I am over so over muslims and islam that I feel like screaming. I'm tired of hearing about hijabs and burkhas, I'm tired of long scraggly beards that look like pubic hair. Practise religion by all means if you have to but leave me out of it. The recent article on this site about the hijab is good example - it said nothing. It did not explain why these women think it shameful to show the hair that their god put on their heads. If there is a god why would he care if men shave their faces? Surely he has more important things to think about. The same applies to dietary rules. Why would god care what I ate? Some of these women believe god told them to cover their faces, their hair, their whole bodies. What rubbish. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't god send us into the world stark naked? Didn't people invent clothes? Why would god direct human beings to wear something invented by other human beings? Surely if god wanted us to wear clothes he would send us into the world wearing them. My comments apply to other religions as well but fortunately I don't have to keep hearing about them. If you want religion in your life become a buddhist. You don't hear about buddhists blowing people up or invading other countries.

At the end of the day it is dissapointing to hear those comments in Bankstown, regardless of whether they were directed at muslim, or non muslim.

They are directed at Women, and before this man with his idealogy had the right to enter this country, Australian women had the right to choose what they wanted to wear.

His attitude in a country that is not Muslim majority is disgusting.

You want to have those opinions, on religious grounds or whatever you do not fit in with the direction of Australia. Go and live in Beirut, or wherever you have a right.

Imagine if some white christian guy got up in front of 1000 people in Bankstown and said "whoever chooses to wear any headress is showing that she is submissive and is exposing herself to domestic voilence" there would be similar outcry, as this is also wrong.

It annoys plenty that these people just want to transplant their idealogies and beliefs to a new culture, we are happy without them and without the attitudes not consistent with ours.

Is it that Australians are a soft bunch that allow everyone the right to choose whatever they want to believe in, live by etc, and this ends up at the expense of ourselves, our safety and our envied way of life? This guy is sopposed to be a role model for young men, and we wonder why there are problems.

Nice guys finish last Australia. Perhaps by women wearing provocative clothing the problem is not them, it is the man who have no self control. Their belief that women in Australia are harlets because of the culture's dress sense is wrong, if they cannot control themselves and thier urges when they see an attractive woman go back to wear they are uniformed. If they cant handle women dressed this way, leave.

I hope Australia ends up like a strip joint, for those that cannot control themselves or who are trying to influence others in a way not consistant with the culture, we kindly show them the door.

I don’t remember whether or not Sheik Faiz Mohammad referred to Western women only or to all women, including Muslim women, and I don’t have the interest or energy to check, as I believe most of us haven’t. Like Joana, I’m tired of articles from Muslims saying absolutely nothing of consequence to the rest of us, or their own best interests.

However, Shakiri Hussein attracts suspicion by writing this article so long after the event. Who remembers what some crackpot sheik actually said so long ago.

She also raises ire by saying that the SMH reporter was “not the only person to understand the sheik’s comments as being directed only at non-Muslim women”.

It’s the same old same old with Muslims. The rest of us don’t understand them and how bad they have it. They really love the ‘victim’ thing.

Instead of rabbiting on about hijabs and other codswallop, the Muslim community should be telling us what they are going to do about getting rid of the likes of Faiz Mohammad and other freaks living in the Dark Ages.

If weirdo Muslims are really in the minority, it’s about time the majority Muslims in Australia actively campaigned against the psychopaths among them instead of regaling us with stuff we already know.

I think both posts apart from mine were the voice of frustrated people.

We cannot segregate Muslims or groups or say "we dont understand them" etc, I dont understand your one eyed comments.

I am not racist, i believe the world is about personalities, not religion. Every religion has its flaws, it is up to you if you want to believe, but it is the personalities that you have the right to embrace or reject not the religion. If you dont like it shut up, as you said you dont understand it, and people fear what they dont understand.

"We are tired of hearing about Muslims" Well, we are tired of non sophisticated responses from people who do not know or understand the issue.

Muslims are fine and heres a tip from one 'Aussie' to another, they are not going to phase out either.

If you are influenced by personalities, not cultures, you will have a very mis informed opinion, and you must change your thinking as we shift to an integrated society.

I dont like the comments on women either, but one man does not mean i hate them all.

I think we need a few more soccer games to bring the masses together.

This is a lovely article that presents a fresh and exceedingly relevant perspective from a 'moderate' Muslim woman, about how members of her community view Muslim extremists. That such a well-written piece immediately evokes such vitriolic responses (excluding Reason's) is evidence of the level of bigotry that moderate Muslims face when attempting to work with other Australians in attempting to deal with the ostensibly religious fanaticism that is the enemy of us all.

Hussein also provides - inter-alia - a nice example of how the Australian media fans anti-Muslim sentiment in their use of dishonest 'spin'.

On April 24 this year, Miranda Devine wrote this in the 'Sun-Herald':

"A Muslim sheik told followers at a public meeting in Bankstown that women who were raped had incited men's lust by dressing immodestly and only had themselves to blame."

On November 11, Ben Cubby, Les Kennedy and Tom Allard published this in the 'Sydney Morning Herald':

' The sheik reportedly told a meeting of 1000 people at Bankstown Town Hall in March that non-Muslim victims of rape had "no one to blame but herself" '.

Hussein is quite correct to point out this apparently minor, but quite insidious misquoting of the appalling Sheik's words. It completely alters what is essentially a loony misogynist rant against all women into one against specifically non-Muslim women. This sort of garbage evidently finds receptive audiences among racist, xenophobic and otherwise bigoted individuals in the non-Muslim community.

Finally, I seem to recall that it was the almost equally appalling Bronwyn Bishop who attempted to get some political mileage with her media stunts concerning schoolgirls wearing hijab head scarves. Surely moderate Muslim women have a right to reply?

Realist, I liked that last post.

For the others you seem to be missing the point. I can understand joanna's point about being tired of the whole thing but then if the topic of an article posted here does not interest me I don't read it - a fairly easy solution.

The Yanks have lost about 2000 in Iraq, how many others have died there at the hands of extremists. Most of those other victims are not professional soldiers or combatants, just ordinary people trying to do the shopping, earn a living, have an outing with the kids. Many of those other victims are muslims killed by extremists.

Shakira has made clear some common ground for us. Shown that the divide is not as wide or difficult as some would have us believe. Another opening for us to work towards that desired assimilation (not sure if that's the right word but hopefully you know what I mean). She has spoken out against the uglyness of suggesting rape is justified by dress (or lack thereof). What else does she need to say?

For those who object to Muslims not fitting in with Australian culture why are you not welcoming Shakira's approach? Would you prefer her to stay out of mainstream Australia and just do the "Muslim" thing amongst her own people? I'd rather that she finds a comfortable mix of tight jeans and head scarves which works for her.

I had the odd feeling that the Shreik was absolutely salivating during his rant. He needs medication urgently.
Where do these strange people get their ideas? Australians are entitled to wear what they want, it is not up to some blow in ,weirdo to dictate OR threaten because this is a free country.
Maybe muslims are born with their heads screwed around the wrong way so that they are always looking to the past instead of the future.
They have come to the wrong country with their stupid despotic ideology.
No article ,however well written, will gloss over the fact that this is the way we do things and if it does not suit,go!

Why doesn't Shakira Hussein even consider where this all came from? Is it too much to ask that Muslims consider the source of the hate, anger and disrespect toward others that is their trademark everywhere around the world.

Islamic attitudes toward women flow from Mohammed to the Quran then from the hadiths into Muslim histories and then into the sermons of the Imams and from there into the lives of 21st century Muslims.

Any superficial research into contemporary Islamic communities show a total lack of respect for other groups, particularly towards women. Well, we all know that the Quran says it is fine and dandy to rape married women. Or did I take it "out of context"?

Do you have a clue, Shakira?

Rape especially is a something that seems to characterize Islam. We all know of events in Australia, not to mention Coptic women abducted, or hindu women taken for wives against their will.
http://web.mid-day.com/news/world/2005/november/123248.htm

There is also the rape epidemic happening in Europe - you know by who.... Not even Muslim women are exempt.
ADVENTURES IN OLD EUROPE: Girls Terrorized in France's Macho High-Rise Ghettos (Catherine Bremer, 2/28/03, Reuters)
Quote: A short bus ride from Paris, a world capital of romance, teen-age girls trapped in soulless, Soviet-style housing complexes are too scared to wear skirts and balk at the idea of dating. Imprisoned behind yellowed curtains that hang limply at windows, they stay indoors to avoid the jeers, bullying and the ominous risk of rape that lurks in dingy stairwells where gangs of boys of mostly North African origin hang out. "It's everywhere, all the time. Beatings, rapes, the lot.

Yet Muslims are in denial. They have no clue, I guess. Shame on you Shakira. Your denial and lack of honesty contribute to the suffering of women abused by Muslims. Shame!

John, Old Kactuzkid

Shakira Hussein has got it totally right. There is no longer intercultural exchange in this country but a dialogue of the deaf. People aren't listening. She instances the Herald journalists who heard what they wanted to hear, not what was said. People are being labelled by their clothing style and subjected to abuse or violence depending on whether, in he opinion of others, they're wearing too much or too little. It is not about Muslims or others, it's stereotyping people as different. Bronwyn Bishop and Sophie Panopolous are behaving as slightly better informed, slightly more refined, versions of Pauline Hanson. The message is precisely the same. Remember Hanson entered political life as a Liberal candidate. These 2005 Liberals are dog-whistling her supporters. Wedge politics has become dominant in Australia at the expense of rational discussion. Maintain reason and political sanity here because there are few other places it can flourish.

Apologies, Realist - your posts are so 'reasonable' I called you the wrong name :)

Since I'm posting, I'll comment that I categorise comments such as kactuz's above as every bit as extremist as those of ratbag Muslims as Sheik Faiz Mohammed. It is rabble rousers like him who should feel "shame", rather than articulate and reasonable Muslims such as Shakira Hussein. IMHO, our society would be better off with more Shakiras and less kactuzes, but I'm not suggesting that he should go back whence he came - but he would do us all a favour if he got off his bigoted soapbox!

As Shakira has ably pointed out, misogynist attempts to blame women for rape are by no means the sole preserve of extremist Muslim Sheiks. Such attitudes were evident in our judicial processes until very recently, and many Christian churches still promote prudishness in how their women should dress - for much the same patriarchal reasons as Muslim misogynists.

In case kactuz didn't notice, Shakira specifically rejects such idiotic edicts as being integral to her practice of her religion. As Robert points out, she seems to be trying to find common ground with us non-Muslims, yet this seems to be regarded by some as just another opportunity to bash Muslims.

There is no wrong kind of muslim they are all tared with the same brush. If they want the muslim faith stay in there own country, dont dring there problems on the rest of the world. We have enough of our own.

ahhh, there is no country called islam on any globe i own. but then what would i know.

I haven't been on these boards long but i've already noticed that many posters see an article that mentions muslims as an invitation to air their predjudices.

This article is really more of a statement than an argument. Hussein basically says three things, that the Sheik was misquoted, that the Sheiks views are not endemic to muslims, and that muslims have as much to fear from terrorism as non-muslims. All are valid points.
How this becomes a prompt for anti-muslim sentiment is a wonder to me.

Good article Shakira,

It prompts me with a rather important question:

I grew up in Egypt, a country with Muslims majority in the middle east. Imams would usually preach young Muslims on behaviour in a female presence or temptation is 'to look down' or 'avoid staring', they would bring stories from the Quran, etc..

Only in Australia that I found local Imams can come up with such a weird comment like 'women deserves it'. To me it implies that they never professionaly studied religion neither have formal accreditation to preach. Imam is a critical place to be in. In Egypt an Imam must have a degree in religious science which is 4 years study in Azhar University or similar to be able to preach. The best candidates get assigned larger Mosques and the more senior get assigned heritage mosques, etc..

How does it work here? What accreditation is required for an Australian Imam before he gets to the podium?

Some Moslems do fear for their lives as do we, and as explained before in the Psychology of the perpetrators.
But in the West ,we have learnt that in the era of Marxism and associates, they implemented other mind bending conundrums: Such as Antonio Gramsci on how he intended to take over the established institutions and change the way they operated to institute their Theology, by Psychology.
As it would not be of any surprise that Islam has once again adopted the Mantra of our easily identifiable pathological left, and engaged on the very same doctrine. Without Violence. As noted here: http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/10/30/opinion/edbaran.php

Shakira

Beauty has been given by nature ( and for the religious souls by god ) to be displayed, not to be covered in hijabs and dark habits. Have you seen a rose sprouting a dark leaf to cover its beauty or a peacock to grow a black feather to cover its beauty?

The wearing of the hijab has nothing to do with modesty, as no modesty can last the "darkness of the night". It has to do with PRIDE. The pride of a Muslim man that he is the SOLE owner of that beauty, and the pride of a Muslim woman that she is morally superior to all other women in "skimpy" clothing.

This attitude has nothing to do with modesty, it has to do with "pathology".

KOTZABASIS

Go to my blog: http://congeorgekotzabasis.blogspot.com

It may be true that men in the street ogle young women in short skirts with thoughts of sexual encounter. But no one has the right to touch, accost or corner a young woman against her will. However for a religious teacher to proclaim from a religious platform that there is some level of justification for rape if a woman has exposed skin is totally illinformed and irrisponsible. Such teaching is not behaviour modification, but incitment to rape.

F_H a very good question. "What accreditation is required for an Australian Imam before he gets to the podium?" The Muslim community here has a responsibility to weed out these weasels

Themistocles,

I was about to comment on your posting but I thought I visit you blog first to explore your views and what you stand for.

I was suddenly taken by the feeling of a surgeon who, after running the first test on the patient found cancer everywehere. So he decides in the last second not to operate and wished him the best.

So, all the best.

A "cleverish" answer FELLOW HUMAN, by someone who dares not answer arguments.

KOTZABASIS

Another thoughtful and well considered post by Leigh. Marry me.

Shakira Hussein's post reveals to the the peculiar paranoid mindset of what is presumably a person who claims to be a moderate Muslim.

If Sheik Faiz Mohammad told his listeners that women who wear skinmpy clothes should be raped, then why is Ms. Hussein not giving Sheik Mohammad two fingers full of righteous indignation? Instead she is trying to claim some sort of Fruedian slip by the media in it's report of the incident which she implys is unkind to Muslims.

Hey babe. Do you agree with the Sheik or don't you? If you think his attitudes are unacceptable, a threat to all women, and a disgrace to Islam, then bloodywell tell him that instead of trying to find some spin to portray Muslims as victims of the West.

Your attempt to tie this presumed bias and sensationalism of the media with Muslim opposition to terrorism laws looks hollow to me also. If "moderate" Muslims oppose laws intended to stop Muslim fundamentalists launching a murderous attack upon Australian civilians, and thereby disgracing "moderate" Muslims, then "moderate" Muslims had better wholeheartedly support these laws instead of squealing about them.

Otherwise, any reasonable person would conclude that the real reason why "Australian" Muslims disapprove of the laws is because "moderate" Muslims support the terrorists and consider Osama and his merry men to be their heroes.

Shakira Hussein, where are you?

MISREPRESENTATION IN THE MEDIA

As an issue, I do sympathize with the view of the author and some comments by posters. Slight misrepresentation can totally skew the intended meaning.
I've seen so much deliberate calculated misrespresentation of anything "Christian" that I would not even begin to count them.

MODESTY OF DRESS.
This is a sensitive subject. I maintain that 'modesty' is culturally relative. Exposed breasts with a baby hanging off one in Church is quite normal in Borneo and PNG, and no one thinks anything of it.
Some Islanders regard you as 'immodest' if you display your 'thigh' but not so if you are topless. (females)

OUR CULTURE

The main problem with our 'western' reaction to "Islamic" dress codes, is that ours are changing all the time, driven by ..you guessed it- the almighty dollar. Todays or this seasons stuff has to be 'outdone' by next seasons. Commercial TV and Movies have to 'sell with sex' and the more 'skin' the more sales. So, I have little sympathy for whining westerners who whinge about 'forcing' this or that code down their throats. Islam has a dress 'code'. Christianity has a 'dress guidelines' which amount to 'do not dress immodestly' which is purely culturally relative.

Every culture has it's sexual ques and signals. It seems that our freedom has by and large been used for what we all can recognize as 'licentiousness' and that for no other reason than making money or sending a sexual message/hint to the opposite gender.
As an example of 'culture' when we meet a woman, we shake her hand, not her breast. Maoris rub noses.

ISLAM and AUSTRALIA.
Part of the problem is cultural incompatability. We eat pork, beef etc which is slaughtered according to our cultural practices. We have dogs for pets, (unclean in Islam). To suggest that 'Muslims won't assimilate' is more a statement of fact than prejudice.

Shakira Hussein is making excuses for the moderate's inaction and silence.
If Muslims really believe in the freedoms and lifestyles that Australia has to offer,they will fight for it just like my father and his brother who suffered in Changi Prison.We are not scared of the lunatic fanatics.There may be 1.4 billion Muslims but there are 5.4 billion others who are tolerating this childish stupidity.

If Muslims dare to use nuclear weapons on our cities,our patience will evaporate and there won't be a Mosque left standing on this planet.You are rapidly using up all your good will.

So my advice is,get your act together,have the courage to choose a definite course of action and rid this planet of this hateful cancer.

Muslim moderates use these lines: Poor me. Poor us. You fair dinkum Aussies are depriving us. We want to take over your country. We want to change your laws.

We didn't know that you were upset about our desire to rule the world in the name of Allah and Islam.

Pour me another drink!

We live in a secular democracy, which means that religious tyranny
of whatever kind, should not be tolerated. In other words, we are
intolerant of the intolerant. In other words, believe whatever you want, but you have no right to force those views on others, be that Muslims or the Vatican.

Both Islam and the Catholic Church have a history of violence, a history of trying to force their views on others. Neither practise tolerance. Both have so called holy books, full of violence.
Both have a history of having so called prophets. Today, with modern science, we know that when people hear voices, perhaps they are just schyzoprehnic and not prophets at all, for they have provided no irrefutable evidence, no 10 commandments written on the moon etc, for all to see.

The West has moved on somewhat, religion is accepted as a lifestyle choice, the power of the Catholic Church has been largely removed, even though they keep trying to regain it. The literal words of the so called holy book are not taken at face value anymore. Islam needs to go through the same revolution from within, where the power of the religious leaders is removed and power is given to human rights, free and open discussion about anything, no more religious tyranny etc.

When people become violent, the courts often dictate that they do a course in conflict resolution skills. Those who preach violence against women based on what they wear, perhaps should do a course too. We could call it "Mastubation 101 - learning to control yourself in Modern Society" :)

kalweb...
its Heidi, your long lost niece. I'd like to get in contact with you an my father...

Heidi

How wonderful!! How did you know it was me?

Your dad has been seriously ill. I went to Newcastle to see him two weeks ago. I was shocked by his illness. Phone me by reverse charge on 07 5443 2773.

Love
Kay

Waleed's on the telly, Shakira writes her articles and Irfan has his blog.

Their one common theme is how moderate and misunderstood they are.

There is endless talk about it.

Irfan, to his credit does rip into sections of his fractious community, his latest piece praises Turk over Lebanese and Arab, watch out Irf!

But the overall day to day experience of aussie mossies is so different. Talk to police, nurses, teachers, midwives, gays, RTA, Centrelink.

All this qualifies me, Redneck and others as racists but then so are all of the above.

CARNIFEX, may i suggest you are all moderate racists?

The latest airing of a so called terrorist on TV had a bloke , head covered in black and him waving a silly finger in the air, claiming that Australia etc would be copping it for ,quote,"colonising Iraq and Afghanistan"
Seeing how just about every Western nation is up to the gills with Muslim 'refugees' and immigrants, many of whom appear to totally ignore the laws of the host country, Mr Top has it all wrong.
We are the unfortunate victims of colonisation, the two countries mentioned are the victims of Muslims.
And that is the whole truth.

CARNIFEX. You can add shop assistants and receptionists to your list of people that have daily contact with Muslims and speak of them in a negative way. Has nothing to do with racism.

If male Muslims were a little less domineering, less beligerant and not as rude to females it would do wonders for intergration. But what are the chances of that happening?

Maybe John Stone is right in that many Muslims cannot or do not wish to intergrate.

What happens after the next terrorist bomb attack on a western nation?
As further inpost on everyones civil liberties would not be politically acceptable. Do we then ban further Muslim immagration?

"Shakira specifically rejects such idiotic edicts as being integral to her practice of her religion."

Let me very clear: The style and type of dress may be a factor in the acts and attitudes by Muslims against women. However, the fact that many (most?) of the victims are non-Muslims is just as important if not more than the dress issue. Does Shakira ask why? NO, because that might lead to some conclusions that she, as a Muslim, would prefer not to face.

Of course the "idiotic edicts" are NOT "integral to her practice of her religion." They are not integral, they are a consequence of what Islam teaches. Mohammud says you can rape your married females slaves (I noticed nobody even argued that point). He also said women are difficient in intelligence. He said a woman's word is worth half of a mans. He was a wife-beater. And so on. This is the guy that described paradise as a bordello in the shy (a little exageration, but not by much!). I guess some Muslims men cann't wait!

"Only in Australia"? FH? Muslims like Shakira live in a world of make-believe, where their words and wishes are everything, and facts and reality are ignored. Look at the 5-fold increase in rapes in Scandinavia. Go a Google seach and add "Muslims". Can you guess which group is filling domestic violence shelters in many European countries? Of course, the fact that so may statistics indicate that Islam has problems is also something that Muslims prefer to ignore. One thing they never do is ask "why". Why? Think Shakira, think!

Continued...

Philo, Redneck, You are right. The Muslim community will not weed out or protest this because they are in fact understood to be part of Islam. It is like the terror issue, Muslims condemn and condemmn and then say the fatal word "but". And the terror will continue, as will the rapes.

Shakiras article is just cute words for the consumption of stupid infidels. She says what she is expected to say, no more, no less. There is no analytical depth to it nor any thought as to why this problem is so common in Islam.

There will be more rapes and more terror and killings and people like Shakira will dust out their condemnations and recycle them again and again.

Donnie, regarding our "prejudices," perhaps a better description of this discussion is standing up and speaking out for what we believe. I have no problem with fh, Shakira, Irf or Waleed speaking out, as long as I get to put in my few words. They have the right to criticize me, or my facts or my logic. I am not afraid and I don't hold it against them personally. I don't know them. I think they are wrong, and worse, by their denial they are contributing to the problem rather than helping solve it.

The ability to criticize Islam or Muslims (or anybody else) for what they say and do is part of the freedoms we hold dear, and for you and anyone else here to write this off as racism, hate or prejudice is to deny our right to express ourselves (not to mention your inability to argue facts). Take away the liberty of expression and you have nothing (as is the case in so many Islamic countries0.

Kactuzkid

Boaz,

Australian Muslims are wondering which aspects of the Australian culture we do not assimilate to and no thanks to BD we have an answer:

- So, we need to replace the Aussie lamb kebabs with pork kebabs.
- Have a dog is a must have or replace cat pets with dogs (‘dogs are unclean’ is a myth and not religion, their saliva carries part of their urine so you need to wash your hands or shower before praying, I had 2 German Sheppard dogs).
- Because ‘sex sells’ and the ‘almighty dollar’ are today’s dominant realities, let us stop raising families, enjoy consumerism, play the pokies and be in debt forever, preferably in bikinis! (Another myth: Islam have no dress code but moderate guidelines which is ‘non descriptive non transparent’ for men and women).
On the last point, I thought consumerism is a key risk to our economy, lifestyle and culture.
According to Peter Costello, having families with three kids are the only hope for a better future for Australia. An average Australian Muslims will have a lot less debt (or unsecured debt) than the average Australian. I think on these fronts I would argue that Australian Muslims are ‘better Australians’?
Can I ask you honestly are you joking or being serious?

Kaktuz,

you chose fear or prejudice and you filter through all that confirms your fear. It is your choice not to see any of the good things about Australian Muslims, your choice to ignore an achievement by Muslim women in Tunisia to get women in the Tunisian parliament up to 11.5% (higher than in France and most EU). American Muslims were to first to report and deport suspect Islamist terrorist.
‘think’ is a message to yourself or better: ‘why’.

Themistocles,

Hijab in most cases have nothing to do with Muslim men or their choices (except parts of Saudi Arabia and Iran). None of the females in my family asked their husbands or fiancés when they decided to wear it or take it off. You created a false assumption and built a theory on top.

F.H. in glorious style you seem to have totally missed my point.

No, you should not at all follow the trends of the Western money makers dictates.

