strike off the heads of the disbelievers, to cut off their fingertips, their hands and feet on opposite sides, to crucify them, and to cut for them garments of fire.

It is taught in more than one surah that it is wrong to make friends with non-Muslims, and in one place even if they are family.

If the silly Christians could throw away the scriptures of that other religion, Judaism/Israelitish, they could then search the New Testament in vain for similar texts.

The Islamic faith is a descendant of the bad parts of the Hebrew faith -- the eye for the eye, the tooth for the tooth, and stoning adulterous women (but not men) included.

Modern Muslims who want to believe that their scriptures teach only peace ought to quote us the books and the surahs, with the URLs, just as the unfriendly texts can be shown on the Internet. Convince us!

Bashir Goth,

thank you for your impressionable prose, but even as a Westerner of British stock who would rather be a Christian, I do not find in your posting any reference to what is the main cause of the worrying attitude that most Muslims have of the Western world today, particularly what some are calling the Anglicised Alliance, America, Britain and Australia.

We to go back to the 1900s when Great Britain ruled the world and America was on a colonial jag like her former Motherland, taking over what was left of Spanish possessions adjoining the body of the United States and across the Pacific.

Apart from the Islamics, non-Anglicised Western countries must be concerned with such Anglicanised arrogance, so revealed in the Alliance that unlawfully is still occupying Iraq. An alliance which would have found full favour from Cecil Rhodes, his admirers still part of undercover organisations such as David Rockefeller's Trilateralists and the associated Bilderbergers, both well backed by Bank of England cash as well Wall St currency.

It could be argued that Muslims are just jealous - and to be sure it is all part of the hatred. But a hatred more fired up by the virtual takeover of British colonialism by US imperialism along with similiar pirate tactics in the change from gunboat diplomacy to missile diplomacy. Also implanting a special type of democracy to a backward world, but while on the job well on the rakeoff, formerly with the Brits it was gold, diamonds, tea and coffee, and now with Pax Americana, oil, gas and the dumping of cheap subsidised grain.

Small wonder the Muslims have got a grouch, and the Heavenly Hosts up there saying - will those Yanks and Brits down there ever learn?

Brush :) your post was a classic mate. Congratulations. You attributed the foibles of 'human nature' which have applied, apply, and will ceaselessly continue to apply to all humans wherever they be, irrespective of race or creed, to just one stream of culture and history the 'Anglo'. Its called 'Rule or be Ruled'.
They are the only 2 alternatives in life. I'm sure the main problem the Spanish had with the Yanks taking over their terrority (which they had taken from the Indians) was purely that issue, and its associated baggage of human and resource exploitation.

I don't condone such things for a moment, nor does the Bible:
"All...... (repeat) 'ALL' have (are, and will continue to) have sinned, and fall short of the Glory of God" Bible bash ? :) or observation of reality. OOps.. I forgot, Greens and Democrats and Labor people don't sin :) Its only the libs ....or even worse, Family First, WOW.... and all the rest of those "Right Wing Rude, Rampaging Hyper fundamentalists"

So, Brush, where does one look for a solution to the human dilemna ? Certainly not to the corrupt and manipulated U.N. nor to the twisted and 'interest soaked' concept of International Law, (which will be interpreted by various states in terms of their perceived national interest and convenience. (stop me when I'm going wrong here :)

IKEN Your post would have been more accurate (in my opinion) if it had said "When different 'PEOPLE' are put together, those things which define them and make them different, can be a source of conflict' Religion is usually just a symbol of difference, you neglected race and language and the competition for resources and one more thing 'selffffffishness' :)

I point to Christ, and the idea that 'new people' make good societies, not 'new systems'. Brush, review John the Baptists call to the masses mate. What is the world where 'God rules' (in HEARTS not parliments) like ?

"11 John answered, "The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same."

Bashir Goth

I agree with the sentiments of your article. Christians have similar difficulties with their interpretation of the bible. Your approach of common sense as opposed to text sense makes perfect sense to me and it is a shame that christian fundamentalists won't understand the succinct message you have published here.

