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