Islamic dress code is quite specific as you pointed out. It doesn't say 'wear this color' or anything but it does have the guidelines which seem to be interpreted in similar ways by Muslims, and are VERY differnt to even the most modest Western dress. "Islamic" dress that I saw EVERYwhere in Western Sydney is a cultural slap in the face to the host culture.

Modesty can be achieved with various clothing styles. Why not make more effort to adapt to the local style while maintaining the modesty of which you speak ?

The only point I was making in my last paragraph about cultural incompatability was the food laws. I asked you once if you would come to my place for a Barby and you said "As long as the meat is Kocher or Halal".. well..thats my point. How can Muslims assimilate when they have food laws which exclude them from fellowship with non Muslims ?

I suppose I would be less 'concerned' about this had it not been for the blatant discrimination perpretrated by the Muslim Mayor of Hume council deciding to deny ham sandwiches to the vast majority of residents at council functions here.

There is no point in defending this, it happened and the community was outraged and insulted. Tip of the iceberg ?
How about 'ladies only nights' at swimming centres ? :) My my..now that would not be 'more discrimination based on Islamic law would it ?

So, when Muslims are prepared to share meals with Aussies, without rejecting the food, (except for pork which is understandable) things will improve. I just read up on the food laws, the authority said its only "flowing blood" which is haram, and as long as an attempt to remove most of it from the carcas (like by cutting its throat), its ok for Muslim consumption.

I spent most of October in the Middle East, mainly Syria but also Jordan. I lived with a Muslim family in a poor part of Damascus, didn’t see another Westerner in that area. Arabs are renowned for their hospitality and rightly so. Had a great time, was well-looked after and spent many restful hours in mosques and shrines, most were beautiful, some breathtakingly so.

I told my host family of some opinions expressed on OLO and elsewhere - that there are Aussies who think that Muslims can’t be believed because the Quran says it’s OK to lie; that Muslims beat their women; that Islam is a religion of war not peace. They were completely perplexed as to why people in the West might believe this stuff. They’d heard extreme claims made about the values and behaviours of ALL Westerners and ALL Jews but whilst accepting that a minority hold extreme views, have the sense to realise that not all westerners/Jews think the same way.

BD, I’ve asked you before if you have the same issues with Jews and kosher food which for the orthodox means they won’t share meals with non-Jews; and that they won’t work Saturdays or the 8 or 9 holy days; that for the orthodox they would have to leave work early on Fridays in the winter to get home for Shabbat. Jews tend to live close to synagogues and Jewish schools. Are you prepared to say Jews haven’t and can’t assimilate for these reasons?

For the record, I’m Jewish but don’t practice it, also for the record had lunch today with three Muslim friends. Yes, we ate together, no big deal. For many Muslims, it’s just not an issue. My step-father and other rellies wouldn’t eat with you BD unless the food was kosher. I respect their right to do that. Makes no difference to me. Maybe because I grew up as a member of a minority group, I view these issues a bit differently

This is crap. Whites rarely get convicted of gang rape. Asian non-muslims rarely get convicted of gang rape. Jews hardly get convicted of gang rape. Any one else shouldnt come here. Most terrorists in the west are muslim. Most victims are non-muslim.

http://www.uts.edu.au/new/releases/.../f_section5.pdf
+ 40% of Organized Adult Crime is Middle Eastern (with Lebanese representing 26%) and 43% is Asian (with 16% representing Vietmanese)
+ 39% of Youth Gangs are Asian and 26% is Lebanese.
+ 27% of the time ethnic gangs hang around shopping centers; with 20% hanging out at the cinema or movies.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/ethnicity-crime/ethnic-ch4.pdf
+ 5 out of every 100 Lebanese will commit a crime.
+ 6 out of every 100 Vietnamese will commit a crime
+ 2 out of every 100 Vietnamese will be a drug dealer
+ 4.5 out of every 100 Turkish will commit a crime
+ Only 3 out of every 100 Australian citizens will commit a crime, and only 0.3 out of 100 will be a drug dealer.
+ Fijians have the highest rape and robbery statistics
+ Lebanese rape at double the rate of Australian Citizens

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/10635...May00/Crane.htm
+ Figure one well-demonstrates that settlers from Vietnam, Lebanon, Turkey, New Zealand and Oceania/Papua New Guinea are consistently more convicted of crime between the years of 1991-1998 than Australian-born residents by a factor of up to 2.6
+ Immigrants from Vietnam, Lebanon and Turkey do have a higher rate of imprisonment than expected from their numbers in the population

contact the minister. Non-muslim Erasian

http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/contact/

give her an earful

Dear Shoshana
sounds like you had a good trip.

What you describe for both yourself and your hosts, is 'cultural' Judaism and Islam, rather than 'strict'. Though, for your oldies, yes it is strict.
To be honest, their unwillingness to share a meal with non Jews does indeed represent a lack of assimilation. The more important big picture issue in all of this, which is my major concern, is that small and non growing minorities like Jews are not a threat to our social fabric. I do have some concerns at the objectivity of the Judges who are Jewish on the federal court, if faced with someone
such as a well known high profile retailing figure. I also have conerns about the 'group of Sausage software investors tied by culture and blood who live in Caulfield' etc.. I wonder how far that case will go ? :) with Graham Samuels at the helm of ACCC. Lets all wait and see eh.

Yes, I'm having a bit of a dig there.. but seriously, a non assimilating culture or group is only a worry when it is growing.
The potential for social and political opportunism has been amply demonstrated and I wont repeat it.

Shosh.. the recent arrests and near catastrophe of the bomb preparations should be warning enough that we are not incorrect in our assessment of the dangers of Islam. (as opposed to the non danger of the average cultural Muslim with whom you share time and meals)

I guess my main point is this. That we retain absolute control of who, and how many and for what reasons, people come to Australa.
Only then can we maintain numbers and proportions in managable sizes.

Remember what happened to the indigenous Aussies ? People don't really change. People with distinct culture will always seek to re-shape that of the host, whether it be foreign policy or domestic.
Examples abound for this.

I hope this doesn't sound like a 'rant' as its not meant to be.

I hope you have recovered from your trip.
Cheers

longlost

Thank you so much for getting in touch.

I apologise to other posters for this personal post. I am aware that this is not a personal chat room.

My famiy has been distraught searching for around 7 years -- searching for Heidi.

Boaz David

You are a gem Your phone call was akin to a "tonic". Many thanks..

Adminstrators - my apologies re this personal stuff. I know that this is not a chat room. Even so, please help me stay in contact with Heidi. Our family is distraught. Whatever it is, we will help her. Life is too short

We love you Heidi

Heidi - your Father is distraught - as is Grandma.

Much love
Aunt

Somehow an important point is being missed here, namely that religion is very much a question of geography. 95% of people keep the religion that they were brainwashed with as children. There are many reasons, social acceptance is just one of them. So if you were born in say Iraq, you are probably a muslim, if you were born in Israel, you are probably jewish, if you were born in Italy, you are probably catholic. Had you been born elsewhere, perhaps you would
swear by some other religion :)

Within each of these religions, we have fanatics, moderates and secular types. Perhaps there are genetic reasons, why some people are more prone to religious fanaticism then others.

Personally I find that I can reason and get on with whatever religion, as long as they accept things as a lifestyle choice, ie. they are not fantatics of whichever religion....

The Catholic who wants to rescue the baby in the condom, the orthodox
Jew with the funny hat who swears he/she is gods gift to humanity,
or the militant Muslim, who wants to take over the world, are all problems. The answer lies in tolerance and acceptance of religion
as no more then a lifestyle choice. Only that way can we all get along...

Boaz,

Grrrr..I will eat the salad and the chicken? Happy now?

Anyway, published my blogg finally,

http://musliminsight.blogspot.com/

Interested in your feedback re the copts article.

Thank you Hoppa, for your statistics. But the problem of ethnic related crime is much higher than the published statistics indicate.

Comparing "ethnic crime" statistics against crime committed by "Australian citizens" is misleading. The main perpetrators of ethnic crime in Australia are first generation born ethnics who, according to a senior NSW policeman interviewed on TV, "Identfy more with their parents former homeland than the parents themselves."

This attitude was clearly displyed by the attitudes of the Muslim race hate rapists, almost all of whom were born in Australia, that they were raping Australian girls because they were Australians.Some girls were asked if they were Australians first and when the girls aswered in the affirmative, they were attacked and raped. The girls were called "Aussie sluts" and "Aussie pigs" during their ordeal.

It is clear from these incidents that some people born in Australia are not Australians at all and they do not even wish to be considered Australian. Therefore, ethnic criminal behaviour can not be measured by comparing it against crime committed by people "born in Australia."

A more reliable indicator of ethnic criminal behaviour can be discerned by the ABS publication "Prisoners in Australia" where the ethnicities of prisoners can be compared from country of birth. It is clear that incarceration rates from North European countries is low campared to several notorious, crime prone ethnicies.

The incarceration rate (per 100,000 population) of criminals born in Britain is 59.2. But for Vietnam it is 362.3. For Laos 266.6. For Lebanon 188.4 and for Romania 535.4.

It is clear that immigration of certain ethnic groups is a major factor in Australia's incredible $32 billion dollar crime bill.

Anyone who excuses a rapist, for any reason is a sick person.

Everyone is all appalled by the Catholic Church's attitude and support for its paedophile priest.

So

What is the difference betwean paedophile priest and a rapist?
- the age of the victim, nothing else.

Anyone who thinks any man can discard his responsibility for his own actions because a woman dresses a particular way has the same twisted view and lack of values as those who coverup for some one who abuses children.

We grow and develop as individuals by making our own decisions and living by the consequences and outcome of those decisions. This Shiek Fiaz Mohammed, like the Church of Rome, has displayed the wishy-washy, spineless attitude which is contemptible in individuals and corrupting in institutions.

However, I would also point out to Shakira Hussein who wrote the article -

Whilst she gives a good impression of a jumbo jet landing at an airport (ie alot of whining going on) about more muslims being the victim of muslim extremists than non-muslim (so what - most IRA victims were Irish), individual peoples attitudes to the hijab, All that is totally irrelevant. The important thing is - many wrongs do not add up to a single right.

If muslims want to participate fully in Australian Life, they need to get this fact straight -

Whilst free to follow their own religion, they are a religious minority and alot of us could not give a toss about their religious values in this secular society.
Australia will never, ever be a Muslim country (in fact Muslim religion will become an even smaller minority over time as they lose membership to the secular state) and if Muslims cannot handle that fact - I suggest they find somewhere which is Muslim dominated and live their - in peace and harmony maybe under shari law - where they can stone women to death for adultery etc. and were they can live with what passes for "cultural values" closer to their own.

I grow a hard shell ,every single time a Muslim leader gos to print, or speaks in public about terrorism, every time.
Every time we westerners, Australians , non Muslims are asked to share the blame for terrorist events.
Why must I share the blame for education that plans hatred for me and my country as we are and always have been?
Accountabilty for that hate driven education, for a minority who insult Australias warm welcome to a better life must come from within the Muslim comunity.
Is it not strange that political corect themes say I should not expect intergration into Australian way of life for all muslims?
Yet some actualy expect [ a few but too many] that I must adopt a relidgion not my own, and a way of life never to be execptable to me?
The answer will come from within the Muslim comunity I have faith in that, but please end this rubbish that it in any way is our fault.
And one last thing, some lie to us so freely that its hard to ever think they could tell the truth.

Kay, good luck with Heidi - I'm glad to see something really positive happening.

BD - excellent point about achieving the aim of the religion within a local context eg dress style. Likewise with your earlier comments about what constitutes modesty being somewhat cultural.

Yabby, great post. When you grasp the simple fact of geographical arrangement of religion it makes certainty about any religion a bit hard to swallow (other than the certainty that there is no god who reveals herself/himself/itself to humankind).

R0bert

Now this is interesting evidence to the Simpleton racist accusers, we have no need to discover why they lie to protect their interests, it is worse when fellow people condone the lie and compound the effect by labeling the epistemological
Read this and Weep the reality deniers: The real camouflaged racist’s and Agenda driven psychopaths.
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/mass_migration_destroys_humanity/

Barry

You are right and wrong.

Tight jeans and head scarfs, I like that. There should be more of it.

You are wrong.

The Muslim religion, the Roman Catholic religion, the Protestant religions, and the Jewish religions can all be shown to be apostate. Their works are the works of apostasy. But there is a true God of Heaven and earth, so Muslims, Christians and Jews should all try to find that God, not as a group, but by their own individual search. Seek and you shall find. God searches your heart, you could find Him there.

The Law of God is summarised by the ten commandments and the ten commandments can be condensed into the two great commandments.

1.Seek the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind.
2.Treat your neighbour as you would have your neighbour treat you

The Muslims are taught lies about Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic church is dammed by prophesy. Jews reject the Christ, Protestants are a mixed bag but all reject the teachings of Jesus Christ in favour of what they perceive as the superior alternate teachings of the apostle Paul. All are in the same boat. All follow men and their teachings instead of the true shepherd, Jesus Christ and His teachings. Yet it is these religions to whom Jesus Christ says, or has said, come out of her my people.

The lead man from the 'A Team' once said, “The earth is the insane asylum of the universe”, but I believe that the earth's role is broader. The earth is the place where God imprisons fallen angels and fallen archangels pending eternal destruction except for some individuals redeemed.

If you want to know more then read my book.

You are right.

Multiculturalism has failed. We Need to put our foot down and say enough is enough or else we will have the same problems as Europe, if it is not already to late. I am worried about the flow of Afro-non-Americans into our country as refugees.

Philo, could you tell me what qualifications the preachers in the evangelistic pentecostal Austrralian churches, have in theology and social sciences to practise. It is interesting that many are fed up with islams non answers to questions, on the other hand the christians also avoid answers.

Don't get a false sense of security when it appears the christians are supportive, they have their own agenda and have learnt over many failures that force against knowledgeable people doesn't work. So now they try to use psychology and faked kindness.

I have just returned from a quick trip to Sweden, Austria and the Netherlands on business. I haven't made this trip for a couple of years and was astonished at how changed it has become. It is nothing to have muslims sneer at you, refuse to talk, to do business unless you adhere to their requirements. Needless to say little business was done with those Islamic business people.

In Sweden, rape has increased more than 300% in the last 3 years, violent assault and robbery by more than 700%. 96.6% of this increase is by muslim immigrants and refugees. During this year there has been bombings, and one train hijack, all by muslims. In Austria the figures are about the same, but they have another phenomena, verbal abuse and intimidation by muslims, (just like Australia). They are everywhere, and over 90% are on welfare. The Austrians are drawing up legislation to rid their country of what they call "these blights on our society", by sending them all back to their original countries. All their women are covered, no choice there.

You will also note that the vast majority of muslim immigrants to this country are also on welfare. In fact more than 85 % of muslims here are receiving the dole or suspect disability benefits.

Goldbrick, your gonna choke on the junk your spewing out.

"Seek and you shall find. God searches your heart, you could find Him there. "

Umm Goldbrick, 101 in biology, the heart pumps blood,no magic in there, you must have missed that day at school :)

GoldBrick,
"The Roman Catholic Church is dammed [damned] by prophesy".
What prophesy and what prophet?
When does Paul specifically contradict Christ?

Towards a Balance between Faith and Reason

France is to be commended for its exhibition of the Golden Age of Arab science, which according to Le Monde news has just opened at the Institute de Monde Arabe in Paris From the 8th to the 14th century Islam ruled an area stretching from the Iberian peninsula to India. For more than 600 years the construction of this empire went hand in hand with intense scientific activity that Western interests in recent centuries have been either slow to recognise, or there has been a deliberate attempt possibly more likely through a misguided Christianity, to keep this precious scientific information unimportant. This is especially so in our primary and in our high schools today, while in Western universities Islamic contributions to science are certainly not given the prominence they should be given.

According to Le Monde, the prime movers during the above Golden Age, were the Abbasid Caliphs, who demanded that all important works in Greek, Syrian or Indian Sanskrit should be translated into Arabic, making it a vector for the transmission of learning, triggering intellectual activity unprecedented in the history of science.

A publication called Science in Society tells how in cities like Gondeshapur in Persia, or present Iran, there were international communities of academics and scholars. Some, like the Nestorians, had been forced to flee from Christian lands because of their beliefs.

The great benefit to later Western science, was that though the basic scientific ideas had been passed down from the early Greeks into famous edifices like the Great Library of Alexandria in Egypt, the Islamics more than kept up the scientific interest, these advances bearing names such as Ibn Sina, who produced a standard medical text still in use in the 17th century. Al Tusu, an astronomer whose works enabled Copernicus later to prove that the earth moved around the sun. Then Abu Jafer Muhamed, who gave us algebra and algorithims now central to modern computiing. And also Ibn al-Haytham whose work on vision and light helped Newton to formulate his theories on optics.

Part Two

It is so interesting these days, that articles on Islam’s contributions to Western advancement, are mentioned more in philosophical journals than in standard historical publications. Moreover we never find our Christian pastors these days admitting that it was in the Eleventh Century that Muslim scholars lifted Christianity out of the Dark Ages with suggestions backed by Aristotlian research that sound faith must be tempered by reason. It was from this information that the French monk Peter Abelard built an essay called the Search for Enquiry.

Indeed, Abelard’s Islamic-prompted essay was later taken up by St Thomas Aquinas who himself wrote a huge thesis trying to prove how reason was necessary to balance faith. From it grew Scholasticism which also had its difficulties, but moral philosophy much more than religion does tell us that it was Peter Abelard’s Muslim- sponsored Search for Enquiry that not only saved Western Christianity, but opened the historical gateway not only to the Rennaisance, but the Ages of Reason and Enlightenment.

Back to the “Science and Society” article we find it ends with the scary suggestion, that if the Muslims had not been understanding enough to get us out of the Dark Ages of Christianity, with the keys to scientific and industrial advancement, we might still be trying to reach the Rennaissance?

George C, WA - Bushbred

The Alchemist,
You asked me about qualifications of Ministers of Australian Penticostal Churches. Frankly I do not know as they are not churches I attend. They have their own college of Ministry training in Western Sydney.

The Church I attend our Pastor is 4 years college trained in theology and pastoral care, holds Masters in history, and degrees in social welfare. He is taking up a position as community leason officer for Department of Community Care meeting welfare needs in Western Sydney in the new year.

I can also speak of the work done by Wesley, as today I attended the book launch of the Rev. Dr Gordon Moyes. He is a leader in welfare organisations, employment training, arts and media comunications, sits on the board of several private hospitals, is a politician who heads many Government inquiries, and coordinates Church mission. His work is outlined in his auto biography "Leaving a Legacy". He is a personal advisor to the Government on welfare issues. However this post would be better in: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3843

Fellow_Human,
I had a look at your blogg http://musliminsight.blogspot.com/. Has real possibilities. I suggest you have a question / answer link on the Qur'an so you can exegete and expound true Islam to inquirers.

Another possibility is for you to give the life and purpose of all the prophets. Since you state Jesus plays a large role in the Qur'an you could outline his teachings, life and his purpose. Give examples for us how the teachings of the Qur'an are lived [demonstrated] in the life of the Prophets and what was the social benifits of their life and teaching.

Show how false movements in Islam have not benifited society; I note you mention one. I think it would be helpful to show from exegetical study on how they misrepresent the Qur'an. This would allow real debate on the teaching from the Qur'an.

Fellow Human

Interesting Blog, thanks. I think the following is relevant to this thread. I've tended to view you as "the wrong kind of Muslim" in the context of the article - someone who goes about their faith without attempting to force it on others and someone who is able to look beyond dogma.

I am concerned about the following and am interested to see if I've understood it correctly "did we give them a chance to explain, apologise or punish the person responsible?"

I'm reading that as suggesting that someone should be punished for portraying Mohamed in a manner muslims don't like.

The following questions are based on that understanding, if I've got it wrong please excuse me.

Would that be your approach to dealing with someone in Australia saying derogitory things against Mohamed if the muslim community had the power to get away with it?

On what basis do you justify suggesting that someone who says something against your religion should be punished?

Is the answer to the above consistant with your expectations for treatment of muslims by the non-muslim community in Australia?

Cheers
R0bert

Shakira is right to point out that the Sheikh's comments were probably directed at muslims more than non-muslims. One can only imagine the kind of politics and tensions that go on inside the world of mosques and Islamic communities about what kind of muslim one should be. It goes on in all religious communities. The power struggles, the different interpretations of the texts.

My question in regard to Shakira's assertion that muslims don't "get a free pass" just because they are muslim, I'm wondering whether many moderate muslims are reserved about publicly condemning terrorism at the risk of being ostracised from, or at least looked down apon, by the Islamic community.

Robert.... 'at last' :)

yes... you are getting an inkling now.. its been a while but finally it is dawning on you mate :) you are asking the right questions..and may I add. Your observation of this apparently 'minor' issue is in fact part of the 'CORE' issue which I and others have been highlighting all along. I'm just glad you are noticing such things yourself.

I think it gets back to whether one has lived and moved among Muslims in a 'majority' setting or where they at least have the power if not the numbers. Malaysia is the most 'moderate' Islamic society I know of (with the exception of Kelantan and other Malaysian states where they are trying to implement Sharia) and I can promise you, if one 'insulted' mohamed as many of our postings here would be considered, the outcry would be murderous, literally.

F.H. (unless he is hiding something) would be 'killed in the rush' to use our aussie metaphore by those far more strident than himself to implement the 'glories of an Islamic state' (cough) but the fact that he has apparently made this freudian slip is perhaps indicative of where even he is coming from (given the opportunity).... Lets wait for his explanation :)

You people are unreal. The whole article from which Robert lifted his quotation out of context is a plea for tolerance by Muslims of those who supposedly insult their faith. I guess you characters missed the following sentences in your eagerness to cast even the most moderate Muslims in the worst possible light:

"We should look after them and treat them well regardless of whether the believe in our religion or not. We do not judge them because God will judge us all.

Some of them can and will make fun of us and our faith but we can't because we answer to God."

If this is the kind of reaction that those responsible Muslims, who are engaged in trying to counter the lunatic fringe in Islam, get from non-Muslims when they attempt to promote moderation and tolerance among Muslims, then it's perhaps little wonder that rabble-rousing imams find receptive audiences. Hate begets hate.

Personally, I would make little distinction between a rabble rousing Muslim imam in Egypt and a rabble rousing Christian missionary in Melbourne. However, I'm a little surprised that the usually quite balanced Robert is apparently jumping on the anti-moderate Muslim bandwagon.

No wonder the world is going to hell in a handbasket. If only it were possible to ban all public expression of religious ideas of whatever description. We'd have to all be better off.

The first 3 comments in this thread are straight from mainstream Australia.
Wander about with me for a day in to workers lunch rooms and hear it for your selfs.
Not too many think being a Muslim makes you a terrorist or in any way a threat to the rest of us.
But most are fed up with the view we have bought it on our selves, have in some way caused terrorism to happen.
This constant lieing, constantly blameing us, is a form of education.
Educating us to question just how good is multi culturism and why do we need it?
What good can come of such an education?,the Muslim comunity must be the answer to this problem or multi culturism has failed forever.

If Australia saw fit to let muslims, or any other reffo remain and these peoplebecome Aust citizens then they should start living up to the oath they sware by under our flag. Its not about them but about there actions. You come to a new country and we accept you and then you crap here. Trying to make it so much like the home you just left.Well it aint. so conform to uor ways. Learn to drink beer, eat pies, lie on the beach and ogle woman in swim suits. This is what I expect from a imgriant, not walking around in national dress and speaking your own jibberish. This is how suspissions are raised. The way to beat this is if every one deals with the terroist, but two many people in this country are sheep and wont do anything that the others wont do.

Donnie: I note you are surprised that this forum is used as a spring board for all maner of extremism - especially anti islamic and rascist rhetoric: get used to it.
Scan the list of articles and do a quick calculation of the responses - religion ( Islamism ) migration ( anti muslim )and at times sex all get the greatest hits ; the debate on Intelligent design scored well also and strongly points to a gross lack of intelligence amongst its proponents.
Welcome to Australian prejudice.

Shakira Hussein: Great little article! Hope you can write more.

I too am fed up with Muslims being in the media all the time. I hate hearing the media and others talk about Islam and the Muslim community like they are actually authorities in the religion and that they actually have a clue what is going on inside the various communities.

I am fed up with seeing pictures of bearded old men being painted as terrorist masterminds (who cant speak English mind you) and young bearded yobbos being painted as extremely dangerous terrorists. There's plenty of them around me here, but they blow nothing but hot air (usually from exhausts). I hope that if there are any real ones around that they get dealt with.