A little less preaching and a lot more loving would be a good start.

Thank you.

Give us a break Boaz-David, go and reconsider the parable of the Good Samaritan or the story of Jesus knocking over the tables of the money lenders in the Temple. Some of the most wicked ( sinfull?) comments made on this forum are made by so called Christians. That warmongre of Ireland, the Reverend Ian Paisley; would be proud of some of the comments spewing out by Christians.

Bashir makes a good point about fundamentalists of any religion, perhaps a parable for our time? Continually quoting Bible passages only puts you deeper in the hole you are making for yourself.

Well stripe me pink and call me Shirley, I've misjudged Boaz.

He wasn't the only one who missed the main message, it turns out that a solid fifty percent of the forum shares with Boaz the need to isolate this as a Muslim issue. He prattles on about the Bible, bushbred talks of Muslim jealousy, davo targets Muslim immigration ("should never have been let in, especially en masse"), johnmassam selects pieces of the Koran for discussion.

It isn't about Muslims. It's about the mentality of the fundamentalist. Any fundamentalist. Any religion. Anywhere.

Listen again to Bashir Goth's words.

>>There is a huge vault between us. It is a divide between people consumed by religious thinking and who see everything through a religious prism and people of humble common sense who see things as they are.<<

>>These [fundamentalists] make a habit of covering themselves with clouds of pomposity; they like to hide behind out-of-context religious jargon; they love to reach out for history and holy texts to run away from taking a responsible position on obvious common sense issues.<<

Fundamentalism, of any colour, is the problem. It provides people with a justification (to themselves) for not having to think (for themselves). Boaz's particular brand of evangelism is living proof of the ability of an apparently literate person to "fundamentally" direct any discussion to the cul-de-sac of total immersion in a single view.

Interesting article. However, it makes a somewhat bigotted and illogical point.

Essentially, it argues that 'common sense' is the proper way to interpret reality. But on what basis does it make this claim? It can only make this claim based on a number of assumptions about the nature of the world and the universe. So why should anyone choose those assumptions over others? Bashir essentially feels that if everyone was as enlightened as him, the world would be all rosie and happy.

Even the choice of the words 'common sense' is self-serving. If it is 'common' sense, then why do so many people not have it? Clearly Bashir is seeking to try and gain the 'rational' ground by his choice of words, and I believe many will agree with him simply because the also disagree with the extremist terrorist muslims and terrorist attacks.

Yet the problem isn't that some people have 'common sense' and some people have 'text sense'. Common sense used to be that you could beat your own slaves. Common sense used to tell us that women are too emotional to vote.

Bashir. Instead of trying to cast the problem as one between the religious and the non-religious, essentially trying to force religious people to abandon any public effects of their faith, perhaps you should deal with the real issues of competing worldviews.

The best article i have read. Yes this man is trying to take a rational approach to common sense. What else do we have?! Once again in some of the comments posted above the far left is attempting to muddy the waters- common sense does not always have to become subjective. If we cannot all agree that blowing up women, and children in the name of religion is wrong then mankind is in a horrible condition. Furthermore before I get a flood of responses claiming there is no difference between the Americans in Iraq, and terrorists in London please read my posts on that topic. Oil, legality, and politics aside, Al Qaeda and the like are not men of god-just men exploiting the notion.

Pericles, I don't think it is miscomprehension but disagreement. They think the distinction is between us and Islam, but the article suggests the divide is one of fundamentalist religion.

Although I agree that fundamentalists perceive things through their religion, I think much of what the articles says is wrong. Grey has already pointed out some of the difficulties surrounding using common sense as a moral guide. The article seems to suggest that we never need look for deeper moral insight, that we already know all there is to know and that moral issues are always clear. Furthermore, the article implies that it is not important to look at the root causes of evil or alternatively that evil is simply evil & that there are no other causes. And it seems to assume that you can only look at what is in front and what is behind. These positions would be deeply flawed.

Everyone perceives through their own experiences, interests and views. Not all views have as strong a control over thought as fundamentalism, some limitation always exists. It is easy for us to (rightly) condemn terrorists but we do not so easily notice or condemn the immoral acts of our own country.

if it were up to me, id put the fun back into fundamentalism!

Love it examinee! Fundamental a fun dame.
I enjoy being true to myself, its such fun. I want to examine carefully others POV before I bow to their fundamental position.

ANT

This is for you. I'm rather mystified about what the connection is between my final quote/words in my post which were from John the Baptist "If anyone has 2 cloaks, let him share with one who has none"

with

"Give us a break Boaz . Jesus is turning over tables, sinful wicked Christians.........
You're a worry. Did you find something offensive about the idea of sharing what we have with those less fortunate than ourselves ?

I appreciate your use of Christ's example in your responses, I can think of no better source to be compared with, and while I will always come up 'failing' its ok :) because I'm not under any Messianic delusion of personal perfection.

On your reference to Ian Paisly, totally agree. I saw him in Singapore, spending five minutes patting Bob Jones Jr on the back who then returned the compliment, I wanted to peuk.

I think one major problem that you and Xena and Trinity are having, is that in your minds you have a very poor image of SOME segments of the Christian spectrum, (the worst end) and you are all applying that image to the likes of Philo, David, Grey and others.

There is a WORLD of difference between Bob Jones/Fred Phelps hyper fundamentalists and 'Christians who believe in the fundamental truths of the faith.'

I hope you guys and gals will simply read the New Testament, try to gain an image of JESUS, then, when you wish to criticize us, use HIS example and HIS teaching, directly. Don't latch onto the worst last bad Christian news report and smother us with vitriol.

I don't think any of us will object to being compared with Christ, we DO however object in the most strenuous terms to being identified (in a SLANDERous manner) with movements or identities who do not relfect our own positions. The 'Christian Identity' think from Xena being a prime example. With any group which has the tag "Christian" there will certainly be an overlap of SOME ideas, but not all. When in doubt consult USER MANUAL :)

OK, says Grey, don't like where this is heading, time for the strawman.

>>"Essentially, it argues that 'common sense' is the proper way to interpret reality. But on what basis does it make this claim?"<<

No it doesn't. It suggests that common sense is the proper way to respond to reality, and contrasts this with the tendency of the religious fundamentalist - of any persuasion - to respond to any reality with their particular brand of mumbo-jumbo.

By attempting to recast the issue as a battle of "competing worldviews", you are fooling no-one. Bashir Goth has skewered beautifully the cant, hypocrisy and doublethink of the religious fundamentalists, and it is a mark of how well he has done so that you react in this way.

Oh look, a Wookie.

You go Pericles.

Bashir Goth has nailed it. And see how they squeal.

Best article I've read in a long time.

When do we get the sequel?

BOAZ_David, you'd be surprised to hear that I go out of my way to drive my son (19 yo)to various church services/meetings. He needs to go on his own journey in relation to religion as my parents allowed me.

I gather that the neo-cons in USA are Christian as are some Ministers in the Coalition Government and the Prime Minister; they supported pre-emptive strikes on Iraq. I cannot understand the Christian pragmatics involved with that. "Thou shalt not kill"??

Christian leaders of various persausions have been involved with sexually abusing young people , not all of these leaders belong to fundamental Christian groups.

I work with people displaying a humanist philosophy and find that these people treat others in what could be termed a "Christian" way.

Clearly there have been and are innunerable decent religious people. I have not found any role models in my own life.

I'm afraid I don't accept the Bible as being totally literal.

pericles,
The only straw man around here is yours.

I find it amazing that a person of your intellect can fail to understand that Bashir's 'common sense' is essentially being defined as anything that agrees with his worldview. Just because it agrees with your own worldview does not make it right or 'common sense'. I have showed quite clearly that the notion of common sense is virtually a useless one as it is only considered 'common sense' within a social/cultural worldview.