Most of the Muslims around me just want to get on with their lives - pay the mortgage, get their kids through school and so on, yet the media constantly thrusts itself on them and their beliefs.

Kactuz and others expects every Muslim (regardless of age and experience) to be able to either know about or answer complex questions on hadith and so on. I hardly think it's as easy as googling up websites and grabbing whatever takes your fancy. Infact, to me, it stinks of arrogance that these kind of people presume to be able to do so about another religion, while ignoring what the Muslim orthodoxy do regarding these things.

People like these extremists posting above and others like Shaykh Feiz, Muhammad Omran and so on make me sick. They all show the same attitudes regardless of creed.

Robert (& Boaz David),

Thanks for your encouragement.
No need to jump into conclusions so quickly.
The answer is simple: the legal system in Egypt does not allow mockery of any religious figure either Muslim or Christian. You can't wake up a sleeping person with a hammer.

If Muslims there will make a mockery of a priest, national security guards will be knocking on their doors 3:00am. It happened many times in the past. Making fun of any religion is seen as disrespectful, unethical and illegal.

How people react to jokes depends on their education, for example the Muslims - Christians joke would be exchanged between us in Cairo and other Christians. For the un-educated majority on both sides its seen as a personal threat on their faith.

mahatma, it appears that either you have misunderstood my intent or (unthinkable) BD and friends have been speaking more of the truth than I had thought the case.

If my quote is out of context please explain the context you think it sits in. I accept that the article was a call to tolerance. There is a story from christian history which I probably have the details wrong on. The story as I recall it goes something like.

The followers of Calvin were very upset at the comments of another believer, "The wrong Kind of Christian" and wanted to burn him at the stake for his heresy. Calvin reportedly urged tolerance and suggested that he be hanged instead.

True or not it paints a picture. Maybe in his time and place the views attributed to Calvin were tolerant and moderate, in this time and place they are extremist.

If tolerant, moderate muslims believe those who speak ill of a "prophet" should be punished it is an issue of concern to the rest of us.

I try to take posters at face value on these forums. You have noticed that I am generally moderate, please take my questions at face value and feel free to give your answers to them.

BD - please don't assume that those who don't join in the attacks on muslims are not watching what is happening and paying attention to the questions being asked and the answers given (or not given). I'm willing to assume that the muslim community has a similar broadness in views to that within the christian community. Some christians have no respect for views not their own, others live as peacefull members of the community. Some christians would insist on saying grace and preaching at you if you went around to their place for a BBQ, others would be willing to meet on common ground. Some christains want christain political parties to hold significant power in this country, others realise that political power generally damages the christian message. I've seen nothing yet to suggest muslims don't have similar diversity.

R0bert

Shakira - fabulous article - you wear whatever makes you happy!

Great point that the majority of Muslims are under as much, if not more, threat as non-Muslims.

However, as with other Muslim topics this will devolve into a "islam is evil" stoush with the usual culprits quoting bits of religious text and other googled up stats - which I will continue to skip until I find something intelligently written.

R0bert - thanks for your clarifying last post - thought you'd gone over to the dark side....

Have (briefly) checked out FH's blogspot - from what I had time to peruse looks very enlightening and informative - hope a plethora of young people (both Muslim and non) access your site. Of course there are those who will read your site with a warped magnifying glass in search of 'evil'.

Funny how those who look for faults invariably end up finding them - perhaps they should focus on themselves first.

(formerly Trinity)

Kick religion to the curb and become one all.

I dont care, soccer, whatever but stop arguing which side of the fence is greener.

Tolerance comes when we dont brand people.

Go and worship god, whichever one you are backing and for those that know so much about history and religion, perhaps that it was a moral standard for the masses of each culture to adhere to in a time of fragmented/non existant legal system.

You are smart enough not to be drones all of you, i believe in god but not until we have evolved near the truth will i be prepared to back a particular one.

Keep religion in its place for the needy and those needing guidance, but dont argue over trivial religious theroies in the 21st century based on long ago and build resentment towards eachother.

I said on Friday i will never post again after another article which i was dumbfounded on the stereotypical views of some.

This will be my last though, scouts honour, and if you all would realise that if nobody took sides, there would be no sides. The brainwashed amoungst you would be gasping right now, but we would save bloodshed every single day, and be a more productive population.

Spend your worship time studying and developing your future, not preparing for an unceratain after life. I know there is metaphysical too, I have experienced plenty but lets wait for the 50% of our brain to evolve and grasp it over the next score of generations.

Jose

The issue of Jesus and Paul.

I do not have a great knowledge of what Paul is alleged to have wrote. Note the word 'alleged', Paul may not have wrote those epistles.

Paul creates a problem similar to the problem the atheist creates. That is, a choice is required between being a descendant of the God of Heaven and Earth or being a descendant of the Great Ape Gog.

The choice Paul creates is between, Jesus without Paul or Jesus with Paul. This choice has already been made for Christendom, thus the need to overcome.

There are many ways of approaching this, but I'll keep it simple because of limited space. I believe that the writings of any one of the Bible writers, except for Paul, may be removed without changing the perceived plan of salvation. If the writings attributed to Paul are removed all hell breaks loose.

Essentially there is no longer a new covenant and male circumcision is still required.

Paul is the only one who defines the new covenant, and he defines it by copying from Jeremiah 33,34. Jeremiah's new covenant is the Seal of God, the being made perfect before entering the kingdom of God.

None of the people taught by Paul were blessed with the new covenant, all were ignorant of the law until Paul taught them his version. He called himself Father and his pupils/follows his children. A contradiction of Christ.

Mohammed shoot himself in the foot, by acknowledging the authenticity of the Israelite Law and the Law of Christ. Paul said the first failed, Mohammed said the second failed, Jesus said, the two are one and are perfect, the Law cannot fail and may not be changed.

Ode to the Great Ape Gog (revised).

Our Gog who art in the Jungle

Hollow is thy name

Thy Jungle come

Let it be in the city as it is in the Jungle

Give us our daily peanuts

Gogy Gogy Gogy

Gogy Gogy Gogy

Here I sit with me glass of chardnee and me copy of "Bleeding-Heart Socialism for Bogans and Boofheads" and I read a fairly good article that makes perfect sense even to someone like me who is so fick that the last time I was a we bit tiddlee (blotto) and Constable Care kicked me in da' behindI finked to me self "gee dat hurt"and den i stops by a shop window an takes a gander at what damage Care had dood to me bum. Now fellas - I was tiddlee! - anyway i looks an sees that it had a crack right up the middle - so i tried to put it in the nearest wheelie bin. That is when Constable Care heaved a sigh that echoed to the clouds.

Now, when I just read all the nonsense against the above mentioned article and, especially, the singling out of ethnic rape (that is a such a racist thing to do,) I couldn't help think a few things.

First, the old Catholic saying: Modesty is the best chastity belt.

Then I recall the Baptist preacher telling his adoring audience that rape in marriage was a Christian males right.

Then i remembered the time Constable Care broke me bum and the sigh and grin he gave at my foolishness.

Then I thought "What about all the rapists in general. Or, more precisely (just to stereotype like Boaz little army always do), what about the redneck rapists - most of them redneck fellows are supposedly misogynists. The girls are supposedly door mats and punching bags.

Then I thought I use "then" too much.

Then i thought about the zillion pornsites and flourishing porn industry in the world - owned and run by western "christian" capitalists (re: hypocrites). I thought the zealous Muslim haters seldom rant about their own cultures' copious failures. And then I heaved a sigh that echoed to the heavens. God batted an eyelid an bellowed: "Kindness can solder a great many cracks."
Be kind to Muslims - example.

I think what people have to understand is that if you believe in a religion which is also political and proselytising, don't be amazed if you or your religion are attacked. Now if we look at the Buddhists, nobody really worries about them, as they don't really worry about anybody else. Both Islam and the Catholics go far further then that, both are highly political so both are heavily
attacked. Lets face it, anything political is open slather for most people. When the Fundies get out of hand and try to get involved in politics, they are attacked too.

We cannot expect people to respect what we believe, simply our right to believe it and be tolerant enough to let us lead our lives.
If we were denied the right to freely and openly discuss political religions, that would be leading to religious tyranny rather then secular democracy.

Sadly for Islam, alot of those petrodollars sent to Saudi Arabia, have been spent by them to promote their militant form of Islam around the world. The results are there for all to see and sadly more moderate Muslims are paying a price for that too.

Scout, I don't see this issue in the black and white terms suggested by "going over to the dark side".

There seems to be a whole bunch of different approaches to this.
- There are some who are racist
- There are others who are scared by what they see. Their world is being threatened by a culture and religion they don't understand and which often seems to have little regard for the values and lifestyle choices they care about.
- There are some who are opposed to any religion that is not their own. Some years ago the pet hate was probably New Age and Catholic before that.
- There are some of us trying to make sense of this whole mess. What can I learn about the good bits of Islam, how do we avoid further alienating those Muslims who do want to be a part of Australia and how can we deal with those who choose to remain in this country but show no respect for the rest of us or our freedoms.
- I'm guessing that there are some who's political orientation drives them to stand up for minorities and against the status quo regardless of right or wrong. They will be the ones who get concerned about issues faced by muslims but who won't speak out against the thugs who bashed the reported recently.
- There are some Muslims who are trying to find common ground with the non-muslim community and find ways of living out their faith in a way that honors that faith.
- We know that there are some muslims who hate the rest of us and all the different things we stand for, anybody who does not do things their way. I have not seen any evidence of their involvement in this site yet.

Not an exhaustive list but my quick summary of why I don't see this as a black and white issue.

I don't want either Family First or the local Mullah deciding how I should live.

R0bert

Good stuff, neither do I R0bert.

Well it appears that Michelle Leslie was the right kind of Muslim when before Indonesia's Justice system. But the Australian Sheik believe she is not the right kind of Muslim because she parades on the catwalk in her underwear. The fact is it demonstrates that being Muslim in a proven case of posession has its inequality in justice in Indonesia, while Chapelle Corby on circumstantial unproven evidence, being Christian, gets 20 years.

The very fact that the Australian Sheik can say Michelle used [or abused] her religion for judicial benefit indicates he at least believed being Muslim before the law in a Muslim country has benifits. It demonstrates moderate Islam in Australia does not believe in equality before the law otherwise the Sheik would not make such a comment. It also indicate how they want to control dress code of people who convert to the Muslim religion.

Herald Sun, Liam Houlihan and Clare Masters, 21 November 2005
"MUSLIM leaders are outraged that model Michelle Leslie ditched her headscarf for singlet and champers as she flew to Singapore after being deported from Bali as a convicted drug user. They branded the bodypaint-to-burqa convert a fake. "We've got no time for these pseudo-Muslims," said Dr Ameer Ali, head of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils. "I'd like to tell her: you can't have it both ways." Dr Ali said it was obvious Leslie was using Islam for her own convenience..."
At: http://heraldsun.news.com.au/printpage/0,5481,17309833,00.html

Leslie urged to give up modelling career
ABC News, 21 November 2005

"Islamic leaders say it would be offensive to other Muslims if convicted drug user Michelle Leslie resumed underwear modelling when she returns to Australia. During her trial, lawyers for Ms Leslie explained she was wearing a burqa covering her face and body because she was a Muslim. The Australian model, originally from Adelaide, walked free from a Bali prison on Saturday after her three-month sentence for the possession of ecstasy tablets expired. She is expected to return to Australia later this week...."

At: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1511240.htm

Devout Muslim or hot property

Daily Telegraph, Luke McIlveen and Dora Tsavdaridis, 19 November 2005

"AN Islamic leader has warned Michelle Leslie not to continue living as a Muslim if she plans to go back to modelling underwear. However the fashion industry was buzzing yesterday with the news of her freedom and the Antz Pantz model already has two bookings waiting for her in Australia. Leslie, who wore a hijab throughout her trial and claimed to have converted to Islam, came to court yesterday without the traditional head dress. While the high-profile model is expected to be the catwalk's hottest property when she returns, a senior Muslim accused her of treating the religion as a fad...."

At: http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,17288850-5001021,00.html

Shakira has generalised from one tiny little slip made by an SMH reporter to the whole of the non-Muslim population. Frankly I'm insulted - it's a piece of stereotyping almost as foul as Sheik Fiaz Mohammad's. I may be white and be a loud and proud atheist, but this doesn't mean that I'm so bloody stupid that I need to be told that "moderate Muslims are as fearful of Muslim terrorists as non-Muslims are". It's a trite point, and the assumption that we whitefellas need to have it rammed down our throats is offensive.

I think we all worked out that there are "bad" Muslims and "good" Muslims. Even the poor bloody SMH reporter would understand this (though she was a little dazed from the image of Fred Hilmer's sword over her head).

The first two posts are reacting to the assumption that this is something we need to be told. If they are genuine, that is. How many of these replies were by some wicked trolls hell bent on portraying the opposition as stupid? Isn't anonymity wonderful: the things you can say and do, and none of it can come back to you.

Perhaps Shakira would be better to explain the more about Islam and the distinctions between its various offshoots (especially Wahhabism) so that we whiteys know which we are allowed to vilify.

Philo:

Bali is Buddhist. Not Muslim.

Mind you, Michelle Leslie's play with the hijab ain't gonna make it easier for the next westerner to get done up with a pair of smileys.

M L? well she surely spotlights this debate, while I am no fan of the girl surely the way she dressed on the way out of Bali was no sin?
Can anyone explain to me why those who we gave a new home to could think we need to dress like them?
If she is not Muslim why highlight her lie and ignore a million others we get daily from the middle east?
And just why should any relidgion tell me how to live? sorry but I do have the right to think if any God exists he/she should take control.
Bigotry is not nice and quite the fashion in may relidgios places at present.
One God? 100 Gods? or only your God?
Do you think it matters how we dress? hope its how we live that matters.

To all posters who are anti-Muslim

islamSydney found Heidi!

Thank you
"Peace"
Kay

Dawood...

I do not expect "every Muslim (regardless of age and experience) to be able to either know about or answer complex questions on hadith."

All I want is for them to answer the simple, easy questions.

When I read from their hadith that says Mohammed had two men brutally tortured, I want them to say "Yes, it appears that he had two men tortured."

When I read a passage that says Mohammud's followers killed an old woman (Asma) for criticizing him, I want them to say "Gee, he had an old woman killed."

When I read from the Quran and its says that a man can rape his married female slaves, I want them to say "Yes, it says a Muslim can have sex with his married female slaves when he wants."

When I read verses like "So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam" (8:39) and Koran "Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another, but ruthless to unbelievers" (48:29) or even the famous "kill them whereever you find tem ) I want to Muslims to look at me and say "Yes, old man, that is real mean. I can understand why you are offended."

But no luck! Muslims cannot be honest. I cannot even get them even to tell me what the verses say. They ignore you, attack you, say its out of context or drool in their beards. They don't want to even think about it. That is why you cannot trust Muslims and that is why their condemnations ring hollow.

If they refuse to contemplate the obvious conseguences of this, well, this means big trouble for all of us. Think about it!

John Kactuzki

Philo,

I am somewhat less than surprised that leaders of Australian moslem community are unimpressed with ML. I think that what she did was disgusting, and a blatant, cynical abasement of a religion for her own benefit. Magazines in Australia should choose not to featyre her in order to help protect her soul, because obviously she suffers from such incredible, internal conflict over her occupation, perhaps they should assist?

BTW, if posters are in doubt about travelling to Bali, because of terrorism or SC, please feel free to help establish tourism in East Timor. This country is predominantly christian (with a very low tolerance toward indonesians), and is unlikely to suffer suicide bombings.

NB If one is worried about what happened to Schapelle happening to them, DO NOT pass the 'I have something to declare' counter.

Then, once we get past the simple, obvious stuff, we can begin to talk about what this means.

The problem is that we never get past the basics. Muslims are in denial.

How do you expect Shakira to discuss the topic of women and rape in depth when she limits the discussion to a few Imams and Australians? It is a much, much more complex issue, and it must be analyzed in the context of the life of Mohammed, the teachings of the Quran, the stories in the hadiths and events in contemporary Muslims societies.

However, do do that is to expose herself the things she prefers to ignore, so she builds an irreal world where theory and nice thoughts are everything, and the reality of Islam and Muslims is ignored.

And woe to you if you even suggest otherwise. If you criticize Islam and Mohammed, even using their own words, you are a vile racist, a fascist, a hate-monger and maybe you even kick puppies for fun (not that Muslims should care about that - dogs are unclean and cursed, you know!). In fact, to criticize Islam is a good way to get yourself killed in Muslim societies.

Then Muslims can't understand why they are so 'misunderstood' and why Islamic societies are a mess. No wonder they want out - and then when they get to the West, things are still bad. So what do they do? they whine and complain, always blaming others (the West, crusaders, jews, Bush, America, Donald Duck, or as in this case, the dozen or so 'bad' Muslims. Never ever do they even consider the possibility that the problem is in their own hearts and religion. Oh horrors!

All I want is honesty.

John aka kactuz aka kactuzkid

Kaktuz,

Again you assume that Muslims take all Hadith as fact or part of the religion, this is your assumption.

None of my business but your comment on Quran is the interesting one and it tells me you are reading missionary work:

- "So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam" (8:39)
Meaning translation is ‘until they persecute you no more’ meaning is proven in the following and previous verse.

- The famous ‘slay them where you find them’ is another missionary dishonesty, the full verse (5:6,9,11) talks about those who fight you, drive you out of your homes. Until they stop their aggression.

I can’t ask you to read in its genuine language but at least read a certified meaning translation by a Muslim (or even a historian) like Pickthall.

It is important to read what is written about specific theology as seen by there own people for no reason other than it will tell you how people see their own faith. Most of my reading on Christianity in Egypt was either through the Bible society Dr Milad Hanna or Father Samuel.

And finally Kaktuz, I have to thank you for giving me the opportunity to read, study and compare..

BTW, I like the 'donald duck' one its funny, humour is appreciated.

Aaron,

Very good point, I published a comment on ML and Dr Ameer Ali on my blogspot this morning:
www.musliminsight.blogspot.com

R0bert

The ‘dark side’ to which I referred was the unremitting diatribe of prejudice from the likes of redneck, kactuz, Boaz, Philo, skid marx, who continually paint all Muslims with the same brush either with quotes from the Q’uran, Googled stats or even complaining about diet!

Fellow Human has made a worthwhile attempt to provide an informative blog for all who are interested. However there are those who will look for fault and of course will find it (real or imagined). I hope that people will access FH’s blog and decide for themselves rather than take the word of a blighted few, who only wish to spread hate and create division.

Of course I am aware that there are a minority of Muslims who loath all Western culture – I am not ignorant. However I am tired of the constantly black and white views of the above mentioned and had feared that you had been ‘taken in’. I guess we both insulted each other’s intelligence here and I apologise.

While I did not appreciate the lecture you gave – I do in fact agree with all the points you raised.

It is not a simple issue at all – least of all for those of Muslim faith who must be feeling alienated and uncertain in these appalling narrow minded times.

Those who judge the majority by the actions of a few extremists are reactionary and just as extreme as those they decry.

kactuz: But you refuse to even accept how mainstream Muslims understand these issues, instead chalk it up to "taqiyya" or "avoiding the issue". You make a lot of generalizations about what Muslims are like or believe, yet talk about "getting beyond simple stuff".

The fact is as Fellow_Human states: the hadith are the second source of law in mainstream Sunni Islam (more specifically the Sunnah, which is different to hadith), but they are not infallable and free from error. If that was the case Bukhari, Muslim and the others would not have had to weed out the majority of those they heared. It does not take rocket science to work that out. Neither too that Ibn Hajar a century or so later weeded out some hadith in Bukhari that did not meet Bukhari's own criteria of authentication, and so on.

But I don't want to bore you with the details as you are not interested.

Certain exponents of Islam teach the doctrine you espouse (specifically the extremist side), but mainstream Islam does not. Yes, it is generally the 2nd source of law, but there are many caveats when referencing them.

Which again, you and others seem to ignore, just so you can find nasty ones to make us all look bad.

Even simple things like: Does the hadith have any legal import? (Not all do, many don't.) Was it a normative practise (ie. Sunnah), or something abnormal? (not all hadith are normative, some are exceptional to the norm.)There are many questions that cannot be answered from googling hadith online, but only from the depths of the Islamic legal tradition.

You quote these obscure hadith that the majority of people probably dont even know is in Bukhari etc, and expect people to answer them. You blame them for all the ills in the world, yet mainstream Muslims do not even follow them; they have no legal precedent (apart from extremists) and most of the community here that I have talked with find even the fact that the guy may be hung in Singapore for the drugs crime absolutely abhorrent.

kactuz: One word - Leviticus.

rancitas, what a beautiful monika. Rancitas. Ran - sit - as. The mouth broadens on the first syllable to be as wide and welcoming as Paris Hilton's legs, to close up on 'sit', landing with a sensual bump on the 'as'.

Ah, you're a person after me own heart. I've made some strange choices, but rather than blame myself for the horrendous messes I find myself in, it's so much more fun to sit at home, seething in my own bile and picking through characters to assassinate. Truth to tell, at every crossroads in my life I’ve chosen the more painful, the more lonely, the more narcissistic. Can’t help myself: given the choice between a cushy, middle class life and living in destitute squalor, threatened by psychos, and risking life and sanity at each turn, I pick squalor every time. Damn moral highground is covered in bush lawyer, eh. Your butt may have a crack you can’t explain, but hey, at least it’s not festering with a million splinters.

But enough about me. Let’s hear about you and your cute blue eyes and blonde hair.

This is starting to get wierd.

Please stop.

For a while we had Keyser Trad sounding off in protest at every slight, imagined or otherwise, dealt to muslims. Now we have Ameer Ali who appears to have nominated himself as 'spokesperson for everything,'
The truth is that these people belong to a MINORITY but you would never know it if you were an outsider. The majority of Australians are sick of hearing the demands,miseries,complaints,whining of this minority that is given far too much media space.
Give it a rest. If the conditions of this country do not suit, for goodness sake move!

Rancitas, did you read this in the paper. F**ken' scary sh*t.
Get a load of this.

Iran Reaffirms Intention To Murder Salman Rushdie
Rushdie fatwa stays
FASTNEWS—The Courier-Mail, 14th February, 2005
Tehran: Iran's hardline Revolutionary Guards declared yesterday that the death sentence passed against British writer Salman Rushdie, was irreversible and said Muslims would one day carry it out. The Guards were marking the anniversary of the 1989 fatwa pronounced against Rushdie by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who considered his novel The Satanic Verses blasphemous.

"The day will come when the Muslims take retribution for apostate Salman Rushdie's transgression against the holy Koran and the Prophet Mohammad," the Guards said in a statement.

end

I love Rushdie's works -great stuff - it is a crime against all humanity to even consider such a proposition. Brings home Shakira's point somewhat - I think. Is Rushdie still a Muslim anyone?

Okay i talks to meself a bit. As any fule no, at least when talking to self one is talking to someone decent (shut the f**k up rednecks you all wouldn't have a clue).

Scout, sorry if it came across as a lecture - not really intended that way. I get pretty frustrated by the black and white approach of some as well. I'm not real convinced about BD being fully in the darkside. Although he seems to dwell over there occasionally he extends himself and touches the issues. Maybe a pink-neck.

FH - I had not spotted your response to my question, kind of got tied up in other stuff. Before I proceed with more questions can I note that I'm not suggesting you support the laws you refered to, the following are attempts to gain understanding. Are all belief (or non belief) systems protected in the same way. Are the feelings of agnostics, athiests etc protected as well as the feelings of those who choose to believe in a God. Those kinds of laws are likely to a nightmare of bias to implement and be easily manipulated to restrict freedoms. The lack of them certainly has some issues, a look at some of the posts on this thread shows that some people are unwilling to exercise any kind of repectfull restraint but personally I'd rather wear that risk than additional external censorship. If nothing else the tone of posts from people of various faiths provides some indication of the value of their faith.

Some years ago there was a so called art item which from memory featured a statue of christ immersed in urine. Clearly designed to offend christians and spark outrage. I'm really mixed views about it. On the one hand I'm glad we have the legal freedom for that to occur and on the other hand saddened that a number of people had so little concern for ethical behaviour that they were willing to produce the work and to place it on public display. The display is gone or rarely heard of now and christians (and some muslims) still hold Christ in high regard, somewhat better than a knock on the door at 3am for somebody.

Thanks again for you contributions to my knowledge of these topics.

Cheers
R0bert

Interesting article Shakira. I hope you keep writing (and wearing whatever you like to wear!) and I look forward to reading your articles on OLO.