Your comments provided no content other than 'Grey is wrong and acting out of frustration'. The epitomie of poor logical discussion if every there was one.

Bashir is merely useless the oldest trick in the book. That of trying to redefine the language in a discussion in order to guarantee his view prevails. It is the same redefinition that has caused society to take on a irrational definition of 'tolerance'. The simple fact is that I am commenting on this redefinition and showing it to be a transparent rhetorical tactic. You have provided nothing to refute my point, only some irrational whining and congratulary back patting for bashir as you obviously are unable to grasp the simple concept that what is 'common sense' to one person is not necessarily common to others.

Grey you must be kidding- illogical thinkers like you need to take a long hard look at the way they construe meaningless theoretics- in your case the 'theory of common sense'. Common sense is not subjective! In this day and age 'common' means/ should mean 'global'.
Even Kofi Annan realises the importance of the international community reaching a consensus on the definition of 'terrorism'. Unfortunately for Kofi there are despots like Mugabe and Kim Jong Il that use nonsense arguments like yours to justify acts that by any definition, standard, or consensus should be considered at odds with humanity. The most ironic thing for the left, is that it is also because of such superfluous arguments that leaders like Bush get away with mocking international standards. The 'Hawks' certainly feel that in the present climate of 'no common sense' Bush has to be an international sheriff.
The sooner the international community can sit down and unanimously condemn Sudans' inaction in Darfur, Mugabes' violence in Zimbabwe, and Al Qaedas' horid strategies, the sooner common sense will mean someting again. Hopefully it will mean the same no matter where you are in the world

Grey, I find it amazing that a person of your intellect cannot spell bigoted or epitome, but I don't hold that against you.

Your attempts at textual deconstruction are doomed to fail, I'm afraid, for exactly the same reason that you misunderstand - deliberately or involuntarily I'll not speculate - Bashir's essentially simple and well-phrased point.

To conflate common sense - which to you cannot, by definition, exist - with what you loosely and conveniently label "worldview", is an act of verbal trickery. It is entirely possible for there to be two different "worldviews", and to be able to measure the acts of each, not only against each other, but against the yardstick of common sense.

You say "[c]ommon sense used to be that you could beat your own slaves. Common sense used to tell us that women are too emotional to vote" to illustrate that it can be neither common nor sense.

Yet if you compare the "worldview" of Christianity as enacted by its adherents over time, you will see that it also morphs and adapts to the world around it. Hippolytus in the third century described some extremely rigorous prerequisites to baptism, including "[a]sculptor or an artist must be warned not to make idolatrous pictures; he shall give it up or be rejected. If anyone is an actor or impersonator in the theater... [a] charioteer, an athlete, a gladiator, a trainer of gladiators, or one who fights wild beasts or hunts them or holds public office at the circus games [he] shall give it up or be rejected."

Compare that with the activities of Pope Alexander VI, who was gloriously described as "[c]orrupt, ambitious, worldly and pleasure-seeking, [he] would have been considered a rake even as a secular lord. As the leader and embodiment of western Christendom, he can only be called a scandal."

There are other examples, as you well know. Even a "text-based" "worldview" is liable to change over time

And as I said before, common sense may be used as a yardstick against each new implementation.

From David Wood,
Following the 9-11 attacks, a few enraged vandals smashed the windows of the Islamic Center near Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. When the pastor of a nearby church saw the students vandalizing the mosque, he called the police. Later in the day, police and school officials held a meeting to help ease some of the tension. After the meeting, an angry attendee caused a brief panic when he claimed that Islam is a religion of violence and bloodshed, and that the terrorists were only doing what they were commanded to do in the Qur'an. Several people (including myself) argued against him, confidently assuring the man that Islam is actually a religion of peace.