Dawood... when it comes to interpreting/understanding the Hadith and how they are regarded by Muslims, the reasonable person will do the following:

Look at particular issues, and SEE what the muslims scholars/imams say about them, further, that same interested and reasonable person, can then seek out opinion from imams of the various schools of Islamic law, and compare. Then we are in a position to comment reasonably on that issue.

I have one issue, which Kactuz raised where I would REALLY like a considered answer from either or both of you and F.H.

F.H. is <<incesantly' repeating the same mantra "Islam teaches about war, ONLY defensive as when you are being attacked and even then, only within limits, not to transgress>> is how his mantra goes.

Now, Kactuz demonstrated from Islamic history that the prophet made a large number of aggressive raids during his time in Medina.

1/ Is Kactuz wrongly reporting ?
2/ If he is correctly reporting the history of Tabari, is Tabari wrong ?
3/ If Tabari is not wrong, then what does this say about the prophet who said in effect "do what I say, not what I do" like the father with a smoke in one hand and a beer in the other telling his kids not to smoke or drink..... it defies the imagination.
4/ If the founder of Islam cannot and did not follow his own supposed revelations, how can any Muslim be expected to ?
5/ What then, is the point of Islam ? (does not require an answer, rhetorical only)

F.H. do you still rationalize the genocide of the Banu Qurayza with your 'treachery during wartime' hyperbole ? That was unquestionably an aggressive raid. But there were many others, do you have a rationalization for each one ?

The difference between F.H.s approach and that of the extremist, is that the Extremists find inspiration in the ACTUAL deeds/sunnah of mohamed, F.H. finds the need to rationalize them.

r0bert, perhaps it cos christians are better at taking the piss.

BOAZ_David: I will try to do my best.

First the easier ones:

2 - I have still yet to see a clear reference on Tabari apart from some quote taken off an anti-Islam site mentioning some random chapter number. The man wrote something like 5 different books (some very intricate), with many other works attributed to him.. I would like to see the actual references, if possible, for my own sake.

If something is stated in history, then it is dishonest to deny it. But we also can't project our own perceptions backwards and then criticize pre Midle-Ages people for not believing as we do now.

Regardless, I follow what other scholars say, and if they (ie. the majority) do not advocate action or legal import on an issue, then that is good enough for me.

3 - Tabari is known in Islam as a kind of... collector of materials. He collected many different things and compiled them, kind of for posterity. Many of the quotes in his works do not even reflect his opinion - for example the idea that Isaac was sacrificed not Ishmael, as well as the exact opposite of this. He was documenting the debates of his time, amongst other things.

4 - Again, it's an issue of methodology. Imam Malik was once asked why he narrated a hadith, classed as authentic, yet continued to act against it. He replied "So that it is clear that it was known, and we continued to go against it." Meaning that it was not the Sunnah, so had no legal value.

I am rapidly running out of word-space but I would say this. The issue of the raids and such is something that has been discussed by a few different academics. One piece I have found that raises some interesting points is this: http://users.tpg.com.au/dezhen/jihad_and_the_modern_world.html It's long but worth a read, in my opinion and covers some of what you mentioned.

1 - This is also rhetoric. My position is clear.

Moonie,
So you are telling me that [Quote, "Bali is Buddhist. Not Muslim."]. So you say that the Bali Judicary, government and laws are Buddhist, and not Muslim. I cannot believe Buddhists can execute drug dealers, and show lieniency and sentence reduction during Ramidan to extremist Muslim bommers.

But that was not my point entirely, it was what the Muslim Clerics in Australia were saying, that Michelle Leslie had adopted the Hijab to win favour with the Judges. The Australian Clerics obviously believed to be a young Muslim girl gained her favour above a middle aged white Aussie non believing male of insignifance, or an Aussie girl of Christian faith. If they did not believe this then they would not have called her a hypocrite for her Muslim pretense.

Robert,

I actually answered your question but had no response from you.
No problems, what I am advocating in essence are people of faith (any faith) should accommodate each other and respect each other beliefs. You can tell from my postings that I am not likely to be offended when my faith is attacked or criticised (and in some cases just ridiculed) But I can never do that to people of other faith.

I have a different view on freedom of expression: how far does it go?
If people engage in a debate, conversation or humour (ie jokes) you and I would argue it is reasonably acceptable by most people.

To give you an example from your posting: lets imagine the mockery with Jesus (PBUH) in urine was made by an atheist. Now Muslims or Christians, offended will use the freedom of expression to respond with a large Bronze statue for a crying atheist with a fire ball up his bottom, wouldn’t that annoy all atheists, even the non-aggressive ones?

People hold their beliefs dear and that is natural and human psychology, how much freedom do you need to give and where to you draw the lines before my freedom steps on your rights and well being? Freedom of expression should stay well clear from divide and circles of hate.

I will post one or two articles weekly on my blog, my next two articles will be about Apostates and arts (including statues) and I am still in reading and thinking mode.

Boaz,

Your thread now with Dawood confirms what I have been saying all along.
Quran is the only source for all Muslims, you start with ‘man made’ hadith and sources and good luck finding a conclusion, Muslim scholars started this debates 12 centuries ago and still are unable to come to conclusions until today. I debated it for 6 years of my life.

FH, once again I have not explained myself clearly (a bit much of that lately :( )
I'd missed your response and tried to acknowledge that in my last post, sorry the message was not clear.

I'm guessing that athiests and agnostics like any other grouping would have a mix of those who laughed at a clever pay out and others who were offended.

Liberty brings with it a responsibility which unfortunately some take to lightly. There are some posters on these forums who appear to try and give offence rather than debate the issues as they see them. I don't count BD in that, but one of his fellow believers has a habit of spewing some really hateful stuff in his posts which sends a fairly strong message about the character of his belief. Somehow I want BD to retain the freedom to argue his case (even if I disagree with him) but those who choose offence for the sake of offence to be silenced. Beyond my limited wisdom to achieve that with law.

R0bert

Pedant

You are still refusing to understand the msg projected by the 'thief in the night ', scriptures.

The Catholic church and Catholic oriented translators, while they seem to treat all the words of the original text, they play games with the grammar. The King James translators may add up to 50% of words or disregard 50% of words of the original text, or somewhere in between, and so insert their meaning into the translation. The Catholic translators change the grammar, while retaining words, and make the peripheral things relevant and the irrelevant things relevant.

Your understanding seems to me to take this form; Beware, be alert, be awake, so that if the Lord comes unexpectedly you wont miss him. You have accepted the twisted teachings of Christendom. This is not the teaching of the scriptures. In short you have your knickers knotted , religiously speaking.

Suppose you grab Him by the ankle and say, “Gotcha”. The Lord of Lords will make a decision. If you are wearing the garments that He provides, in other words you are ready, with enough oil in your lamp, He will say, “Move to My right and prepare to inherit the Kingdom of God”. If you are found with your pants down, that is not wearing the apparel that He provides, He will say, “Depart from Me, you who work Lawlessness”. You will have forfeited your Salvation, because you have not made yourself ready, and have not kept your self ready. Having seen Him coming is of no consequence, it is His job to find you.

I don't see any need to say good bye.

I am sorry, I have placed my last comment on the wrong blog or what ever these things are called.

Sheesh Goldbrick, some people think Islam is weird, but after reading your post, I have to admit that Xtians have their share too :)

IMHO the fact that people become religious is fairly easily explained. As we evolved to have larger brains and become smarter, we also evolved to become more anxious. The brain needs homeostasis or balanced brain chemistry, for us to feel content and happy. The anxiety of uncertainty makes us seek perceived certainty.
ie. we want answers to make us feel better. As long as we believe the answer, even if its wrong, we will be happier. No wonder that every tribe discovered anywhere, has invented some kind of god, or gods, to explain the world.

If I was walking through the woods 2000 years ago and lightning struck 6ft in front of me, killing my friend in the process, I would have been petrified. I would want answers, so that the same did not happen to me, to quell my anxiety. Along came people with what sounded like credible explanations for all these things. I would have gladly believed them, to feel better. No wonder that religions have done so well in history!

Yabby,
you have disclosed your no brain answer, obviously according to you evolution has not as yet developed religion in your thought process. Perhaps you can give us some of your philosophy for how you find answers to you own behavioural problems, since faith and hope has not yet evolved in your brain. Or perhaps you have no answers!

F.H. given that Islamic law is founded on the Quran AND the hadith, as u well know, it is legitimate to refer to it when discussing Islam.

DAWOOD. I had a good read of the link you provided, and can make some preliminary observations.

1/ Islam spread by aggressive "Jihad" The articles justification is as follows:

<<We shall thus restrict the remainder of our discussion to the aggressive jihad. As I intimated above, the aforementioned "state of war" was not restricted to Arabia. It characterized the pre-modern world in general>>

In short, he is saying that due to the lack of any overall government, everyone was defacto at war with everyone else, apart from treaties.

But clearly, and undeniably, the key to understanding the spread of Islam is via aggressive Military attacks on Infidels due to this 'defacto' state of war he claims.

The general tone of the article confirms the fundamental difference between the expansion of the gospel of Christ to the time of Constantine, and the expansion of Islam from Mohamed till now.

That difference is found in a part of Acts, demonstrating the Christians response to persecution.

Acts 8:1
<<On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.>>

Then

<<4Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went.>>

It was this, and not military conquest, not self defence, not treaties which gave rise to the early Church ..and after 300 yrs the Power of Rome was forced to admit "The empire is Christian"

There is no concept of 'Holy War' in the New Testament. There is only a concept of a Justly ruled state, even if the emporer is pagan.
Christianity does not 'need' 'territory' to survive and flourish.

The link you gave me 'assumes' an Islamic State. We never assume a Christian 'state'. Our war is fought with the Word of God and the truth of God incarnate, not swords or arrows.

Hi Philo, thanks for your question. I actually have lots of answers. One of them is that despite the nuns trying to brainwash me as a kid, I moved on from there, educated myself and learnt to think about how I feel. Call it emotional literacy if you please.

All my bad points are quite easy to explain. When I look at the geneology of my family, I am the product of that dna, good and bad.
Mind you, when my mom complains about me, she doesent really like my explanation that its all her fault for me turning out as I did,
I was still only a twinkle in my fathers eyes. They are responsible for the rest of it :)

If you want to understand people, understand our history, our dna,
how we evolved, how our brains work. The rest kind of falls into place, if you bother to inform yourself.

Now to the bad news. As I have posted twice in a short time, I won't be able to respond for 24 hours to any further questions, which is the rule of this forum. :(

PART 2 for Dawood.

The underlying assertion by that article, when it states "There was a defacto state of war" is this:

"Islam has the legitimate right to engage in aggressive warfare to conquer territory."

One only need look at a map of the growth of Islamic Territory, to realise this is how the 'rightly guided caliphs' understood their situation and the 'sunnah' of mohamed.

There is no validity in suggesting that because today the 'West' controls most of the world, that the assumed 'defacto state of war' has diminished in the minds of true Muslims. (To do so would be a denial of the Sunnah itself.) In fact, if anything, it is WORSE today for Islam than during the early days.

I cannot imagine any Muslim who has a level of historical awareness of the 'glory days' thinking otherwise.

He goes on....

<<Still, the Muslim conquests were neither for the sole purpose of conversion nor annihilating the infidel. In addition to the fact that non-Muslims paid higher taxes -- and thus non-conversion operated to the financial advantage of the state -- the rules of jihad stipulated that non-Muslims remained free to practice their religion upon payment of the so-called jizya>>

Now.. am important question.

"Were the Christians free to PROPOGATE the gospel among all people of the Islamic state " ?

Because to 'practice' our faith means to evangelise and proclaim the gospel to all without fear or favor.

The popular Muslim mantra of "Christians were free to practice" is incorrect. Given that apostacy in Islam is a crime punishable by death, then how much more would 'luring and enticing' to another faith (as they would see it) be illegal in an Islamic state ?

So, for Christians, Islam would be the most pernicous form of spiritual darkness which could ever infest the land. Can God be gagged ? Hardly. Nor does He need armies to conquer pagan lands.
Military territorial expansion is a denial of the Gospel and Truth of God, but not a denial of Islam.

Dawood and FH,

A few weeks ago I asked FH for links to Muslim sites that question the authority, authenticity and use of the hadiths. I am still waiting.

Also please give me references to Islamic sites that debate and explain the nature of the verses I mention so often (you know, torture, the murder of Asma, shagging the slave woman, be ruthless to the infidels, etc...). There are some but not many, because Muslims don't want to talk about them. Even when the explanations can be found they are pitiful (I like the one where the Muslim explains that Asma had to die because Mohammed was weak and he could have been defeated - that is why Mo's buddies had to kill the old woman that criticized him. So Great Allah had to let the old lady die so Mohammed could establish the true faith. Pretty sick!).

Anyway, I expect to see some great links here soon from you guys that will resolve this question. Boy, am I so afraid!

On the other hand I can give you dozens of sites that consider the hadiths as integral to Islam. Not just any sites, but the big names in Muslim Internet. Shall we have at it? Do you want to go first or do you want me to start?

The fact is that all but 1,199,999,998 Muslims consider them valid expressions of Islam and Mohammed's life. The fact that the hadiths have been there and have been cited probably billions of times without anybody being concerned about the verses promoting hate, anger and oppression also says alot about Islam. The fact that Muslims typically choose certain verses to use when talking to non-Muslims, or misquote others, while ignoring other verses and accounts, also tells you a lot about Muslims.

Kactuz

Once again, a topic raised by a Muslim has devolved into a Islam = 'bad' versus Christianity = 'good'.

An example of this is the ever predictable Kactuz stating:

"The fact that Muslims typically choose certain verses to use when talking to non-Muslims, or misquote others, while ignoring other verses and accounts, also tells you a lot about Muslims."

Well, try this Mr Kactuz:

"The fact that Christians typically choose certain verses to use when talking to non-Christians, or misquote others, while ignoring other verses and accounts, also tells you a lot about Christians."

Works doesn't it? Examples of selective Christianity abound throughout this forum from our ever vigilant Christian contingent.

IMHO, all religions (I know this has been stated before - needs repeating) have both good and bad philosophies within their doctrines. Majority of people simply want to do the right thing and get along with their lives and with other people.

This 'my religion is better than yours' is indicative of the childish nature of religion and is a waste of debating space.

As Yabby clearly and intelligently stated; humans evolved to ask questions and find explanations. Where we have gaps in our knowledge, many of us have sought supernatural explanations. When we find answers, they become knowledge. For example, a solar eclipse is now understood as a natural occurance between the sun, moon and earth and is no longer regarded as an act of the malevolent gods.

Very basic stuff - many people find religion reassuring in a difficult and often frightening universe. Prefer reality myself.

Shakira, quite rightly and justifiably, stated that Muslims have as much to fear from terrorists as do the rest of us.

So just what has all this debate been about?

What has it achieved?

No one is changing their position and insults have been flying thick and fast.

Clearly humans have a lot more emotional intelligence to develop before we can consider ourselves civilised.

Kactuz: I never said the hadith are not part of Islam, I merely questioned your Shaykh bin Googlin' understanding of them, compared the process those who understand the hadith from the orthodox tradition go through.

1) No one said they are infaliable. The only people who say this are those like yourself and extremists. To state that is to go clearly against the orthodox majority who have been authenticating hadith for over 1000 years. It did not stop at Bukhari and his Jami al-Sahih, although it is used as a reference point a lot.

2) Hadith are a composite picture of the early history of the Muslims, as well as what Muhammad may or may not have said/done. They are a type of oral transmission. They employ a type of selective narrative because the people in the chain selectively chose to remember these specific things, and not others. This is basic human sciences 101.

3) Hadith generally do not show the historical context of the saying/incident, as well as the status of those who transmitted it. That is a completely different area, that you also can't find online but in classical books or from scholars. Which you don't listen to.

4) Something is deemed "authentic" and the various other grades (there are over 10) by virtue of the chain of transmission. Content analysis is a different matter altogether.

5) Again you keep arguing about these incidents which are a matter of history and not of Islamic law. They are not normative, and I am unaware of any apart from extremists who even make reference to these incidents in order to justify anything, let alone harp on about them as much as you do. If you accept the hadith which was gathered and graded according to the Islamic requirements, why don't you accept the Islamic understanding of them as well?

BOAZ_David: [[[The underlying assertion by that article, when it states "There was a defacto state of war" is this:

"Islam has the legitimate right to engage in aggressive warfare to conquer territory."]]]

I am confused how you can infer the 2nd part from the original quote. If you read the original article it clearly states that the 'state of war' was relating to pre-Islamic Arabia, and the tribal feuds which were common place, not to mention the status of the neighbouring empires around them.

"In this society, war (harb, used in the senses of both an activity and a condition) was in one sense a normal way of life; that is, a 'state of war' was assumed to exist between one's tribe and all others, unless a particular treaty or agreement had been reached with another tribe establishing amicable relations."

So even from the Professors original quote, it clearly gives a number of options, including peace treaties and the cementing of relationships. Hardly what you described at all as an aggressive taking of territory. Pre-Islamic history, and the Qur'an itself supports this clearly in numerous places.

Scout,
It is evident that the only times you appear is to emphasise your advanced evolved intellect. Obviously you cannot communicate with us low class plebs, so please drop off and allow us to evolve.

Quote, "Clearly humans have a lot more emotional intelligence to develop before we can consider ourselves civilised."

Your posts are offensive to our developing intelligence and distracting to open debate.

You only envisage indifference to reign in your advanced society. People like you need a bomb under them, so they ascend to the next higher plain. The subject is, "Muslims are as fearful of Muslim terrorists". Please answer WHY?

Philo, I can't answer on behalf of Scout or the moderate muslim community but I can toss my observations in.

As significant proportion of the direct and indirect victims of extremist muslim terrorism are muslims trying to go about their lives. Doing strange type muslim things such as shopping, commuting to work, having a walk with the kids and other stuff most of us don't understand. They get blown up as easily as a non muslim if they happen to be on the train that morning, they suffer from the downturns in economies when people stop doing the things that keep others employed etc.

Another aspect which is less quantifiable but seems a likely possibility is that often extremists reserve a special hatred and contempt for those who should be on their side but who just can't get it right. Those horrid muslim women who choose not to dress the way they should, even worse are muslims who have non-muslim friends or maybe had a beer when they went to BD's place for that much talked about BBQ. It can be dangerous to be "the wrong kind of XXX*" where XXX is anything which has an extremist element.

R0bert

Ouch! Truth hurts doesn’t it Philo? Glad I have gotten your attention.

Now if you believe that casting aspersions on one another’s religion constitutes debate, well I won’t bother to disabuse you.

However, you manage to return to the topic of this particular debate by the question you posed:

“"Muslims are as fearful of Muslim terrorists". Please answer WHY?”

Well, Philo, all I can do is offer further questions such as,

Why do blacks and Jews fear the Ku Klux Klan?

Why did Christians fear other Christians in Northern Ireland?

Fear and loathing abounds in Sri Lanka, where both Sinhalese and Muslims still fear Tamil Tigers (and vice versa).

Why do many women still fear men?

Why do fundamentalist Christians approve of the death penalty? And why does that scare me?

Could it be about power? Could it be about dominance?

Why DO extremist Muslims indiscriminately kill?

These are complicated questions, which engender complex answers.

I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I do have disgust at the low level of discussion by those who hold that they are superior to others simply because of the religion they claim to follow.

Philo, you maligned Yabby’s intelligence in response to a posting of his/hers – when you stated

“Yabby, you have disclosed your no brain answer, obviously according to you evolution has not as yet developed religion in your thought process. Perhaps you can give us some of your philosophy for how you find answers to you own behavioural problems, since faith and hope has not yet evolved in your brain. Or perhaps you have no answers!”

Yet when I cast doubt upon the emotional evolution of many (not all – I didn’t name names) who indulge in religious squabbling – you reacted in a knee-jerk fashion. You erroneously claimed I was shutting down debate.

If picking faults in Islam is your idea of debate – please continue.

The rest of us can continue to look for reasons for the current crop of terrorism and maybe, together, we can work towards solutions.

R0bert - thanks for the (un)common sense.

Go Scout and Robert, the voices of compassion and reason.

Why are so many people who like to wear their religious convictions on their sleeve, so judgemental and lacking in compassion and fellow human feeling? Some of you don't make good advertisements for your respective faiths.

Whenever a terrorist attack occurs anywhere, apart from the actual victims and their loved ones, the people I immediately feel sorriest for are moderate Muslims. They will inevitably be made more fearful and risk nastyness and insult when they personally have done nothing whatever to deserve it.

I find it hard to see a substantive difference beween westerners who use a terrorist incident as an excuse to spew vitriol and hatred indiscriminately, and fundamentalists who do the same back to us.

It is tolerance, compassion, sanity, common sense and reason that will defeat terrorism, anything else will simply make it worse.

Boaz,

Another peace of propaganda: Islam spread by sword!
Then how come Muslim countries (Except Saudi) still have churches and Christian populations? How is Islam spreading for the last two centuries? Or last 10 years?

Christianity spread on the back of colonialism: early Romans, Red Indians, Africans and aborigines did not exactly ‘see the light’. Please refer to ency. Biblica (including Spanish colonialism).

Seems you always had a ‘faithful, open eyes and jaws’ type of audience.

Philo,

The answer is simple: because we know Islamists are about power and control. Islamists were killing Muslims throughout history (Iraq now?). It seems your definition of history is “11 Sep 2001 onwards”.

Kaktuz & Team,

Most Muslims don’t know these hadith exist, it is only on Anti-Islamic sites as you well know (and seen on my blogspot). I only stumbled across these hadith in my agnostic days when I was riddled with conflicting theologies, religions, prophecies, etc.

You can’t show me a single Muslim (or website) that says hadith is divine or even part of the Islamic faith. Islam=Quran. It is however used as second source for the Shariah law (including the apostasy statement, which, if you follow my other postings, the Quran does not support it but ‘a’ hadith does).

I can understand an Atheist raising these questions but you claim to be Christians. There is nothing wrong with that except on two points:

1. Your misrepresenting comments under ‘freedom of religious debate’ yet blindly follow the Nicea creed:“Oops, God is three”. Why would God since Adam insist “He is One”? At least we kept the commandments intact. Think!
2. You ignore historians (Muir, Sale) writings on Islam, yet you quote the very same sources who were at war with Muslims. They are also the same sources who claimed Jesus (PBUH) never existed (or if he did, he was cruel to animals and pushed a young boy to his death) and virgin Mary was neither a virgin nor a good woman. If your sources were so honest, then your own religion doesn’t really exist.

Thanks Fellow_Human for your brief attempt to answer my retorical question to Scout. I was mirroring in previous posts the intellectual abuse by Yabby; who believes religion was a past development in evolutionary thought, and Scout's belief those who hold belief in God are of lower intelligence or emotional development. Scout's blind to her own abuse of people of faith who delve into beliefs that motivate extreme action with her constant childish chant, "My religion is better than yours". Their belief in the theory of evolution so colours how they see others.

Though BD and myself have difference of opinion on issues like the doctrine of God expressed by Trinity, it's not a factor for me to consider him polytheist who deserves death; because I know he doesn't worship three Gods. I've many friends in my Church who believe God is expressed [incarnate] in the character of man, his spirit moves in natural creation, but God is very much other-than mortal man or physical creation. For me it's the same God expressed in Christ [an anointed man in whom dwelt the spirit of God] they wish to identify Jesus humanity in their equasion of God [because of a conception miracle], hense conclude= three persons.

However Islamists believe Christians are polytheist is a motivating factor in Islamic fundamentalists reasoning to murder Christians. Similarly Jewish lawyers accused Jesus of polytheism because he stated, "God was his father", and so had him crucified. The death of Jesus is fundamental in understanding Christ's mission, but his death is denied by Islamists and is another reason they murder Christians.

Even that you highlight the Trinity as a notable point of difference in your post shows your distain, which may allow you to act with indifferent preference to your extremists brotherhood who would kill Christians for what you believe is polytheism.

The constant defence of your Qur'anic position against Christians, rather than identify the passionate beliefs that motivate extremists to murder unbelievers, Christians and other Muslims, it could be interpreted you have subconscious conscent for the ultimate work extremists do to rid the world of polytheism.

F.H. ... err point of order mate...

Look at a map, and see where militant Islam progressed to from the beginning of Mohameds time... k.... ummm are u trying to tell me that all those other countries, 'invited' the Muslims to come and slaughter their armies ? :) I think I better send you off for some 'reality' counselling.

What is your 'spin' on how the Muslims ended up in Spain (Then france), China and India ?

Perhaps your view is this:

Islamic armies took territory, then, because of the 'kindly and just rule' all the people spontaneously embraced Islam' er..yeah... sounds right (cough)

Prelude to Battle of Tours
<<According to one unidentified Arab, The slaughter of Christians at the River Garonne was evidently horrific; Isidorus Pacensis commented that 'God alone knows the number of the slain'>>

To answer your question about 'How come Christians are still in places like Egypt etc"

that article provided by Dawood clearly stated that it was in the 'economic intersts' of the state for dhimmis to remain so becAUSE of the higher taxation (no matter what spin you may wish to put onto that, don't argue with me, argue with the author of Dawoods source)

Ok.. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume you were were off your medication when you wrote that stuff :)... how 'did' Islam end up in China and India and Spain ? This will be good..

While you are at it, please provide a definitive statement on the following:

"Jews and Christians" who do not recognize Mohamed as a prophet nor the Qur'an as Gods holy book, ... will they goto heaven or not ?
I would appreciate a 'yes no' answer, and don't worry in the slightest about me being 'offended' if its a "no". I'm just curious about the Islamic position on this. Pending that answer, I'll have more to say (what a surprise :).

Happy blogging.

Boaz,

My response to your claim that “Islam spread by war and Christianity spread peacefully”. You can’t dodge that one: Islam spread to Asia by Trade but its highest growth was since the 1800s. How did it move from 1:8 to 1:5 (while Arab Muslims went from 82% to 15.8% today).

Also apples to apples: Islamic colonialism left people of the book in peace provided they pay a defence tax (for not enlisting in the army). What choices did everybody have in your world?

"Jews and Christians" who do not recognize Mohamed as a prophet nor the Qur'an as Gods holy book, ... will they goto heaven or not ?

- In many parts of the Quran (2:61-67) God states there are good believers among the people of the Book and they have no fear on judgement day.
- Al Imran (3: last part) it talks about a dialogue between Jesus and God (as you may have read), Jesus was asking forgiveness to his people and it says that God will accept some.

According to the Bible; believers in Jesus (Muslims) will go to heaven.
Chill Boaz, you take religion too seriously.

Philo,

My last posting was to get you to practice what you preach: ‘logical processing of religion”. You sound like you did very little of it in your religion but happy to go with a magnifying glass on anyone else. This is called prejudice or worse…

None of my notes were in 'defence of Islam' but rather explaining how we view our faith. Jesus in the Bible is clear on god is one, the commandments and the Mosaic law (which what Islam teaches exactly). Jesus humanity revealed itself everywhere in the bible (he did not know about judgement day, he also felt ‘forsaken by God’ and asked forgiveness for his people.Jesus being a great miracle of God and prophet is what we believe. You made a God out of him that’s your choice but you have no ‘logical evidence’ to come up with a breach of the first commandment. That is my personal view anyway.

Philo, BD etc

I wonder what part of “working together to find solutions to terrorism” was so difficult to understand?

Um, I am running out of ideas fast.

Well, boys, my only other suggestion is to offer you my tape measure and perhaps you may settle your ..er.. differences that way.

(Nice try F-H).

To all - have a wonderful weekend - stop to smell some flowers, pat animals and generally be excellent to one another.

:-)

[[["Jews and Christians" who do not recognize Mohamed as a prophet nor the Qur'an as Gods holy book, ... will they goto heaven or not ?
I would appreciate a 'yes no' answer, and don't worry in the slightest about me being 'offended' if its a "no". I'm just curious about the Islamic position on this. Pending that answer, I'll have more to say (what a surprise :).]]]

This is why i like al-Ghazali, regardless of F_H's opinion of him on his blog. In his book "the criterion for distinguishing Islam from masked infidelity", he explained non-Mulsims were in 3 categories and included some caveats afterwards too:

1) Those who did not hear of Islam - they will be given supreme Mercy.
2) Those who heard of Islam, but a distorted version - they will also be given Mercy (as rhetorically why would anyone want to follow if it was distorted and unclear?)
3) Those who know the truth of Islam and still reject it - they will be given Justice (ie. whatever they deserve, as no one will be wronged).

He also made a great point that it is well known from hadith that God's "Mercy precedes His Wrath" (another version states it is greater than the wrath), so how can any human - scholar or otherwise - attempt to limit the boundless Mercy of the Creator? This is kind of why i don't like theology much, it is speculative in that regard.

Of course, this is from a slightly elitist and centrist position that Islam is quite clearly "the Truth", but I personally think that point 2 is the major one. For a convert like me, it answers a lot of questions (and creates others too!), compared to the extremists who reject this nuanced explanation.

But why a yes or no answer? Theology is not as simple, regardless of religious tradition.

Yabby

80% of the cure of an evolutionary flaw (sometime called sychosemantics) is the correct identification of the problem and the willingness to front up to it.

You may not realise it, but you are a perfect candidate for conversion. You have an over developed backal lobe producing an exaggerated hyperactivity association in your dreaming/believing functions.

Your pouring it all out is the best thing you could have done.

I am sure that if you examine your reply to my last post (2nd last post) you will see what I saw

I thought that I may have missed something, but “days of our lives”, continues on just to give the blanks more illusions to delude themselves with.

Goldbrick, great that you have accepted that evolutionary flaws need to be fronted up to, “80% of the cure of an evolutionary flaw (sometime called sychosemantics) is the correct identification of the problem and the willingness to front up to it.” I hope that you can front up to the greatest evolutionary flaw known to man and rid yourself of it. But I doubt it, where there is no sense there is no reason. Psycho semantics, is the use of psychology in words, nothing to do with evolution, but we expect that from the evolutionary flawed.

Religion is the biggest evolutionary flaw we have, this can be seen by the continuing repeats on this thread. People with intelligence learn early in life the trap that repetitively stifles growth and understanding, until all you see is what you are repeating. I love it when all you can do is recite flawed, rehashed words that have no meaning, except for deluding those that can't see reality.

Anyone that believes against all the factual evidence, that their religious belief is peace loving and beneficial to the planet, surely lacks evolutionary intelligence.

Having said that, I have answered my own question, that the religious are not evolved intelligently, but are evolved aggressively. Tell me who destroyed the indigenous peoples of the southern hemisphere, which Islamics countries don't have the death penalty.

All despotic religions use the death penalty, either within their laws or as a justification for their war like acts. Bali, is Hindu, not Buddhist nor islamic but like other peaceful peoples they are under threat by a despotic religion

Goldbrick thats for your comment. When people use words that are basically gibberish, I usually conclude that they have lost the
plot completely :)

The world makes perfect sense, if we go by the evidence. If the
so called Almighty wants us to believe in him/her, he/she are free to
post the rules on the moon, for all to see. Meantime we have had people fight and argue and kill each other in the name of religion for eons. None of the so called holy books that I have seen would stand up to scrutiny in a court of law. But people will continue to squabble over them for eons more no doubt.

Evolution theory today is accepted in virtually every university around the world, based on the evidence. When a new aircraft is
designed, we rely on science, on what we know and what we can prove and test. I have yet to see any religious person climb onboard an aircraft, where supernatural or magical forces designed it :)

So Goldbrick, I guess I understand why you are religious, thats fine, some people need to quell their anxiety, cool. I shall continue to be a skeptic agnostic and let you guys quarrel over which god/gods and which so called holy books. I'll check the moon each night too, to see if the evidence has appeared yet :)

Scout, thanks for the great posts btw...

Ifran, Ash, Shakira, B_D, kactuz, myself and others are debating the issues on "the wrong type of Muslim" and trying to identify their belief difference that might cause an Islamic extremist to threaten or take the life of those with whom they dissagree.

The subject is not evolution, which some here have become obsessed, applying it to every topic. It is obvious you know nothing of the text, the subject, or the experience of faith, otherwise you would add intelligent debate and not ridicule.

Though F_H and B_D are on diametrically opposed positions they do not resort to personally degrading each other, but defend textually their position and belief. For those off subject please stop acting like a pack of hienas at a fresh kill. We are mature boys and do not intend to draw any blood.

As promised....

Note: the HADITHS are the “traditions” relating to Muhammad and companions. Hadiths are considered essential for determining the Sunnah, or Muslim way of life. Muslim “experts” have spend a lot of time in classifying hadiths as to content, number of sources, continuity, authenticity, etc. For simplicity, lets concentrate on so-called authentic (sahih / saheeh) and good (hasan) hadiths.

First, an introduction from non-Islamic source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith
“The overwhelming majority of Muslims consider hadiths to be essential supplements to and clarifications of the Quran”

Starting close to home, from
http://islamicsydney.com/links.php?cat=13&subcat=18
Links to:

(Below are quotes about hadiths)
1. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/sbtintro.html
Both sources are indispensable; one cannot practice Islam without consulting both of them (Quran and Sunnah). Bukhari's collection is recognized by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world to be one of the most authentic collections of the Sunnah of the Prophet...

2. http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=106
This thorough authentication process ensures that these accounts are real, validated narrations of the sayings, actions, and tacit approvals of the Prophet Muhammad.

3. http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/quran/
These (hadiths) are the real explanation, interpretation, and the living example of the Prophet (...) for teachings of the Qur'an.

Also,
4. http://www.iisca.org/articles/document.jsp?id=65
(Ahl Sunnah wal Jama'ah Association) The Shareeah, which is embodied (in) the Quran and Sunnah, are the proclamations of Allah and His Messenger (...) ...it is obligatory for every Muslim to obey any command that he hears from Allah or His Messenger (...), even if the command should go against his own desires, opinion or against popular opinion.

5. http://english.islamway.com/bindex.php?section=article&id=141
To be a true Muslim, the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (...) must be followed. The sources of information about the Sunnah are found in Hadith...

6. http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=2110&dgn=4
(www.islam-qa.com) The Sunnah (words and deeds of the Prophet) came to explain and complement the Qur’aan.

7. http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-search.htm
Is There Any Sacred Source Other than the Quran? Yes. The sunnah... the second source in Islam. The sunnah is comprised of hadeeths...

8. http://www.discoverislam.com/poster.asp?poster=DIP2004_12&page=1
Apart from the Quran is their any other sacred source? Yes…

9. http://www.islamiska.org/e/sohadith.htm
(The science of hadith) ...the divine promise also includes, by necessity, the Sunnah of the Prophe

10. http://www.islamicvoice.com/2001-08/hadith.htm
In Islam law and religion exist side by side in the light of Quran and Hadith.

11. http://www.ourdialogue.com/h1.htm#2 It goes without saying that the set of conditions established by Al-Bukhari was the most stringent of all. (and ) http://www.islamworlduk.com/index.html?lang=en-uk&target=d34.html Bukhari: The most truthful book, after Al-Quran.

12. http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/Ulum/afor.html
Allah caused the Muslim nation to produce outstanding individuals of incredible memory-skills and analytical expertise, who journeyed tirelessly to collect hundreds of thousands of narrations and distinguish the true words of precious wisdom of their Messenger... from those corrupted by weak memories... to transmit the legacy of Muhammad

Visit the links above for full text.

Oh yes, that www.islam-qa.com site (6) is both the stupidest and most honest Islamic site on the Internet. You would not believe the merda in it.

FH, it really doesn’t matter what you think. The fact is that almost all Muslims accept the hadiths as divine. The brutal and vile acts of Mohammud don’t bother them. Please don’t tell me the Imams don’t know these texts! The fact that you (at times)do not accept them but continue to associate with Muslims who do says multitudes about your morals.

“Most Muslims don’t know these hadith exist, it is only on Anti-Islamic sites” The problem is not that they are on antiIslamic sites, but that they are in the Quran and hadiths. Duhhhhh. Why is it so hard to find Islamic commentaries on these passages?

If or not Muslims know about these verses exist is not my problem. I may have used the word “denial” sometime. They exist, and because they exist we have articles like this one by Shakira, and we have Islamic terror. By Islam’s own authorities, they are a part of Islam and its practice. Remember, the hate is not just in the Hadiths, but also in the Quran. Or is that book not accepted also? Do you want a list of Quranic verses I find offensive?

“You can’t show me a single Muslim (or website) that says hadith is divine” Nope, but will the 12 above do? Want more?

Kactuzkid

Shakira Hussein argues moderate Muslims are as fearful of Muslim terrorists as non-Muslims are.

Her point has been well made.

Quoting religious texts to one another simply indicates that there are the wrong kind of christians as well.

Until I participated in this forum I believed that the object of religion was a way of living in harmony with one another.

Thank you Philo, BD, Kactuz for convincing me that religion is merely an imaginary construct - if it had any true relevance you would be seeking a way to aid your Muslim brothers.

Where is the love?

I have yet see it.

Now go and smell the flowers. Take a deep breath. Look at the beauty of the world and all the people around you - the overwhelming majority of it is good. By focusing on the bad - the terrorists have won.

Dawood
thanx for your efforts.

Your point number 1 indicates clearly that Islam is not neccessary for Salvation.

Your points 2 and 3 indicate only that increasing awareness of Islam bring increased culpability for those not accepting it.

Kactuz clearly shows how Hadith are regarded, and hadith clearly show the true nature of the man you call a prophet. We reject him. We look at his life, and while there are some commendable aspects, the idea that he is 'from God' simply does not stack up.

I call on you to abandon this darkness and turn to the true One and only God, revealed in Christ.

"36Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." John 3:36

I'm afraid this means for you, believing in him as Son of God, not simply a prophet.

<<3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.>>

Dawood, do you understand this ? "All things made through Him".....

Have you received Him ?

<<12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God>> John 1:12

SCOUT
"Where is the love"? If you have not seen it, I think you are misreading our intent.

No doctor will tell his cancer ridden patient "No worries..its all good, make plans for the future" No, he speaks truth.

We are advised to 'speak the truth in love' and by and large we do, but being mortal, we have our moments, forgive us for those moments.

But don't justify your own unbelief by pointing to us. Look instead to Christ, learn of Him, and then ur free to judge us as u see fit. But remember, the judgement you give, you will also be judged by, and that applies to us also.

Cheers and you also enjoy the weekend...

Scout,
Perhaps you now realise not all religious people wish to live in harmony, that is the point of this post if you had not already realised. Some people who believe they are abiding by their religious mandate from Allah want to kill those they dissagree with, and especially the infidels. We are attempting to identify the foundations of their authority for their convictions, so we can undermine their authority and practise. Just pretending all religious people are good could have you murdered. Wake up and smell the roses or you will smell fire and nitrogen!

We agree F_H is not among the extremists, but he needs to identify where Islam is rotten. This will assist others religious people to be aware of the claims being made by some Islamists, and clarify what can be allowed in a diverse culture.

Well Philo, its a bit like this: If we read history, then yes, Islam has been a violent religion. But then so has Christianity. A read
of Geoff Blainey's " A Short History of the World" includes plenty
of examples of both relgions involving violence, as heretics were
burned etc. The Reformation was not about tippy toeing through the tulips after all.

The sad thing is that people become so passionate about their religion that they kill other people in the name of whatever religion. Perhaps thats a good reason why secular democracy, where religion is no more then a lifestyle choice, each believing whatever they want, is the way to go.

One thing I know is this: At the end of the day, when you finally fall off the proverbial perch, you will rejoin the foodchain as the worms or whatever get you in the end. Your dna might continue in your kids, but the rest of you is recycled, no matter which species.
So Scout is right, spend that extra time smelling the roses etc,
for heaven is here and now, to be experienced and enjoyed!

BTW, the worms don't care about your religion, no matter which one, they will get you in the end. On that cheery note, enjoy your weekend :)

Yabby,
Faith, hope, joy, character are not organic protein that worms rely upon. So get it right, you are not essentially your body, your body is the vehicle by which your spiritual life impacts our world. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. What lives on is spiritual. Of course being atheist you do not believe in the eternal nature of character, wether good or bad. Good character will build a good future, anti-social character burns a destructive fire. What has been passed off as religion is not of the Designer's intention.

Those that see religion as merely State enforceable laws attempt to control behaviour. A true relationship with God is a personal matter of education of the heart and mind to accept the highest principles of character and understand our design.

Dear Yabby

I fully agree at face value with your statement "Both religions have been violent over the centuries"

but have they ?

Yabs..what do you know of the first 300 yrs of the growth of Christianity and that of Islam during a similar period ?

Can you show me from the New Testement, the teaching of Christ or Paul or the other writers of the New testament even ONE reference which actually 'orders' Christians to take up arms in defending themselves or to take over territory ? I can show you numerous direct references of this nature in Islamic scriptures.

I really would like you to try, because only then will you see where we are coming from.

There is a direct line of "violence" going back to Mohammed himself in Islam. There is a patchy but connectable violent line in Christendom history going back to......

wait for it...
no, wait more...
sit down first...
now take a deep breath.... Ok..here it is

EMPORER CONSTANTINE ! who came to the thone of Rome in around 300 AD.

Prior to 'The State' taking over the running of 'The Church' there was no battle, no war, no fight no ANYthing except poor believers being hurled to the lions, turned into human torches, blamed for every calamity, and their humiliating perverted deaths made into a regular 'sporting fixture' at the Colosseum.

Failure to acknowledge this, is intellectual dishonesty.

The only possible conclusion is this:

HUMAN GREED, NOT THE FAITH
When the 'Church' is influenced by politicians it is used very much as an 'opiate of the masses' and becomes a tool of political survival and growth of power.

Such events are not a result of "Christianity" the faith, but of 'man' and his carnal greed.

So, Yabs. I announce to you, and all who can read this that the Messiah is Jesus, appointed by God as judge of the living and the dead. I urge you to give your heart and mind to Him and receive His forgiveness.

longlost

Heidi, please telephone me (07 5443 2773) or your father (0249 522362). You don't have to explain anything if do not wish to. We simply want you back in our lives again. Life is far too short.

Grandma has serious osteoporosis and is extremely debilitated. She is now 78 years of age. She is heartbrocken without you in her life. Your Dad is still very sick.

I saw you on a website. You are stunning, and congratulations on your success.

Love
Kay
PS: apologies to Moderators and other Posters. I know that this is not a personal message board. I hope you appreciate our difficulty and concern for "longlost".

Philo, what continues on, is your dna, in your kids. The soul is a human concept, going back to the Greeks etc, look it up. Religion borrowed this stuff from the old philosophers. Your mind is what your brain does. When you die, like it or not, the worms will eat all those cells that make up your mind too :) So enjoy heaven whilst it lasts!

Dear David, Your problem is that the old testament is an extremely violent book! Its part of your holy book. I have yet to see Xtians tear up their bibles and throw away the first section. You can't pick and choose with holy books. Either its all true or none of it is true. The rest is selective memory.

The Catholic Church, which represented Xtianity on this planet for
most of its history, has a history as a corrupt and at times violent organisation. Many many were burnt at the stake for heresy, or disagreeing with the Church.

So my philosophy is simple in a way. As religions have a history of violence and corruption etc, but no substantiated evidence for their claims, I much prefer my own ability to reason, then doing things for reasons of burning forever and other threats they try to use.

We could all have a great planet and live on it sustainably, if we tried and used our ability to reason. Religious dogma is preventing us from that in a way, as its representatives try to force their opinions on us.

Dear yabs... the 'old testament is a very violent book' is not my problem its urs :)

I'm not sure which section you are referring to, but I do know of some bits which to our western, and if I may say "New Testement' heritage minds, seem a bit over the top. But its quite unfair for us to project back our contemporary and often simply humanistic views on inter-racial/tribal conditions of 3000 yrs ago.

Tribal Experience

I can tell you with solid assurance, having lived in and spent a lot of time with Bornean indigenous people, that Israels experience, fits like a glove to how it goes in such circumstances. (this includes issues such as slavery)

Gods judgements on sinful people were always tempered with justice. They were judged for specific things. The wiping out of every last man woman and child of one group (today we call it genocide) is not so difficult to understand when you see how Palestinians teach even their infants to hate and carry model weapons and chant hate sloguns.
But those exterminated by God, (through Israelites) were guilty of horrendous sins, such as offering their infants to the gods by burning them. (archeological evidence abounds) In one Canaanite area 20,000 baby skeletons were found, as victims of this. It should carefull noted though, that in no way were such judgements intended to be 'general principles'. It is not taught or suggested or commanded. Those incidents are just 'reported'.

There isn't much point in debating that issue though, I can only resort to 'Will not the judge of all the earth do right'?....
But 'right' is what the Almighty determines it to be.

On the RC church, I could not agree more. But as I said "Post Constantine".Prior to that, such things did not characterize the church, and when disagreement occured, the worst to occur was a breaking off of fellowship. (the various heretical sects, Manicheists, Gnostics etc)

No offence, but please don't let an unbalanced view of Scripture hold you back from Christ and the abundant life in Him. "Which passes understanding".

"Jesus Christ

The Prince of Peace

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother...
-- Matthew 10:34-35 (AV)"

Still squabbling boys.

Dawood...

You seems to be a no nonsense, straight talking guy.

Question 1: Please tell me what you think will be my fate in the hereafter. I guess we can all agree that I'm a three (Those who know the xxxxx of Islam and still reject it). Not only that, but I may be guilty of saying bad things about Islam's great prophet (of course, that is a matter of opinion - in my view I just said what Islamic writing say - so its not really me).

What fate do you think I deserve, or better, what would be my fate heyond the grave - as most Muslims understand Islamic doctrine?

Question 2: If I/you/we lived in an Islamic society under sharia, what would be my fate in this life?

Don't worry about my feelings. Just tell me what will happen to me, according to Islam, for being a three.

Thanks, John

PS: If any Muslims here want to take a shot at these two questions, please do.

Joh

Scout,
Yes verily you have set yourself against Christ, as his enemy, but some will go to the extent of crucifying Him and his followers with the sword, with lions, with fire. He doesn't have to do anything except promote peace and others will promote violence. That is the point of extremist Muslims, who will murder Christians with the sword because they will not accept Allah as God and Mohamet as his prophet. It only takes one polarised side to make a war, against a peaceful nation. I suggest you look at what Jesus had to say about his attitude to his followers using the sword:

Matthew 26:46 Rise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that doth betray me.
26:47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and
with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief
priests and elders of the people.
26:48 Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I
shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast.
26:49 And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him.
26:50 And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then
came they, and laid hands on Jesus and took him.
26:51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his
hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s,
and smote off his ear.
26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place:
for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
______________________________

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother...
-- Matthew 10:34-35 (AV)"

GOD LOVES CHILDREN

According to God's law, children are not persons but the property
of their fathers, who may sell them as slaves (Exodus 21:7)

God promised to send wild animals to kill and eat the children of
the Hebrews if they didn't obey him. If they still didn't obey him,
he promised to make them kill and eat their children themselves.
(Leviticus 26:29; Deuteronomy 2:34 etc)

God frequently ordered the Hebrews to kill all the of people in
the lands they conquered. This includes slaughtering all the children
and all pregnant women (Deuteronomy 2:34 etc)

If you do not ovey God, he will punish your children and your
children's children unto the third and fourth generation
(Exodus 20:5, 34:7etc)

God says "Kill both man and woman, infant and suckling"
1 Samuel 15:3)

God says "Their infants will be dashed in pieces before
their eyes (Isaiah 13;6)

God says "Happy is he that dashes your little ones against
the stones" (Psalm 137:9)

Because some adults offended God, he deliberately drowned
the entire human race (except the Noah family). This included
every little child and every pregnant woman (Genesis 6&7

OK I'm getting lost here.

Just what has the battle over "my scripture is more barbaric than yours" got to do with the topic of "moderate Muslims being as fearful of Muslim/Islamic terrorists as non-Muslims".

I guess we are all pretty much aware by now that some posters believe that the muslim faith is rotten to the core and others think the same of the creistian faith (generally it is not muslim posters expressing the latter opinion). What does this old much travelled argument got to do with the topic?

Do some of you find it hard to accept the possibility that there is such a thing as a moderate muslim? Surely if christianity can accomodate the extraordinary range within that belief structure which exists there should be room for a range of muslims. Even if a moderate muslims was about a BD on the scale of moderateness that still leave (hopefully) a long way on the scale before you get to someone willing to pilot a loaded plane into the side of a high rise.

The key christian posters can collaborate on an article on what is wrong with the muslim faith and submit it for publication, likewise for those who do long posts with the failings of christianity and you folks can debate to your hearts content.

Meanwhile the rest of us can get on with working out how moderate muslims and moderate non-muslims can work together to make the world a better place for all of us.

R0bert

Yabby,
A text without a context is a pretext. That is just what you have done here. In case you had not realised the OT is the history, culture, law and behaviour of Israel the sons of Abraham and their proselytes. Islam has an affinity with their theology, law and behaviour, they came from the same ethnic lineage originally.