My beliefs about Islam have changed since then (mostly because I've studied Islam). Nevertheless, I recently realized why I had been so quick to defend the Muslim religion. Over the years, I've known several Muslims, and they have all been kind, peaceful individuals. Indeed, despite the popular portrait of Muslims burning flags and desecrating images of George Bush, the majority of Muslims are normal, faithful, peaceful people, going about their daily lives with no intention of blowing up buildings or of burning anyone's flag. Many in the West deny this, but they typically do so because they have never so much as talked to a Muslim.

The benevolent nature of these Muslims has a profound psychological effect on Westerners. It causes us to say, "Wait a minute. Islam can't be bad, because Muslims are such nice people. Thus, the terrorists who blow up buildings and subways must be extremists." Once we have convinced ourselves of this, we may even find ourselves defending Islam, as I once did. We know that people are angry at terrorists, and we know that some of these angry people may want to take out their anger on Muslims. So we end up defending Islam in order to protect our Muslim friends. While protecting people is certainly a noble goal, defending Islam is an entirely different story.

David Wood on, Two faces of Islam,

Muslim readers will say, "What does this infidel mean? There is only one Islam, perfectly preserved in the Holy Qur'an from the time it was given to Prophet Muhammad." However, much like the idea that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved, the idea that Islam has only one face is completely false. There has always been a psychological crisis in Islam, ... I would probably argue that it suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder. Islam has never been able to decide whether it wants to live in peace with unbelievers, or to pile their severed, heads into a giant pyramid. ... One Muslim beheads an innocent woman to protest the war in Iraq, while another Muslim curses him for slaying the innocent. One group of Muslims flies an aircraft into a building, while another group condemns the attack. One Muslim detonates a bomb on a bus filled with passengers, while another Muslim says on the evening news, "Islam is a religion of peace." Each side quotes the Qur'an to support its actions. However, it may be even more important to note that each of them is following the example set by Muhammad.

The reason that Islam suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder is that its founder also suffered from this disorder. ... When Muhammad first began receiving his "revelations," many of his neighbors in the city of Mecca took it upon themselves to mock and persecute him. Muhammad was a threat both to their immoral lifestyles and to their source of wealth (the pagan idols of the city brought plenty of revenue), and so he had to be stopped, or at least discredited. During this period, Muhammad was humble, devout in many ways, obedient to the message handed down to him, faithful in giving to the poor, and, in general, a fine moral example. In essence, he was like the many fine examples of dedicated Muslims we see in the world today. He preached a religion of peace, and the hadiths we have from this period reflect his peaceful temperament.

Then something happened.

The Big Fish said: "Rancitas, Bolt hater I see, I am sorry but your comment that 'You will never get 20 million people to all embody the same thinking, religion and lifetstyles'. That is a very simplistic statement that even he who should not be named is not suggesting. So please read what people say not what you think they say. (Common problem in debates)."
Show me where Rancitas said that he hated Andrew Bolt. Your assertion is incorrect. I pointed out one of Bolt's cliches to bloggers and some bloggers who have similar styles of nasty sophistry -that's all. If you think that that deserves hatred, then that is your opinion - not mine. I think it says more about your thinking than mine.
Do you really think that you can convince people to think like you. All those bloggers with their different opinions, experiences, attitudes? Do you really think all people are going to adopt one culture?
Monoculture is a deadly thing to work towards. The quote in question was referring to Andrew Bolt's claim: "Duty of government is to make one nation out of many tribes - and not the deadly reverse." You are a Bolt lover ([assertion] - I am so very sorry, I didn't mean to tell you how you feel-how would I know [sarcasm]) and apparently agree with every single idea and sophistry Bolt offers up. His idea sounds like the Soviet Fundamentalists' Union of Australia to me.
I do try to be simplistic (and unpretentious) - that is just me and a tiny part of my cultural identity.
I do read and think about what people say. Old saying: "It is wrong to second guess a stranger." And I'd say even more wrong to second guess a virtual stranger. I suggest you read what people actually say and not put your own spin on it. Nevertheless, I'll take your advice and be as careful as I can be when adressing others' blogs.

Hello Bashir...damn, but I loved your article. Common sense IS the way, the truth and the light...all else is just the wrapping. Well done.