The OT is in the Christian Bible to demonstrate the evolving background from which Christ emerged as full of grace and forgiveness - a greater than Moses the law giver [John 1: 17]. The principles of Christianity have roots in revelations given in the OT but are often obscure and not recognised. The message to Abraham was to bless all Nations, but this has been obscured to believe only Israel is chosen and blessed, and that view motivated the outcomes of their history.

Christ is radically different in his outworkings of the principles of the individuals relationship to God and others in society, and to all men. Bertrand Russell though an atheist said that every child should be given an education in the teaching of Christ [From his essays].
Ghandi recognised the message of Christ, but did not see it demonstrated in people who claimed to follow him.

Please demonstrate where he used violence. One who follows Christ must live by his words.

Rupert, ok let me try to explain... The whole Islam story is perhaps a little more complex, then most of us from the West would understand. If you want to understand the life of Mohammed and how Islam came together, Ali Dashti's "23 Years" is pretty good. In the end, Kohmehni killed him as an old man, in his Iranian jails. If you want to understand bin Laden etc, you need to read Sayiid Qutb, his "Milestones" which is on the net, will explain where the Muslim Brotherhood and violent Islam are coming from.

Yup, there is no doubt about it, Islam has a violent history and various interpretations continue to promote violence. Saudi petrodollars have a lot to answer for in that regard.

We in the West are extremely fortunate. We can freely comment about these things, these days. Separating religion from politics was hard fought for, it did not happen overnight. If I said what I do about religion in an Islamic country, they would have shot me long ago :( Islam has yet to undergo it reformation period.

Philo, your are going to have to scratch your bald patch to decide if
you worship God or Jesus. God the old boy, as shown in the OT, was a violent being. Jesus preached love, but then so did the hippies...
If the OT is sacred text according to you, then say so. If its not, so throw it out. It seems to me that Xtians do exactly what Muslims do, they both have selective memories....

Ahhh, no wonder I prefer my own ability to reason, over all those
so called holy books... :)

R0bert - you are the sweetest conservative I have ever had the pleasure of communicating with (I have been following your commentary on Waleed's Violence against women) - not ready to post there - too many scars. Violence is wrong. And the vitriol expressed here is wrong.

So, Thank you - I deliberately posted that little quote from old Matthew, knowing full well the types of responses it would generate from the "my religion is better that yours" brigade.

Guess I was a little bit bored.

Yes the debate is about " working out how moderate muslims and moderate non-muslims can work together to make the world a better place for all of us."

I suggest 'getting to know your local Muslims'. I have been fortunate in that I have previously lived in a high Muslim population community and have also worked with many immigrants, when I worked with a government department.

I can happily state that the majority of Muslims (and immigrants in general) are positive about living in Australia and are earnest and sincere in wishing to make Australia their home.

I would not recommend my Muslim friends read some of the comments made on this forum - uncharitable and very unChristian are words that spring to mind.

Anyway, I digress, I encourage people to get to know their local Muslim population - you won't necessarily like every Muslim you meet. Just like anyone there is good and bad. However, I know that I have far less in common with someone like Philo, who rarely wastes an opportunity to indulge himself in personal invective - although we are probably from the same culture. I would have more in common with FH - who seeks to communicate and create a bridge of friendship with others.

This is why I continue to post here, in spite of the vitriol, in spite of the insults, because I believe that communication is the most important attribute of being human. If I can make someone think or even smile a little, then I have achieved a great deal.

LOL

Scout & Robert,

You are a breeze of fresh-air on these forums.
Interesting the call was to find 'moderate Aussie Muslims' and when few appeared to start a dialogue towards better and safer society, the struggle is now to find moderate non-Muslims.

Posters like you and Reason give me energy to persist with the non-Muslim Taliban as I call them. It is interesting to see every dialogue invite turns into the good old African missionaries forum.

BTW, I will pass on the tape-measure invite though Philo, Boaz and Kaktuz can knock themselves out.

Kaktuz,

1. None of the sites you mentioned talks about divine hadith for a simple reason: the Quran clearly states that prophets (including Mohamed PBUH) have no divinity. So their saying can't be divine but good spiritual teachings. Sounds like you are seeing it as: Mohamed PBUH hadith to Muslims is as divine as Jesus teachings to Christians. This is not correct: jesus for you = God.

2. Previousley I mentioned the Quran talks about good believers will have no fear on judgement day (2:61-69, 3, etc). Good believers defined as people with pure heart and do good deeds (70+ type of good deeds mentioned) the least is removing a stone from the road fearing it might hurt someone.

No Muslim is allowed to judge 'where you will end up': you know your intent and deeds and its between everyperson and God.

Anyway, stats shows that Islam will become the most popular religion by 2100+. You got the chinese shariah to worry about in your lifetime when a superpower can ban religions.

Fellow Human;

I see you return to your low grade dissembling but fail to answer my previous questions concerning your claims of the slaughter and disfigurement of children - with papal consent.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3860

Please do elaborate, it will serve as an aid to dispelling some of my non-Muslim Taliban tendencies to know that you simply are not making stuff up.

In expectation...

Mr P.Pig,

Sorry just noticed your posting. I am astonished that you don’t know about Bosnia, here are few links. Not sure what was published in the local media at the time.

http://www3.cnn.com/WORLD/Bosnia/updates/9602/07/
http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/der-ii020703e.htm
http://www.irct.net/torture_journal/Torture-2.pdf

The Orthodox priest I was referring to featured on a Video tape aired on Foxnews, CNN, and either ABC or SBS around 3 months ago.

You misunderstood the papal reference, please re-read the thread.

Fellow Human;

I have heard of Bosnia before, as have most people. I have heard about several atrocities committed there, including Srebrenica in 1995. I think this is, numerically at least, the war crime you refer to. I have also heard of defilement and torture that occurred, even including the removal of fingers so as to facilitate a "Serbian Salute". However, you said:

Fellow Human: Not in Australia, but Bosnia 1996, Orthodox Christians (Lead by an Orthodox Priest) killed 8,000 Muslim women and children, cut off two fingers of each hand (babies were not spared) so they meet Jesus with “Trinity” fingers. I have not seen any condemnation and the Pope said : “we are all Christians”, should I assume he included those criminals as well?

Those links you provide refer to the said atrocity nowhere. Why did you post them? The 8000 men, women and children with no fingers simply did not happen. Perhaps you would like to reconsider your position.

As for the papal reference, perhaps you could explain precisely what you do mean by mentioning the pope and the phrase “we are all Christians” in that context. This after re-reading your post in an attempt to understand. A benign interpretation does not occur to me.

And finally, do you not consider the NATO/US response to the events there as a fairly unequivocal response?

Robert, 21 November,

I have lost track of where these comments are intended to be directed (issue wise that is). I do recall concluding previously that the problem was a religious problem that required a religious solution. As I wade through these comments trying to spot the issue being discussed, I notice side issues that I would like to comment on.

I have no historical knowledge of Calvin. What I do know is that Calvin is regarded by some as a prophet. I am only aware of one prophecy by Calvin which goes like this, “People are going to become so sick of and so fearful of lawlessness that they will legislate themselves, or allow themselves to be legislated into slavery”. Current legislation suggests we are well on our way. I personally don't have confidence in modern prophets. It is not that they might not be valid, it is that by the time they are tested and proven it will be too late.

The religious problem is merely the fulfillment of Judeo-Christian prophesy. The Muslim and Christian religions are equally apostate (not necessarily the individual people). The religious solution is individuals may seek redemption in the Lord. And then sit back and watch it all happen. The perceived religious problem is a red herring that could divert those called from finding the truth. Every man for himself, abandon ship.

FH, yes Islam is growing, but that is more a question of demographics. Abortion, birth control etc are not available in many third world countries as they are in the West. Also Muslims generally have larger families then many others. Its debatable whether thats a good thing for the planet or not. Personally I think its a negative.

You clearly have a very moderate interpretation of Islam, which is great to hear, but that does not solve the worldwide problem, so we have to look at the bigger picture. Fact is that wherever Islam seems to go, violence in the name of religion eventually seems to follow. The arguments within Islam about which interpretation to which scripture should be applied, are as endless as they are in the Xtian community.

If we look at Egypt, where IIRC you are from, the Muslim brotherhood are a rising threat, tourists were killed, Coptic Christians attacked, at the end of the day its endless violence in the name of religion. No matter what FH thinks, you will be outnumbered by others who want to kill in the name of religion, which is sad really.

There are good reasons why many Muslims prefer to migrate and live in Western secular democracies. They escape the religious violence in their own countries. They can express themselves relatively freely and live their lives as they please to a large extent.
Western economies are not dragged down by religious fanatacism, to a large degree. But think about this: Once a country by reasons of demography becomes largely Muslim, all the problems that exist in Islamic countries, ie. political Islam, fanatical Islam etc, will grow accordingly in the new county and once again people will want to leave and escape to somewhere else without these problems.

So you'd better hope that Australia never ever becomes an Islamic
country :)

Yabby,
I must say I see you are beginning to reason. Keep it up.

It is obvious that some here want to identify as the friends of Islam while they know nothing about the Islamic doctrine in its outworkings at the national level. These abuse Australia and western democracies that have had hundreds of years of influence by Christian values and want to criminalise us as violent etc.

On the front page of today’s Australian is a story about NSW Labor MP Julia Irwin who argues that the Koran “is no match for violent Bible”. She claims devout Christians are “happy clappers” and says the Judeo-Christian God is the leader in terms of blood and violence, and Islam does not compare: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17395939%255E2702,00.html

Who is she kidding. That is the trouble with ignorance.

Regarding Calvin he wasn't a prophet, he was a reformist preacher and commentator on Biblical theology.

If these blogs are any indication it is the complete necessity to maintain separation of church and state.

I do not want to be ruled by:
Christians
Jews
Hindus
Muslims
Buddhists
Wiccans
Pagans
Hobbits
Fairies
Elves are pretty cool though - but a bit up themselves.

However, I think my cat has a very cool take on life and would take instruction from her .......

Have decided to worship cat people - they believe in independence and freedom of belief in that "you can believe any damn thing you like; just don't bother me" philosphy.

Think this thread has run its course, unless anyone has some ideas on friendship and cooperating with one another?

Any contributions folks?

PS - FH despite the persistence - 'the usual culprits' are not indicative of Australians in general. I believe that tolerance will win - otherwise we are doomed.

Miaow to all.

Yabby,

Minor corrections if I may:
In above posting, you confused Muslims (religion) with Muslim Brotherhood (political movement) with tourists killed (Islamist terrorists) and Coptic Christians… None is related to religion. I happen to have lived in Egypt for almost 3 decades. Majority of Muslims in Egypt are moderate easy going people.

Also on growth of Islam & Muslims, it is not related to race or demography; search an SMH article on the number of new converts to Islam in Australia. The Arabic speaking % of Muslims today is below 16%.

Pr P Pig,

The papal reference I quoted was in relation to ongoing confirmation by the pope referring to ‘all Christians are/ should unite’ without excluding Orthodox Serbian priests or denouncing their acts. I referred to it for previous posters who expect Muslims to apologise whenever a crime is committed by a terrorist. The types of body mutilation was a point of reference in a Bill O’reilly (FoxNews) briefing hour interviewing a group of Bosnian massacre survivors living in the US today, none of the UN or other officers denied their claims. Not sure what is your point?

Scout,

Actually Egyptians worshipped the cat (I had a gorgeous black cat in my Cairo appt).
But I can imagine there was an OLO ‘carved in stone’ forum where the dog and mouse worshippers will attack the poor black cat worshippers. I bet even 5000 years ago there was someone in the streets of Cairo carving ’my dog is better than your cat’.

I know Aussies are beautiful loving and accommodating people and I am proud to be one.
I am doing my bit (here and on my blog) for friendship and humanity and found great people like you, Robert, Reason, Dawood. There was an old Egyptian saying: Wolves cry never stops a cruising tribe.
(Apologies to the wolves since they have no choice).

Fellow Human:

My point is that you attempted a gross rewrite of history bordering on slander and no-one seems too concerned about taking you to task for it.

I notice that you studiously avoid answering the obvious questions posed by your own statements, post irrelevant supporting facts and avoid and change the issue when pressed.

This is obviously not the behaviour of someone who wishes to, or should be taken seriously.

Unless of course you still believe that 8000 people had their digits removed to mock Islam.

Failing that you could at least be honourable and acknowledge the fact that you are badly mistaken.

If you guys need an avenue for personal cracks, why dont you go to a pub and do it face to face.

You are getting away from the issue, all of you.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but there are too many wood ducks amoungst us that take the seriousness out of the issue, through being misinformed.

Get a hobby all of you, religion is like a fart, your own smells good but everyone elses stinks.

Stop thinking with religion in mind, if we had no religion, we would not have any major problems in humanity.

Calm down and leave your bibles, Kurans etc at home. Football is my religion, yet do i preach that they should be involved in politics? Hell no, i wish you would all take a step back from your brainwashing, and stop throwing stones at eachother.

Your kids are not as bad as many of you with your religious ideals, and people like you, educated, not educated and the like with your mine is better than yours routine are what divides society, and makes people like ME SUFFER, such as terrorism fears etc.

Pipe down and pull your heads in, keep your religion to yourselves.

FH, you miss the point I was trying to make. To many Muslims, Islam is not just a lifestyle choice, as we think religion should be, but a whole way of life. Islam is a political religion and that is its problem. Sharia law, Caliphates, etc are all about politics, not about lifestyle choice. The Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafists, Wahabis, etc, are all part of radical, political Islam, based on their interpretation of the Koran. You might disagree with them,
but they don't seem to really care about you.

Most people in most countries are easy going people. Its just the small % of religious fanatics which are the problem. Political, radical Islam is a problem because they think that Allah should rule
the world and we should obey his rules, based on your holy book.

The fastest growing religion in the world is in fact no religion. As people become better educated and informed, they are deserting formal religion in droves. Even in in Saudi Arabia, where the Koran is their constitution, the religious police go around forcing people to prayers in the mosques. In Malaysia the religious police go round checking that people are not eating during the day during Ramadan etc.

Philo, I have always been able to reason! I just do it without religious bias. I agree with Scout, the separation of church and state are vital and need to be kept that way. The West has thrived not because of Xtianity, but despite it. The reformation led to the separation of church and state, thats why we made progress.

Scout, there are in fact solutions. From Goleman's "Emotional Intelligence" evolved school programmes teaching kids emotional literacy and conflict resolution skills, both in some US and British schools. I've heard they were really successfull. What we need is an extention of that, plus perhaps get rid of religious studies in schools and replace it with basic 101 courses in ethics, morality and philosophy, to get kids minds working about these things..

Dear Realist:

"If you guys need an avenue for personal cracks, why don't you go to a pub and do it face to face."

You haven't really thought that one through have you.

"Stop thinking with religion in mind, if we had no religion, we would not have any major problems in humanity."

This is ridiculous, Hitler, Stalin and Mao spectacularly demolish that statement without recourse to all of the second rank secular tyrants that are and have been.

"Calm down and leave your bibles, Kurans etc at home...."

I am irreligious but vehemently averse to obvious falsehoods, as you should be.

Moreover, do you think that people should be able to overtly engage in such behaviour unchallenged? If so why?

Beyond which it is highly instructive and enjoyable to watch Fellow Human twisting in the wind.

Yabby,

“Islam is a political religion and that is its problem. Sharia law, Caliphates, etc are all about politics, not about lifestyle choice”

Nope and that’s my point, none of the above is religion related, the politicisation of Islam came in the following centuries after the Prophet Mohmaed PBUH.

Check my blogspot on Islam and democracy : www.musliminsight.blogspot.com
Mohamed (PBUH) at his death asked people to chose the best fit to run the nation, he never nominated a son, a relative and non of the leaders that followed him were related. That spells democracy all over it for me.

Mr P.Pig,

You asked specific questions and I answered, to the best of my knowledge, providing web links to what I consider credible organisation like the UN. As for the foxnews story about the mutilation I have no reason to believe whether it did or did not happen. Whether people believe what they read or not it’s a personal choice

I am not sure what did your statement “attempt a rewrite of history” means but here is an example of manipulation of history:

How many people in the world )including the Muslim world know about the atrocities of the holocaust? Almost 90%.
How many people in the non-Muslims know about 1 million Algerian killed by the French after WW2 for resisting French occupation? 1%? 0.1%?

Ahhhhhhhh how refreshing thankyou for your persistence Mr Pig, finally someone prepared to ask fellow-human to be accountable for lies.

“FH: Not in Australia, but Bosnia 1996, Orthodox Christians (Lead by an Orthodox Priest) killed 8,000 Muslim women and children, cut off two fingers of each hand (babies were not spared) so they meet Jesus with “Trinity” fingers. I have not seen any condemnation and the Pope said : “we are all Christians”, should I assume he included those criminals as well?”
Posted by Fellow_Human, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 4:16:49 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3860

I read the links FH provided, at Mr.P.Pigs request for validation:
http://www3.cnn.com/WORLD/Bosnia/updates/9602/07/
http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/der-ii020703e.htm
http://www.irct.net/torture_journal/Torture-2.pdf
There are NO 8000 fingerless victims! There were 3000 victims who kept their fingers… The atrocities in the link are in 1992 not 96 as FH claims. Does FH acknowledge the NATO intervention?

Or does FH count on people being to busy to read the links? Does he assume people are too dumb to take a completely DIFFERENT Massacre as a reference, or a hazy recollection from Fox News as the truth? Does he rely on wearing one down by constantly avoiding answering and as Mr Pig correctly points out, changing to other subjects when he can’t answer as tried in his last post.

Claiming victim status as a debating strategy is transparent and crude these days, still if you must bring up the Algerian situation then...we can talk about Algeria.

How many killed post-French withdrawal by the Armed Islamic Group? About 70,000 civilians were butchered (1993-98) in surprise raids throughout the country. http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1900s/yr90/falgeria1992.htm
Or how about the relatively unknown Armenian Massacre…

But only once we have the issue of the 8000 men, women and children with missing fingers cleared up. I agree with you Mr P Pig it’s obscene to see such vile self-serving misinformation on such serious subjects.

Others in this forum have apologized, even been banned, when caught lying or slandering… we’re waiting Fellow-Human.

Scout, I'm going to have to sit on the other side of the debate from you if the religion is about cats - sorry my friend. I grew up with cats, love their character etc but like native birds and small native mammals more. I guess thats my extremist right wing conservationist tendencies coming out ;).

Thanks for your contributions to this and other discussions, where I disagree with you I give real consideration to your viewpoint. What you are doing is worthwhile.

FH thanks as well, your thoughtful and reasoned responses continue to do yourself and your faith credit. It remains a pleasure to deal with you. Maybe in line with what is asked of moderate muslimsI should say that I am saddened and shamed by the intolerant attitudes expressed by many of my fellow agnostics and "conservatives". I join with Scout in hoping that they represent a vocal minority and that most Australians are much more into judging people as they find them.

Cheers
R0bert

FH, I read your blog and I think you miss the point of a modern secular democracy.
The separation of the powers, is critical for instance. Everyone needs to be accountable. Everyones rights need to be protected. Everyones freedoms need protecting too. Your idea of a council on top is exactly what Iran has. A bunch of Mullahs running the show, accountable to nobody and impossible to get rid of. A modern democracy is not perfect, but its the best way we know to ensure peoples rights and freedoms. Yes people can elect idiots, but they can also get rid of idiots just as easily, which is critical.

Your interpretation of Islam is simply your interpretation, nothing more. Bin Laden is absolutaly convinced that his interpretation is the correct one. Kohmeini who led Iran for years, made it clear that to him Islam had no problem using violence to reach its objectives. Millions of Muslims saw him as their leader and agreed with his interpretation. That is exactly the problem. When religion becomes political and sees its role as political,
like a whole way of how to live, what rights who has etc, as told in the Koran, you will land up with violence. History proves me correct.

The only way we will ever have any kind of peace on this planet is if there is a separation of religion and Govt. We need freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion. Govt needs to be based on our ability to reason, not on theology. FH needs the freedom to be allowed to express his interpretion of Islam, without being threatenend by radical interpretations who don't think he is a real Muslim. Just look around you how many Muslims have been killed in the name of different interpretations of Islam. Sunnis versus Shias, etc.

So lucky you, you live in a secular democracy with all its benefits. I will fight and argue for your right to believe whatever you want and to say it. I won't respect what you believe, but I will respect your right to say it.

R0bert - I must admit that I have issues with native fauna and always lock in my tortoiseshell cat - she also has 6 bells on her collar - I do what I can. Her company is of extreme importance to me. However I take your point - not right-wing at all - just humane and responsible. (sorry about being off topic, people)

F-H - my cat is multi-coloured, like our world.

Yabby - 100% agree with you - we need freedom from religion as much as we need freedom to pursue our beliefs. Would be beneficial if Ethics & Philosophy were as much a part of the curriculum as religion (if not more). Find it rather disturbing that ID should be promoted alongside science, yet basic 'art of living with others' neglected.

Only by effective communication, interaction and, yes, compromise can we hope not to be the wrong kind of anything. If we embrace difference rather than condemn it then the terrorists (and there are many types of these, starting with school bullies through to mad bombers) will have nothing to work on.

Hope I am making sense here.

LOL

Scout,
Just in case you hadn't realised you are already being governed by religious people. Ask the top 10 people in the Howard Government if they attend Church. Even Beasley and Rudd etc attend Christian Churches. We are a democracy so some who rule Australia could come from every groups you mention. I suggest you get real rather than talking and listening to cats.

Quote, "I do not want to be ruled by:
Christians
Jews
Hindus
Muslims
Buddhists
Wiccans
Pagans
Hobbits
Fairies
Elves are pretty cool though - but a bit up themselves.

However, I think my cat has a very cool take on life and would take instruction from her ......."

The seperation of Church and State is the removal of the State from the control over the Church and not the removal of people of faith from Government. The administration of secular affairs is not the exclusive domain of any religion, but for the benefit of the whole society. The value of the individual and the unity of the family should govern any secular administration, and this is founded in a religious / philosophical world view.

Philo, we all know that politics is controlled by the relgious, thats why we have wars and why we are getting these IR laws and terrorism laws. It is also why the gap between the rich and the poor is growing another exampkle of the god fearing and how lovuing ans caring they aren't. If you look at most western countries, you will note that they are run by religious politicans and have been since time began. Thats another reason why we have such a despotic world whose environment is collapsing, and civil disobediebnce and social unrest is growing around the world.

It is because the religious are naturally war, like as history shows us. In a way religion is good for the planet as it keeps a control on those that would destroy it. During history it is the religiously inspired conflicts that have kept humam population in check. The various religions take it in turns to destroy, last century it was the christians mostly, this time it looks like it will be the muslims turn. Hopefully you will all wipe yourselves out and let us all get on with living in harmony, something the religious certainly can't do.

That can be seen by their despotic history and how they currently debate, stupidly with no reality and just illusional words. Actually it is not a bad way to rid the planet of the unintellegent and lowly evolved religious.

Philo

"sense of humor

n : the trait of appreciating (and being able to express) the humorous"

I rest my case.

Alchemist,
You are so under-researched in who actually cares for the poor. It is 90% of charities funding are supported by religious people or Church organisations. What have you personally done to eleviate poverty or given to the poor this year? As well as supporting local charities I give 2% of all my income to overseas aid, for education, welfare, building schools and village wells. Research done by the registered charities reveal that it is the religious that are the major sponsors.

Quote, "It is also why the gap between the rich and the poor is growing another exampkle of the god fearing and how lovuing ans caring they aren't."

You are nothing more than a hateful winger filled with anger. Imagine a society based upon your agenda. Violence would reign! Well we had one like that called the USSR.

Yabby,

I agree with your comment on separation of religion and state.
The purpose of my article on the blogspot was to prove that freedom of choice existed in the early days of Islam. This article was in response to a common myth promoted among muslims that Islam is only about ‘imposed religious leadership’. This is just straight non-sense.

There were few good calls on separation of religion and state (Ataturk, Sadat & Nasser in Egypt started it).

The point you mentioned is important and I referred to it on my blog:

Democracy guarantees that leadership reflects the voters majority. Hence Ahmedinejad had 64% nad Bush had 54+%of votes. The issue to me becomes what defines what type of average voter hails to a president saying he is on a mission from God or God is telling him to do things…I am an average voter but will tell my president to go get professional psychiatric help if you are hearing voices.

Honestly and knowing the average voter in the middle east, I would probably advocate secular soft dictatorship then gradually moving into democracy over the next 2-3 decades. A wake up to democracy can repeat what happened in Algeria and Iran. You watch Iraq over the next 3 years: it will be another Iran.