To Boaz,

sorry to be so long answering your comment on my post dated Tuesday July 26 -000. You remarked as if there will always be poeple or groups outdoing each other and taking over. Well, certainly anyone who has studied history knows the term Survival of the fittest" which though already a fact eons back through time, really gathered pace after Darwin's "survival of the Species" which not only spurred on the next 80 years of British colonialism as if it had the favour of our Christian God, but also marketing and business.

Darwin himself, however, foresaw the excessive greed that would result from his evolutionary thesis, especially as Adam Smith's Laissey-faire or free-market philosophy was running apace. Already Adam Smith had warned that the natural greed associated with capitalism meant that workers needed to form associations, carried on later by John Stuart Mill. Darwin, as well as a progressive was also a true Christian and did write a thesis concerning that though humans needed to keep healthy and fit like the animals, they were not put on earth to kill one another off just to be healthy and wealthy.

It was then that Darwin wrote his little thesis on the evolution of man. To be put even briefer, it had to do with man's inherit moral qualities, that he could improve through intellect, using his powers of reason as well as faith. So over the centuries we should have got far better at doing away with feelings that covet our neighbours goods.

Unfortunately Boaz, I am afraid we have not.

Best Regards - George C (Bushbred)

However, hist

Rancitas, - “I do read and think about what people say.”& “I suggest you read what people actually say and not put your own spin on it.”

Umm. I hate doing this as it is off the thrust of the article. But I get very annoyed with illogical discussions. Let’s test your statement with some examples.

My Original statement 1. COMMON SENSE says, as you do, that you cannot get the same thinking, religion or lifestyle as the people with different views on this forum prove.

Rancitas reply - Do you really think that you can convince people to think like you. All those bloggers with their different opinions, experiences, attitudes?

Is that not, umm consistent? The statement AS YOU DO was not clear enough? I am agreeing WITH you.

OS2 - History proves that you can accept the differences and hold onto your mother culture without losing them and still be involved and an integral part of Australian culture

Rancitas reply-Do you really think all people are going to adopt one culture?

Adopt? I said HOLD ONTO and being an INTEGRAL PART. Is there something I am missing?

As to this mono culture you speak, if it means a culture based on democratic principles, rule of law, tolerance of all religions and races and (getting back to the topic) COMMON SENSE that killing is not really a good thing (simply summarized), well, yes, I expect that culture should be adopted. And if the government helps to “develop one nation from many tribes” well good. That’s not racist but logical. But that’s just me.

I will leave it at that and again assert bluntly that you should read what is written but not what you think is written. It helps in keeping discussions logical and helps to understand the arguments of ALL contributors on all forums.

The Big Fish. I think you need to read other blogs for some context. TBF, I think, you are having a go at me for doing pretty well what you yourself are doing. That is reading what you think is written rather than what is actually written. For instance: Some how in your logical thinking you came to the conclusion that I hate a columnist, Andrew Bolt.
You also say that “history proves that you can accept the differences and hold onto your mother culture without losing them and still be involved and an integral part of Australian culture”. That depends on where Australian culture is heading. But generally I agree. However, there are plenty of people who want one culture and they clearly don’t entertain the notion of new immigrants holding onto their mother culture. They also resent normal Australians of common sense (or without much) who disagree with their thinking or Australians who reject mainstream thinking and attitudes. Nevertheless, I am puzzled why you are having a go at my blog after all you say you agree with me on most points. Most of the stuff you add is a given or common sense. However, you don’t appear to have read what Bashir Goth actually said in relation to common sense and text sense. For instance Bashir, says: "No wonder humble people of my ilk remain clueless to understand their logic. There is a huge vault between us. It is a divide between people consumed by religious thinking and who see everything through a religious prism and people of humble common sense who see things as they are. A gulf between what I may call people of common sense and people of text sense…."
Generally, Goth says that our first appeal is to our human sense that is common to most people. The exception is men of the text whose first appeal is not in their humanity but some text.
As far as common sense that Bashir Goth speaks of – I know how I feel when I see the actions of terrorists. Beyond words

Big Fish corrected: Continued: Back to text sense .
TBF you say: “And if the government helps to ‘develop one nation from many tribes’ well good. That’s not racist but logical. But that’s just me”.