Scout & Robert,

I agree that communication and understanding what we have in common is the key to peace. On the pet front, I am still for Egyptian black cats and German Sheppard dogs

Meredith & p.pig,

In the ‘never ending story’ we can play the “I quote a website link, you quote one”.
Lookup Falcor the flying dragon, fortunately I am not him. I still can’t get what are you selling me?

I apologise for saying ‘the non-muslim Taliban’, I noticed few posters took it personal.

Peace,

RObert:

I find it interesting that you refer to Fellow Human in such moist terms, perhaps you do not like the fact that he is being pressured to defend his claims. I can only speculate however as you seem keen to avoid specifics, as is he.

"I join with Scout in hoping that they represent a vocal minority and that most Australians are much more into judging people as they find them."

It is strictly the case that he is being held to account for precisely his words, perhaps you could explain how that is not an example of taking someone as you find them?

"your thoughtful and reasoned responses continue to do yourself and your faith credit"

This is risible, his disingenuous and shifty evasions do his faith a grave disservice. He got caught out trying to palm off a whopper and still has not the decency to admit it, preferring rather to obfuscate and evade the issue. It is inexplicable that you could truly believe him if you have actually bothered to read his supporting statements and compared them to his claims.

Fellow Human:

"I still can’t get what are you selling me"

It is simple, either you stand by your original statements or you do not. I paraphrase as the original quote is repeated a few posts above:

Out there somewhere are 8000 bodies and some 32000 fingers that the pope, by some insinuation of yours, either overtly or tacitly condoned the removal of? All this as some slight against islam.

Specifically, show it to be true. Such a horrendous atrocity will be well known and take 5 seconds to google some documentation for. Alternatively back down and admit that you made it all up. It is the remnants of your credibility at stake and it is very simple to rectify.

Mr P Pig,

I went through my postings above and I believe I explained my comments clearly:

1. There were 8,000 murdered for no reason but being muslims:

http://deseretnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,600147511,00.html
http://english.epochtimes.com/news/5-7-11/30214.html
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2002-10/21/article26.shtml
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-07/12/content_459420.htm

2. Their bodies were mutilated:
Here is a link to an article by Grace Halsell who served as a speech writer in the White House for President Johnson.
http://muslimsonline.com/babri/halsell1.htm
here is another article that talks about missing noses and ears:
http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/reports/2nd.html

There are more articles with pictures on the net to make me puke but if you enjoy that stuff, knock yourself out.

3. The murderers were blessed by a senior Orthodox priest (ie in service priest and not an outcast or rebel). Only after the video tape was revealed on 12th June 05 that the Orthodox Church condemned the killings (10 years later).

http://www.witness.org/forum/index.php/topic,85.0.html

4. To-date I did not see a comment from the pope rejecting the Orthodox church massacre, on the contrary, I see his comments calling for ‘unity’ with the very same sect.

5. I do accept that murderers have nothing to do with religion and to be fair, I am not expecting him or other followers of the Christian faith to apologise for atrocities. My question was to why do you expect Muslims to be apologetic?

How clear is that?

Mr P. Pig you might want to go back and read the original article again (or should I say read the article).

From my perspective I see a human being trying to hold a conversation to address how we might overcome of the issues which are causing concern to non-muslims and moderate muslims alike. I see this person constantly attacked by people who give every appearance of having as a sole aim discrediting his religion. Most simply achieve the discrediting of their own instead. By their fruit's you will know them.

If what was happening had the appearance of a genuine attempt at dialog rather than the prosecution trying to entrap a witness I might have more interest in the nature of FH's responses to you and other posters. I have little interest in the actual content of the Quran, I've spent enough time around the christain church to know how little impact the contents (and specific interpretations thereof) have to do with the way most believers choose to live their lives. If you think FH is evasive I suggest you try and get BD to have a relevant discussion about the behaviour of the christian God in the Old Testament or to talk about the responsibilities of the head of the church for modern day abuses (widespread child abuse etc).

So what can you contribute to the topic given
- A significant number of muslims live in Australia and there have been muslims in this country for a long time.
- They are extremely unlikely to go away or ditch their religion anytime soon.
- Constant external attack is more likley to entrench insularity in the muslim community rather than break down barriers.
- Some like FH, Shakira, etc are making a clear attempt to open dialog with the non-mulsim community.

So
- Are you going to be part of a solution or part of the problem?
- Are you willing to try some dialog with FH and others and ask your questions from that framework or does it have to be conflict?

R0bert

Fellow Human,

You refer to Srebrenica now, it is indeed the war crime that claimed 8000 dead. I mentioned this earlier as you are probably aware. Nothing in those links refers to 8000 mutilated people. Only isolated incidents as I also mentioned in an earlier post. Basically you have achieved nothing other than post irrelevant links. Again.

And no, I do not appreciated the slur concerning things that turn me on. I do however appreciate honesty.

Where would Rainer be without the word "racist"? ;I suspect left with as much credibility as George Dubwua without, "The weapons of mass destruction."

The fact is that words mean nothing to Muslims. They see what they want to see in Islam and all rules of logic are void. Words, facts and events become irrelevant.

Thus we have Islamic articles starting with words “No Compulsion in Religion” and ending with “the law of execution will apply” (http://www.alinaam.org.za/library/religion/comp_religion.htm) or that declare that “Islam means Peace” (http://www.discoverislam.com/poster.asp?poster=DIP2004_24&page=1) when the word means ‘submission’. Muslims can write “Under no circumstances is violence against women encouraged or allowed” (http://www.isna.net/services/library/papers/dv/EndingDomesticViolenceinMuslimFamilies1.html)
and on the same site they quote: “As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next) do not share their beds, (and last) beat (tap) them (lightly)” (http://www.isna.net/services/dv/imamcorner/). Just as bad, this is a distorted translation, even so some sites say this is a “safeguard” for women (http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=544).

Muslims will pretend that events descrided in the Quran and Hadiths do not exist. Yes, they will quote them to prove a point, however when one points out the evil acts also recorded, they become irrelevant. FH cannot even admit that most Muslims accept them as divine. He refuses to consider the implications of what these accounts say. He asks for proof, then ignores 12 obvious examples. I have tried hard to get Muslims to admit the most simple facts from their scriptures, or simply to tell me what it says, even if they don’t accept it. No luck!

There are no words to convey the extent to which Muslims will deny reality or use the most absurd excuses in their arguments (ex: the concept of slavery should be regarded as a concept of mercy, as the heinous crime of rejecting Allah demands immediate death, from http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=1928). They will say Mohammud “did not own slaves”
(www.pakistanlink.com/religion/09192003.html) and in the same article argue that be bought more than he sold (to set them free, of course!). Duhhhh! Logic, coherence and consistency need not apply.

Sometimes I think it is hopeless, as the discussion about the hadiths with FH demonstrates. Muslims cannot be honest about their religion and prophet - and still be 'good' Muslims.

Kactuzkid

Now let me say a word or two in defense of our Muslim friends. For most of us in the West, being honest about a belief or religion is easy. It is a matter of saying "Oops" and then following up (an apology, change of opinion, new political party, resigning from an association, new church, no church, etc..) It is not a big deal most of the time. It can be difficult for some, but it is doable.

For a Muslim to admit that Islam is wrong, or that it contains deep dark aspects of hate, anger and intolerance - well that is not easy!

They must be willing to make a sacrifice, and I mean a big sacrifice. And I am not talking about hurt feelings, or even having to admit that they supported a belief and a man that espose oppression and hate. It is much worse! Often it means they must give up job, friends, worldly goods, social position and even family, or their own life.

Now that is not easy! This is true not only for Muslims in Islamic countries, but also in the West. Sheakespeare was wrong: "there is no hate like that of a spurned lover" - except for a Muslim that renounces Islam. I won't bother with references (unless someone asks) but life for apostate (or former) Muslim is hard - or it can be short.

This is why Muslims refuse the see the many problems in their religion. This is why when you quote the evil acts and dispicable sayings in their own writings (Quoran and hadiths), they look at you like zombies and pretend those writings are not there - or insult you for calling their attention to things they would prefer to ignore. They don't want to see the truth, for to do so means pain and suddering. So it is denial and more denial.

However, we have no choice but to be honest and tell them what they don't want to know. It is the only way - otherwise things will get much worse.

John aka kactuzkid

Robert,

I think we all need to remember this is a discussion forum that veers into deep debate. Most of us seem to take it seriously, issues raised through the articles or subjects the posters themselves bring up are actually issues of conflict. The site edits swearing and otherwise leaves free-speech/opinion. Islam is a volatile subject, people have strong feelings on both sides, I can’t think of one regular poster who hasn’t had a go or copped a bit, including you, me and FH.

To criticise MPP for his manner and attempt to direct him on “how to have a dialogue” is a bit much. The content of his posts was vital to the credibility of the forum and standards for us to debate upon. To let FH create facts and avoid accountability destroys it for all of us.

People see and approach this subject from many angles, not all fit with in your framework.

As FH is presenting himself as a moderate, who wants to speak on a very serious social issue, he really does need to be accountable. I’m grateful to MPP for persisting with FH. As I’m sure many of us would like discussion with an islamic representative, but any hard questions presently are pointless.

So to dis-encourage or soften any critical appraisal of FH’s “facts” or beliefs on islam is only doing us and this issues resolution (if there is one) harm. People naturally become angry at low standards of honesty, and good on them for it. Surely standards of truthfulness mean more than a few hurt feelings. I’m sure there is some rainbow love in new-age/PC forums if it’s to much (see frustrated sarcasm).

Kaktuz,

Personally I find it extremely annoying trying to discuss when it is reduced to games of evasion or deflection. Basically I see that as “cheating” and it disgusts me when the issue is so serious. I.e. the future direction of my country.

Your observations on the koran and islam in the West are well known and held by many. As much as the PC may hate it… it’s a very credible argument. I see the koran as a thesis on world domination, colonization, terrorism and denial, and I think its vile.

The search for an actual genuine moderate has never yielded anything worthwhile. In a sense FH (condolences to FH on my opinion of him) is another minor example in a long long line of examples of this very point the eternally asked question where is a real moderate?

Islam isn’t washing well in the West for Westerners or muslims. PC foo foo hasn’t helped, if anything its cruel and selfish of the left to give hope where there is none. Westerners are reasonable and tolerant in general. If islam misses the boat through its own nature, no amount of pretending we all love each other or protection through legislation will ever see islam accepted. It’s the main topic of concern in most Western countries for all the reasons you keep posting about, good on you Kaktuz.

Kaktuz,

Your comments/ phobia are built on incorrect assumptions:

1. Islam in one line: belief in one God, messengers and holy books, pray, fast and pay the alms (poors due). Can one be a Muslim without believing in the hadith? The answer is yes.
2. Hadith have no divinity and was ignored by the prophet (Only the Quran was written during his time). It was also ignored by his followers and successors. Hadith started being collected 2 centuries after the prophet (PBUH) death.
3. Hadith, given its diverse sources have validation rules and beyond couple of hundreds common ones, should be taken cautiously. It is a fair assumption to say that most hadith are not believable by most Muslims. Dawood did a great job explaining sources and validation rule when looking at the hadith but basically should be narrated and not conflicting with the Quran.
4. ‘Reliable’ Hadith is a secondary part to the Islamic legislative system (known as Shariah). I am not rejecting all the hadith but I am saying common sense need to apply when you read the material. Hadith was written by mortal men about mortal men 9 centuries ago.
5. There is no room for blind faith in Islam: in your world the church banned 60 gospels from circulation, in our faith the filtering of information it at the individual level.
6. Out of the Abraham faith: Islam is the only religion that accepts the other two as people of the book. That explains if you compare apples to apples (ie religious states): Islamic countries had Christian and jewish minorities throughout history and in many cases reached senior positions in Muslims dominated countries (996 AD-1055AD, many examples today). In a church controlled state throughout history, Ferdinand and Isabella is the most common example. Prove me wrong if you can..

Robert,

In a posting by PPig & Meredith, they referred to this article on terrorism in Algeria:
http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1900s/yr90/falgeria1992.htm

Ironically the article confirms what we are saying: that terrorist mainly targeting secular and moderate Muslims. Thanks for the accidental honesty guys.

Peace and good W/E

RObert:

I have no intention of reading the article again, it is beside the only point that I am interested in. If you had bothered to read my posts you would be aware of this.

Firstly, I have no inclination towards discrediting islam. From my perspective I see a human that is making things up.

Just as an aside, 32000 fingers with papal approval is absolute fantasy. Any idiot can see this, it is an absolute and obvious whopper. These things scream out to be challenged, irrespective of who makes the claims and to what end. It is that simple. Now look at how he has reacted to being questioned on it. He still claims it is true by the way.

Are you suggesting he is beyond questioning because of his religion, you seem to be. I am sure he is big enough to take being asked to justify something without suffering some existential crisis. A bit condescending to think otherwise really.

I am glad you have spent time in church, I have not. But that is OK, each to their own. It is an irrelevance.

Prosecution trying to trap. Read the third paragraph again for my reasoning.

Nice the way you set the groundwork for the moral equivalence between the koran and the old testament by the way. Are you aware that this is what you are doing. Or is it totally internalised and automatic. Perhaps if BD was interested in manufacturing history to bolster his arguments then someone should take it up with him.

I continue below due to the word limit.

As for the points you list:

I agree that there are many muslims here that are unlikely to give up their religion. Why do you mention this. This is not the point I am making?

Entrenching insularity and breaking down barriers. Sounds scary, how do they relate to FH's behaviour. The position you are arguing for is one of cowardice by any rational interpretation. Do not question the beliefs of one group lest they get angry. How can this be in anyone's long term interest. I do agree that FH is making clear attempts though. His last post makes this fairly obvious dont you think?

"Are you going to be part of a solution or part of the problem?"
For your own benefit, nobody uses this phrase anymore.

Are you willing to try some dialogue with FH and others and ask your questions from that framework or does it have to be conflict?

No amount of dialogue in any framework (whatever that means) is worth a penny if it is not undertaken in good faith. Otherwise in general I have no problems in trying to be constructive.

And finally, since I have shown you the courtesy of attempting answers to your questions I would appreciate a straight and very simple answer from you.

Do you believe his claims about the fingers?

P.Pig,

First 2 fingers time 8000 is 16 and not 32,000. You are seriousley bad at math.

Second, all stories on the internet related to this massacre is sickening, yet this does not seem to bother you or meredith much. You are just interested in % of lost fingers versus noses and ears...

Sorry but this is just sick...

Meredith,

Debate or discussion have rules and the first is to reveal where you belong and what is your intent or want to prove.
Mine is consistent and clear: I am an Australian and my religion is Islam.
My intent: to contribute, share opinions, discuss and maintain that Islam, like any other faith is about good commandments and values.

Now, if you want to debate, what do you believe in and what do you want to prove?

I really think that a crucial issue is being missed here! Its a question of our rights and freedoms. The question of the separation of church and state are far more then you suggest, Philo.

Lets say that 51% of politicians happenend to be JWs perchance, to use an example. Lets say that they voted to ban blood transfusions, as its part of their belief. Would that be imposing religious tyranny or would that be democracy in action? Its a fundamental issue.

Yes, some politicians go to church etc. Some might simply go to win an extra 2% of votes, ie. all the little old ladies down the street etc, to whom it still matters. Does that mean that they have the right to impose their theological values on the rest of us and introduce religious tyranny? Of course not!

Bin Laden wants to impose his values on us and so does the pope.
They both use various tactics to achieve their goals, but IMHO both are wrong. We'll never have peace, until religious fanatics learn to accept that they are free to believe whatever they want, but not free to impose those values on the rest of us. They both lack tolerance, Bin Laden and the Pope.

Thanks Yabby for bringing back the debate.

Shakira quite rightly argues that Muslims are being threatened by extremists.

Why do posters such as Meredith & Kactuz assume that anything posted by Fellow-Human has to be a lie? You demean your own points by this erroneous and persistent belief.

Some Muslims are liars, some are not> Some Christians are liars, some are not.

You claim that the Quran is a text for world domination - one can argue that the Bible is also a text for world domination - "go forth & multiply etc".

Muslims are from a wide variety of cultures; Europeans, Africans and Asians. To paint all as terrorists bent on world domination is arrant nonsense.

I agree with Yabby that the arguments presented here really underscore the imperative for separation of state and church.

____________________________________________________________
This is for F-H; I used to have a German Shepherd - my favourite dog. When I can afford fencing will have another. My dog saved me from being attacked once. You don't forget that kind of loyalty. :-)

Yabby and Scout,
I see you imagine to have no belief in God equates to persons best fit to govern. Example North Korea, former USSR, China, Cuba all denies open practise of belief in God; Wow what a line up. I assume you would prefer to live in these countries above a country governed by Christian Westminster principles of democracy. Come on fess up, you are really atheistic communists! Underneath you are really about control over others. It is just that you have not an organisation at the moment that is strong enough to enforce the open practise of your belief system, and this forum is your platform to proselytise.

That is what debates on forums are about. Causing opinions to change

Philo you did not understand the point I was making. There is a huge difference between people having religious beliefs and enforcing those beliefs on others. Govt is about many things. So your example of other countries is ludicrous, none are modern secular democracies. Hawke and Keating were both agnostic prime ministers.Even Howard is now accepting a free vote on 486. I am still pretty convinced that Clinton is agnostic, but could never admit it in US politics. Considering that only about 8% of Aussies even bother to go to a church or whatever, luckily we live in one of the most secular countries on the planet!

The point I am making is this: If your version of democracy accepts that 51% of the population can enforce their religious views on the rest of us, as the religious right and Vatican often try to do, then don't be amazed if fanatical Muslims do the same. Your philosophies
have to be consistant, not one law for what you like and one for what you dislike. Alot of the wars in Muslim countries have been about this very fact. When salafists tried to take over Govt through the ballot box, as in Algeria, the writing was on the wall and next the military took over. The same in Egypt and Turkey. Religious tyranny exists in both the Islamic world and in our world. The only way to solve the problem, and there will be continuing wars unless it is solved, is if we accept the principle of a secular govt, where people have freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion.

Abortion in the first tremester for instance, should be seen as a fundamental human right of women. The Vatican's constant campaign against it, based on their theology, is no more then trying to impose religious tyranny. To me they are similar to the Muslim fanatics, just slightly different theology, thats all.

Yabby,
When I talk about secular governments I mean attending to the everyday physical and social needs of protecting and running a country. That is the principle of Christ outlined in the NT that God sends rain upon the just and the unjust alike. Religious people have these needs equally as much as the non-religious. They are the human needs of all persons.

However when issues like the value of a human life come up, or 'when does human life begin?' it touches on the very foundations of one's belief. If we object to murdering perfectly healthy babies at six weeks after birth, for those who value human life, it becomes a problen if we murder them at six weeks utero if we consider them human. Conscience then causes them to act with outrage, just as you might outrage at the Western coalition killing Sunni Muslims in Iraq because they car bomb Shiite and moderate Muslims.

You are already governed by a set of agreed morals that are enforced by the State. Morality is based upon the agreed morality [religion] of the people and administered by representative Government. For instance Tony Abbott will speak with conviction on his position and if all representatives of the people agreed then that position would become law. The State would no longer in his opinion and the opinion of the governing body, fund or sanction the murder of human life.

If on the other hand human life was of no value unless it served the agenda of the State then that life would be destroyed, eg, as in the case of the supposed Catholic Hitler. He was attending to what he felt was secular needs for Germany. He was NOT attending to the religious needs of the Germans. He had no religious mandate to murder Jews, he felt they did not serve his secular State.

Mr P. Pig - thanks for the detailed response. I'm not sure I'll get to address every point but I'll hit the ones which stick out to me.

Do I believe the claim of a large number of fingers cut off. Not if you mean "Am I convinced it happened?". I have no proof either way on that one. I do think FH believes it happened and given the scale of horror that was happening in that part of the world it may have. I'm aware FH and I hold significant difference in beliefs on a number of issues. He has devoted his life to a God I don't believe exists (as have some of his chief critics).

Should muslims and others be challenged about their beliefs? Yes if they attempt to shove them down our throats or want special treatment because of those beliefs, no if they are not hurting anybody else and don't make a big deal about those beliefs. I don't think FH has made a big deal of the previous point.

Why do I want you to reread the article? Because your continual focus on the above issue does not seem to have anything to do with the topic. I think the topic of the article is important to our understanding of the threat posed by extremists and how we might address it. If widely understood it gives us a much better opportunity to work with moderate muslims to counter any such threat. If not understood fear and agression by non-muslims may push yet more muslims into extremist fringes. If any attempts to join into mainstream society are rebuffed then we increase anger and increase the chances that some will move to the extremist fringe.

Why is muslims not giving up their religion relevant? Some posters appear to act as though they think continual attacking of the faith of muslims will somehow achieve something - sorry if I've misunderstood your position on this.

I know I have not addressed all of your points, that is a combination of saturday evening tiredness and word limits etc.

R0bert

Philo, correct me if I am wrong, but your post implies that you think that religion has some kind of patent on morality. Wrong! Humanism and its implications go back to the times of Aristotle and Confusious, when your Jesus was not even yet a twinkle in Joseph's eye :)

Today's morality is guided by our common philosophy, in which religion is but a minor irritant. Abortion, sex outside of marriage, gay partners, sodomy, oral sex, are basically peoples private business and no business of the church, apart from its flock.

There is a huge difference between a person and a potential person. Words like "killing 6 week old babies" are purely religious rhetoric and would be laughed out of any court, where science and reason would prevail. They are not just semantics, but massively huge differences. Under the catholic defintion of sanctity, every time one of the billions of sperms met one of the millions of ova, that are flushed down the worlds toilets every night, a massive tragedy
of murder would happen! We need to be a bit more real then that in our philosophies, whatever the religious dogma.

The thing is this. If you accept that Catholic tyranny is ok, then you should accept that Islamic tyranny is ok. If Muslims make up 51% of the future Aussie population, if you then are expected to bow to Mecca 5 times a day to be socially acceptable, get used to it, its part of your philosophy as your preach it today

Both R0bert and Yabby have made pertinent and significant points.

Morality is separate from religion - I tire of the holy rollers who persist in sitting in judgement on others. As a humanist, I perform volunteer work, give regularly to charities (non denominational). Help others, whenever I see the opportunity to do so. People who do not believe in a god do not need any religion to make positive contributions to this world.

It is arrogant to assume a more ‘righteous than thou’ attitude. As Yabby states: we no more need rule by Christians than we do Muslims or any other ‘ism’.

I find it interesting that Howard only recently (since embedding himself with Bush) declared that he is a Christian – I doubt his sincerity. He is adept at taking advantage of whatever direction political winds are blowing.

As much as some would like to believe, we are not under total rule by Christian fundies – there are enough numbers to ensure that this won’t happen. Fortunately women can still vote. We vote for control over our own lives.

Didn’t Jesus say something about judging yourself before judging others?

I judge Kactuz to be a broken record – can’t see past the veil to the human being beneath.

I judge F-H to be defensive – understandable given that his every contribution is questioned and attacked simply because of his belief in Islam.

I am as a guilty as others here – I judge Philo to be bereft of a sense of humour. (BTW, Philo, I abhor communism for the same reasons I abhor control by religious zealots).

I am guilty; I am human.

It would appear that there are those who believe that there are the wrong kind of Australians; who don’t believe in freedom of expression and persist in attacking us for not conforming to their beliefs.

Fellow Human: I had nothing more to add but your last post was too ripe, not to mention inflammatory, to ignore.

"First 2 fingers time 8000 is 16 and not 32,000. You are seriousley bad at math."

Consider both hands, 4 divides 32000 rather nicely. There is something perversely satisfying about watching someone make an elementary arithmetic oversight in their proof of my innumeracy. I imagine you are not feeling very bright about now. Also, I am a much better speller than you, "seriousley".

"Second, all stories on the internet related to this massacre is sickening, yet this does not seem to bother you or meredith much. You are just interested in % of lost fingers versus noses and ears..."

The mock indignation concerning my supposed bloodthirstiness over how I refer to your imaginary event is a bit hard to reply to. I cannot be cruel in not being suitably reverential and sorry for something that never happened. You have internalised the lie and continue to argue as if it were true. I believe you are the only person to have mentioned noses and ears.

"Sorry but this is just sick..."
Indeed.

Robert, a simple yes or no would have sufficed. Perhaps it was naive of me to expect to receive such an answer. Instead you provide a paragraph of shifty evasiveness. Or perhaps you did a course in conflict resolution somewhere. Also, this serves to rather nicely highlight your hypocrisy with respect to your claims about BD never wishing to be pinned down. I leave you now to return your head to its obviously preferred position, wedged between the buttocks of Fellow Human.