I disagree I think, it is racist. First, since you insist on being pedantic when commenting on my writing my actual words were a direct quote of Andrew Bolt. Actual quote was “Duty of the government is to make one nation out of many tribes – and not the deadly reverse.” Not the mis-quote you slapped up.
Now given AB has a history of opposition to multi-culturalism, the article’s text and Bolt’s text generally I think in this context it is fair to conclude that the “one nation” AB want is one where cultural diversity is kept to an absolute minimum. AB didn’t say one nation “with” many tribes he said “out” of many tribes . Now AB said it - and his words have context which help with meaning. AB also says that “we must be wary of importing cultures that clash”. That is a fairly big generalisation. Where, in the minds of the Liberals and various lobby groups, are you going to find a culture that doesn’t clash? Also consider Bolt’s inter-textuality with Hansonism and Hitler’s Volkish Philosophy (One people- one idea). A stretch agreed - but we must be vigilant. Liberal/Bolt ideal culture - my common sense says - no thanks I am remaining over here on the.................................. .....................margin (with all the other Misfits).

Brillant article ??

Bashir Goth may be a common sense Muslim. But his article might as well be written by an athiest. It is quite irrelevant on the struggle between Muslims on the interpretation of Islam. What struggle is there between Muslims?

As a committed atheist, I can assure you GZ Tan that the Struggle between Muslims looks pretty much (from the outside looking in)the same as the struggle between Christians,open to as many interpretations as you have persuasions.

he time when Holy Qur’an had sent down is meaningless; since such mathematical approaches are not known by anyone in the world during that time.

Only Allah is left, who had sent down the Holy Qur'an and had undertaken its collection (Al-Qiyamah/17) and protection (Al-Hijr/9); Allah himself must have provided such an exceptional structure for His book.

One of the proofs is the clear declaration that was given by Allah about the numerical order which the Holy Qur'an contains as a book:
“All&#257;h has sent down the best Statement as a binary symmetric book.” (Al-Zumar/23)

The wording of the figures is simple and clear. If this numerical construction is just a hallucination that we have seen or wish to see, it is easy to ascertain this case: If there are errors in the calculations, then they can be figured out and that is it. This is not a fact that we are afraid of, just the opposite, the main purpose of this survey is to attract the attention of the people who has mathematical knowledge to All&#257;h’s book.

My belief is that, the ones who refer to the Holy Qur’an to check the symmetrical overlappings that were set forth will recognize that the determinations in the symmetric book 1, are only the visualized part of the ice-berg.

Topics of the Book:

• Odd and Even Numbers
• Surahs of which the number of ayats are greater than sequence number
• Surahs of which the number of ayats are smaller than sequence number
• Prime Numbers
• Sequence Numbers Set and Number of Ayats Set
• The numbers which are divided by two and not divided by three
• The numbers which are divided by three and not divided by two
• The numbers which are neither divisible by two nor by three
• The numbers which are divisible by two and three
• The numbers which are divisible by two
• The numbers which are divisible by three
• Sum of the Prime Factors
• Perfect Numbers
• Abundant Numbers
• Deficient Numbers

www.symmetricbook.com

Salam

mahmuud,
I have read the Kor'an it is the most difficult peice of uninformed writing I have ever read. Where does it reveal all these amazing mathmatical allusions; or should I say delusions.

The Ancient writers like the Chaldeans and Hebrews long before Mohamet structured their texts on mathmatical formulas. Also the Egyptians used maths in constructing the Pyramids as well as the ancient Greeks of which we still teach their formulae today. You are clutching at straws to prove your point. The Kor'an is the product of a deluded mind. Certainly not the known truth.