Enjoy.

Scout and Robert,

To defend FH’s right or reasons to lie is ill, get a grip. We all get attacked on here, its no big deal. Scout, you say I attack FH for lies constantly, I have called him a liar once, and that was because he made up a war atrocity.

FH,
You ask what I wanted to prove, in this discussion/debate, you have proven it for me both with the atrocity lie and your reaction on been called on it. You asked my position, it’s always clear, I’m against islam in Western civilization. I’m also against PC, as it tries to enable minorities to evade answerability, here Robert and Scout have proved that.


The PC is thankfully dying out, as the above PC antics are unacceptable, and people in general are sick of it. It's good to see the topic’s of a lot of social debate lifting out of the narrow confines of PC dogma and up into more realistic uncensored terms.

Yabby and Philo,
It comes to personal taste, we have a choice between a “secular xtian society” and a ”non-secular muslim society”. Considering the population growth, lifestyles and rights available under each, I’d naturally choose the xtian one.

As much as PC tries to force us to think we have no right to discriminate between the two, under our secular laws we have every right to.

FH, Sorry not to answer your post sooner explaing the hate in the Quran. I hate to leave challenges unanswered. OK, Lets take Pickthalls translation, as you suggested and include more of the text:

1 Quote: Tell those who disbelieve that if they cease (from persecution of believers) that which is past will be forgiven them; but if they return (thereto) then the example of the men of old hath already gone (before them, for a warning). And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. (8:38-39)

My explanation: Remember the words between parenthesis are the translators guess. What it is saying is that a person not believing is reason enough to fight - this is clear from the three preceding verses. The only "persecution" in the preceding verses is that Mohammud is offended by people not accepting him and not doing what he says. Can you suggest a better explanation of what this 'persecution' is about? Read the verses. So not accepting Islam and living your life your way is reason for a Muslim to kill you? Pathetic!

2. Quote: Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you… Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them… bla bla bla (9:4-5)

My explanation: So not having a treaty OR not accepting Islams right to rule (abated rights) is also an acceptable reason to kill people? What kind of god is this? So he declares hunting season on unbelievers? What, no limitation on time or place? No restriction on which unbelievers? Does that include infidel children? How poorly written! How vague! And this is from a book you believe to be 'perfect'! Obviously Allah is very careless with human life -but we know that.

See, FH, there is nothing to fear. As I said, Islam is about anger, hate and murder. Have you noticed that your dear prophet spends a lot of time looking for excuses to kill people?

John Kactuz

FH, so you say: "Only the Quran was written during his (Mohammud's) time". Well I think most Muslims think otherwise. Supossedly it was memorized (by 'gifted' individuals) and put down later after Mo's death - at least that is the 'oficial' line on most Islamic sites.

About the hadiths - either you should have the 100,000 or so Muslim sites on the Internet remove the text saying the hadiths are divinely inspired, or you should stop associating with people that think that it is OK that Mohammud tortured and murdered a bunch of people, when he was not beating his favorite 9 year old wife. Those are in the hadiths and 99.9% of Muslims accept them. You are wrong. Period.

Speaking of the Quran being written. As we all know, your dear prophet was illiterate. How stupid of your Allah not to send him to school - that is why Mohammud didn't write the Quran himself, he couldn't. The Archbishop of Canterbury was once fiercely criticized for saying this fact. How unsensitive! How un-PC! But it is a fact.AT least Old Joseph Smith wrote his own revelation.

Would anybody here care to hear my theory about Joseph (the Mormon) Smith being a later day incarnation of Mohammud? Actually the similarities are fascinating.

Kactuz

Mr P Pig, I'm probably wasting keystrokes - it looks as though you read what you want to read rather than what is said. I gave an honest answer with some explaination because of your apparent preference to trap and misunderstand. I don't want to be a tool in your ongoing attacks on FH. I again I don't believe the reported attrocity occurred in the same way I don't believe in anything else I am unsure of. Read agnostic rather than athiest. Your persistance in the use of insult and rudeness sends a fairly clear message.

Merideth, I don't believe FH is lying and in no way am interested in defending liers. I think that FH believes that particular attrocity ocurred. I don't know and have seen nothing that says it did not happen.

What I am very tired of is those who continue to fill these pages with their hate, their determination to undermine any attempt to get dialog between moderate muslims and other parts of the community going. The issue of proof of the previously mentioned attrocity is a trivial point in the Australian context.

What I want to know is what I can do to help a situation which may be developing in Australia. All of this focus on attacking FH and anybody who tries to talk to him in friendly terms suggests that some really want division and hatred, that they are scared that without their efforts a wound in multiculturalism might be healed thus invalidating the "proof" that it does not work.

R0bert

Meredith & MPP,

1. In my response above 1st December 6pm, I articulated an argument of 5 points, which was in response to people who assumed Terrorism is committed only by the name of Islam.
2. I provided weblinks to the assumptions, whether you believe them or not is your choice.
3. Back to the topic of the article, your comment on terrorism on Algeria, you provided a website link which proved you & MPP wrong:

http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1900s/yr90/falgeria1992.htm
Obviousley it was a truth that you wanted to conceal but clicked on send by mistake otherwise why would you provide a link that proves you wrong?

Are you sure its me who is telling lies?

4. MPP: I checked your earlier postings: you are a new member who posted less than 10 postings and all responding to me. It is flattering but I don’t have an ego. Its not a good thing to have in my beliefs.

5. Meredith: I could have guessed your agenda anyway. Seems you see a moderate Muslim is an ‘ex-Muslim’.

I like the word ‘secular’ in your comment but you made another minor error.
Secular means no religion at all but ‘secular Xtian’ implies that the Church founded secularism and it can take it back whenever they please.

Kaktuz,

1. “Remember the words between parenthesis are the translators guess”

Wrong, it means closest match to meaning translation, if you check with Boaz on Arabic script, it says ‘and you will be free to practice your religion’. (Al deen Khalessan and in other verse, AL deen Lillah).

2.Hadith divinity: It is a myth you want to believe. My argument above was clear:
Can you be a Muslim and not believe in Hadith? Yes.
Does any human have any divinity in Islam? No

No Muslims can answer differently to those two questions cause it he will conflict with the Quran. Simple.

Mind you, you can insist on hadith divinity because it serves your writing purposes. Anyway, it’s a free world, chose what makes sense to you.

FH,
I posted the link, I know muslims kill muslims, x-muslims and non-muslims, and the whole lot sucks. I did try and talk to you about protection for people trying to leave islam on another conversation we had pre the atrocity lie… you told me fatwas were publicity stunts.

In this thread I am concerned about you not been able to provide evidence for your fantasy atrocity and even more so at your reaction and that of your supporters on being held to account.

Robert,
Your saying some very strange stuff now:
FH believes the atrocity in the face of no evidence, and that’s okay. It may be okay in lala land, but on a serious debate forum, no it’s wrong.

You refuse to discount the atrocity cuz there is no evidence to say it didn’t happen… Prove to me 30 people weren’t shot in central station Sydney today by an article that says 30 people were not shot at central lol get a grip man that’s sad logic.

Proof is a trivial point in the Aust’ context…… are you mad? Surely you’re not suggesting that because the lie is placed over-seas it’s irrelevant?
Lies are lies

I don’t give a stuff if you call me names like hateful, go for it all you like get it off your chest.

Meredith, we also have a choice between a secular society and a xtian one and I prefer a secular society, where religion is simply a lifestyle choice, no matter what you believe. I don't like Xtian tyranny, nor Muslim tyranny. Neither Xtianity nor Islam are tolerant and tolerance is what we need for everyone to get on. So I am becoming intolerant of the intolerant.

Yabby

Yes i know but the xtian fundies are growing in number as are the muslim fundies. Australia is pretty non-religious which is really great. I'm saying if i have to choose my country under a religious influence, I'd choose the xtians. Terror wise the worst they have done in years is egg us for abortions, maybe one or 2 dead doctors, its a pain in the ass but less a pain in the ass than the islamist terror.

I beleive we should not tolerate blindly.

Meredith,

The atrocity mentioned above is probably the UN fantasy and not mine. Please email Mr Anan and while you are at it, please also confirm with him if there is a war in Iraq, you never know with this stuff that happens overseas, maybe the whole thing is just a fantasy and Sadam is still there.

Although you keep coming up with weird logic (or lack of) but, for the sake of decent audience on this forum here is one last attempt:

The apostate cases, as far as I know is enforceable in Saudi Arabia (and maybe parts of Iran). As mentioned earlier, the apostate judgement came later on in Islamic politics and the Quran states that belief is a matter of choice.

I lived in Egypt and have seen people converting into and from every religion possible. If you google communism/ Marxism you will find established parties in most North African (namely muslim countries) since 1922. Egypt had a communist regime under Nasser late 50s and early 60s.

As my comments re fatwas all I said that you exaggerate its significance:
There are lots of fatwas for not smoking and most Muslims I know smoke. The fatwa means a mere opinion of a religious person and not compulsory to anyone. If it was, why is Salam Rushdie is alive until today?

As for you last posting ‘Xtian fundies are better than Islamist fundies’. They are both as Evil. Islamist fundies want the world to become like them, Xtian fundies stockpiling nukes for Armageddon, ignoring global warming cos Jesus gonna take care of it. No Sir, not me…secularism, secularism, keep you reli at home and no state funded reli institution if you ask me.

Fellow Human, finally you have answered my unasked question. It is rare for any deeply religious to admit that a secular society is the current best practise.

What some forget is that the christians also use economic nmeans to gain control. The most powerful companies in the world are all controlled by the christian/judism alliance. Their fear is that they will lose that, if they lose control of the major oil reserves.

I shall take what you say with more respect from now on and accept that when discussing religion, your opinions relate to your personal approach and not what you require of others.

So I understand that Muslims like you would be fearful of terror, no matter from what quarter it comes.

merideth, firstly my apologies for the offence my post appears to have caused you. I did phrase it poorly, the comment was intended to be about my general frustration with the overall level of attack on this and other threads rather than a personal reflection. I try fairly hard to avoid handing out insults in my posts, this time I got it wrong and I'm sorry.

What I am saying in regard to the alleged attrocity is that I am not convinced either way. I'm not saying there is no evidence, just that I have not devoted sufficient interest and effort to that particular topic to form a reasonable opinion. Proof is often about the likelyhood of something being true. I am aware that some very evil stuff was done to muslims in Bosnia in the mid 90's, and that I could easily have missed coverage of that attrocity - it would be much less likely that I would miss news of a major attrocity in Sydney. I'm also aware that I have read articles in the past which I have not kept originals of and would have a hard time proving. To expand on what I said to Mr P Pig read agnostic not athiest or believer.

Proof is not a trivial concept in the Australian context, the reality of this particular incident is. Horrible if it happened but the world has enough attrocities that it is one among many.

pt 1 of 2

R0bert

FH on the stand that you take, I wish more xtian people would say the same, only that way will be ever achieve some kind of harmony
on this planet. Keep religion as a lifestyle choice, no more.

Meredith, see the bright side Going back in history, the Catholics would have had us burned at the stake as heretics, so things are looking up :) Their Jesus loves you story only came later on...

I think that there is actually some hope in the Muslim world too,
they are just behind us in some respects, but will eventually catch up. I saw an article once, regarding the % of Iranians who actually attend the mosque regularly. It was less then 30%. So in every country we seem to have the devoutly religious and fanatical, then a spread right down to the secular. Even in Israel, its a constant
secular versus orthodox battle and IMHO its not the secular types who are being unreasonable.

Perhaps its just religious fanaticism of any kind that is dangerous, as emotion overtakes any ability to reason.

Part 2 of 2

A significant proportion of the posters to this thread believe strongly in a concept which I don't believe that there is evidence to support, that of an involved God. In fact I think the evidence comes out fairly strongly against the particular version of the idea of a God espoused by christians and muslims. I can still respect or deplore the manner those posters conduct themselves in these forums despite that view and generally choose to leave their "misguided (jest)" views alone except where they choose to try and insist that I adopt their viewpoint.

What I am concerned about in Australia is the shape of our society. The direction it takes. Will it be one where those who want to be a part of it get a fair chance or will some always be knocked down because a grouping they are part of is out of favour at that time? I want each person to be judged on their merits (or otherwise) not on extreme cases or statistics. I want Scout to be able to cover her head on a train if she wants without abuse and ML to be able to walk around in as little as she likes with the same freedom (or visa versa).

I believe that our best chance to deal with the integration of muslims into the broad community is to empower moderate muslims such as FH and give them all the support we can so that they can then in turn help guide other muslims to an understanding of the bits that make this country great.

I also quite like what I have come to know of FH through his posts. Not the type of "like" Mr P Pig suggests, rather respect and some shared values. FH seems like a thoughful decent guy who is remarkably tolerant in the face of a lot more abuse than I'm confident that I could put up with. Someone I think I would be proud to have as a friend.

R0bert

Fellow_Human,
To reiterate R0bert's post - you have shown nothing but tolerance and patience in the face of continued misrepresentation and denigration. I have come to respect you (as much as one can online) and wish more Christians showed the same kind of character.

If you ever came to Brisbane I would be happy to meet and have you in my home (and I am not fussed if you require particular food. I believe it is a host’s obligation to offer what is suitable and inoffensive to a guest – something the West has forgotten: manners).

Before the guilt card is played, I have no guilt in relation to the West – we can teach the world a lot. But I also recognise that the West can learn more from other parts of the world.

ON TOPIC
It is a simple fact – the more a society marginalises and disenfranchises a community, the more it disconnects from the wider society. This can be seen in Western nations around the world where ethnic communities are dealt with this way.

The subsequent conflicts are not a product of incompatibility. Every society has the same groups of people – just by different names. It is reasonable to believe that Muslims fear terrorist as much as others. Only the fanatical want to blow up others. If those who lump all Muslims in the same boat think this is a lie, ask yourself this: why aren’t they all blowing us up?

Like it or not most Muslims are as average as most middle of the road Christians. Not all Christians are of the fundamental variety – and most would not wish to be. Why is it so hard to see this regarding Muslims?

On the fingers issue. Spend a night reading through UN and independent organisations’ reports concerning Bosnia. The sheer numbers of atrocities was enough to horrify. I believe FH has heard a story through what he considers authoritive channels. But facts aren’t important when you read the wider picture. Go have a look and tell me Christians are any more civilised than Muslims.

Oh yes.... I'm back!

Reason welcome back you have been greatly missed.

R0bert - I think you are too humble, you have tolerated alot from those whose agenda is discrediting all Muslims.

F-H - you continue to inform with restraint, reason, humour and passion, like R0bert I feel I have come to know you (a little) as much as is possible in these posts.

What is wonderful is that many of the posts here indicate that it is possible to live and let live.

Meredith - I understand that you may have suffered however, you cannot condemn millions of ordinary Muslims for the behaviour of extremists who distort their religion and use it for their own gain.

Mr P. Pig, Kactuz, Philo and the rest; I feel quite confident in saying that the majority of Australians do not want rule by any particular religion, this means you do not have to fear an Islamic takeover but also, will have accept that not everyone believes in your religion nor wants it dictating to us either.

I will keep on saying this: there is good and bad in all people. My work in housing and immigration has shown me that there is more good than bad - more people who desire nothing more than to live in peace. That there are more of the 'right' kind of Muslims, Christians, Buddhists etc and people like me.

Into the world of terror he came.
He loved his enemies.
He acknowledged the traditions of others (while not agreeing with them).
He welcomed people, as people.
He endured hostility, and more.
While were were still enemies, he reconciled us.
And... he put an end to all religion. ["hooray".]
He took the terror out of death.
He established a secure Future.
He poured out the same Spirit on all nations.
The times of ignorance he overlooked.
He called us to change that pessimistic mindset, and follow him.
He said it would all be rather messy, like this, or worse.
And he said, 'Be of good cheer!'

Personally, I like the tight jeans and the exposed hair.

Alchemist,

I am thrilled to have a rapport with you finally, especially answering the question you never asked (still trying to figure that one out :-) )

Why did you assume that Muslims want religious governance/government? In fact, I know a lot more diligent practicing Muslims in Australia (and elsewhere) who can’t vote anything else but Liberals and life without Mr Howard is worse than life without Sheikh Hilali.

Reason,

Great to have you back, thanks for your kindness I would like to see you too when I am in Brisbane next.

Robert,

Thank you, I will be happy to have you as a friend.

Scout,

I can only be grateful to people like Boaz, Philo and Kaktuz otherwise we couldn’t have a chance to meet and know Scout (aka Trinity the Matrix:-)).

Scout,
Why do you constantly misrepresent what we are saying. We have no fear of F_H and most Australian Muslims. Our focus has been upon the sources from which extremists find their mandate for extreme action. Unfortunately F_H stands as a lone voice in his influence upon muslim theology.

Quote, "Mr P. Pig, Kactuz, Philo and the rest; I feel quite confident in, saying that the majority of Australians do not want rule by any particular religion, this means you do not have to fear an Islamic takeover but also, will have accept that not everyone believes in your religion nor wants it dictating to us either."

Note who is accomodating and assisting muslims to change Australia.

Kate Uebergang, Herald Sun, 24 Nov 2005
WOMEN will be shut out of Shepparton's swimming pool each evening to allow men to swim in privacy. The ruling will see women barred from entering the Aquamoves centre during evening swim sessions. The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal granted the Equal Opportunity Act exemption, citing the needs of Muslims and men with poor body image. "Some religions require that their adherents cannot appear undressed in mixed company, except in front of their immediate family," deputy tribunal president Cate McKenzie said. Ms McKenzie said some men, because of sexual orientation, past experiences or poor body image, "prefer to exercise in the company of the same sex". There are more than 5000 Iraqis in Shepparton's large Muslim community. The pool already runs women-only sessions. The male-only sessions will be held at the Aquamoves centre after 5.30pm.
At http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/printpage/0,5481,17344339,00.html

F.H.
on the matter of the 'Srebreniza' atrocity, as far as I understand, there was a massacre of mainly youths and men, approximately 8000.
I'm not aware of any women, but during war nothing surprises me.
I have not seen or heard any reference to cutting off the fingers as you described and did not see anything in the links you provided about it. (didn't read all of them) Perhaps you can be more specific about your source.

In Biblical terms, there is ABSOLUTELY no defence for that action. It cannot be justified either on the Old Testament or New Testament grounds. But...... it was no different to that done to the Banu Qurayza, because I do not accept F.H.s spin on that event about 'time or war, treachery etc'

Treachery is this

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MH_LM/campaign_of_tabuk_and_death_of_ibrahim.htm
With the withdrawal of the Byzantines and the binding of the frontier provinces with treaties and covenants of peace, Muhammad had no reason to march any further. The only one he feared was Ukaydir ibn 'Abd al Malik al Kind!, the Christian prince of Dumah. This prince was suspected of preparing to launch a treacherous attack as soon as the Byzantine forces could return. Taking no chances, Muhammad sent Khalid ibn al Walid with five hundred cavalrymen to deal with this threat and commanded the army to return to Madinah. Khalid hurried to Dumah and, discovering that its king was out on a hunting trip with his brother Hassan, attacked it without finding any appreciable resistance outside the city; its gates, however, remained tightly closed. Khalid seized Ukaydir and his brother Hassan as they returned home. He killed Hassan and threatened to kill Ukaydir unless the gates of the city were opened.

Mohamed's reasoning "Make a treaty with ME, or I will send my General to kill you"
Why not just present Islam to them, (if they are willing) and if they refuse, go away and leave them alone ?

F.H.... waiting for your spin :)

Scout.. denigration or historical fact directly connected to Mohamed ?

My god, I appear to have stumbled in on a love in, the tone here of late suggests that Fellow Human's claque are about to break out the sachets of lubricant at any moment.

The inaptly named Reason:

"But facts aren’t important when you read the wider picture."

Err, actually facts are crucial, they are what the wider picture is made of. This is astonsihing, I just do not have the words to express my amazement at reading this. You are actually arguing that if reality gets in the way of some grander narrative you wish to pursue, then is is wholly appropriate to ignore it. This is a significant admission. I am glad however that after your evening of homework you at least managed to conclude the never ending fingers saga was a non event.

Scout:

"I judge F-H to be defensive – understandable given that his every contribution is questioned and attacked simply because of his belief in Islam."

I think they attack him sometimes because they think he may be full of it. Disagreeing with someone from a minority does not automatically infer Grand Wizard status you know.

"F-H - you continue to inform with restraint, reason, humour and passion, like R0bert I feel I have come to know you (a little) as much as is possible in these posts."

Good to see you retaining a healthy sense of distance and objectivity.

alchemist:

"The most powerful companies in the world are all controlled by the christian/judism alliance."

This sounds potentially very wrong and I am surprised nobody has questioned you here. You sound as though you may have been reading the Protocols lately. Please could you explain what you mean by that comment.

R0bert:

"All of this focus on attacking FH and anybody who tries to talk to him in friendly terms suggests that some really want division and hatred, that they are scared that without their efforts a wound in multiculturalism might be healed thus invalidating the "proof" that it does not work."

I am not trying to prove that multi culturalism is invalid. An alternative assessment would require you to prove that multi culturalism works in all instances, thus justifying a blanket defence (and implementation) of it. Perhaps then the poor beast can return to its healing unhindered.

"Not the type of "like" Mr P Pig suggests"

The intent was jocular, apologies if this truly managed to cause offence. That said, re-reading the post concerned I still feel underlying sentiment was fair comment, if poorly phrased.

And finally;

This gentleman is worth reading for one interpretation of moderate islam:

http://muttawa.blogspot.com/

Mr P Pig, apology accepted thanks. Sorry I missed the jocular aspect - I've made jokes enough jokes myself that have not been spotted as jokes by the target that I can relate to your point.

I enjoyed what I read of the link you provided. I took what I read at face value which seemed to be mostly a critique of life under the Saudi Royals and a bit of a hit at extremist religion.

I don't think multi-culturalism works every time. As I said in one of my recent posts I'd like individuals to be judged on their individual merits. Especially in regard to individuals already in this country legally. Some individuals will not integrate. Some of the extremist christian posters might be appropriate examples (he says half joking).

I'm quite happy for individuals who demonstrate an significant disregard for Australian society and law to be encouraged to go and live somewhere more to their taste. I'm not attempting to provide the details to that, a workable solution that did not become a tool of tyrany might be somewhat more difficult.

I'm also of the view that individuals who move to Australia need to accept that the existing population has the right and freedom to live by their own culture and beliefs and to set some limits on cultural practice (eg I hope we have outlawed FGM). The laws of this land should override any cultural preference and those that cannot accept this really don't belong here.

Having said all that I am of the view that Australia is already multi-cultural and has been for a very long time. I'm also of the view that for the most part it works. Often there appear to be transition issues as numbers from one group become more obvious but most of these seem to settle after a while. They learn from the rest of us, we learn from them and all of our lives are enriched if we allow them to be.

R0bert

If I can venture a little contribution again.....

F.H. is not attacked because of his faith in Islam, his statements are attacked/criticized as being factual or in error.

What he tends to do, is respond to criticism of ...for example "Mohamed" with 'Islam is this and this and this'... but this misses the point. It is based on the assumption that Islam actually came from God, but those of us criticizing his views don't happen to believe this, and we support that belief with data, facts, history and analysis. (which he is most welcome to do towards our faiths).

If someone says to me "Jesus murdered 3 people"... the last thing I am going to do is respond with:

"Oh..but Christianity is this and this and this " No, I'm going take the attack head on, and retort with "No, Jesus did not murder 3 or any people, as there is no evidence to suggest he did"

This procedure is called 'reasoned debate'. When F.H. and others actually acknowledge the events we refer to, and cease treating them in a way which the rest of mainstream Islam does not do, then the debate can progress. I chat with Muslims from time to time in other parts of the world, on the same issues, and surprise surprise they take a vastly different view to 'minority status, friendly loving F.H.' :) Instead, they take a militant, confrontational, abusive approach... pretty much without exception. They are not held back by Australian law or cultural predominance.

On topic.

I can see why moderate muslims are fearful of extremists, just as we Christians were fearful of an extreme group in Malaysia which called themselves the "True Jesus Church" who went into Buddhist temples and SMASHED idols ! We were afraid that we would all get kicked out of the country or that there would be a civil reaction against us, because of those morons.

I can show clearly how the actions of the TJC were wrong, (Unbiblical) but I can also see how 'Mohamed'ish' many of the Muslim extremists are.

Boaz,

In above posting to kaktuz, I clarified a myth on the divinity and credibility of hadith and its sources. Here is a logical guide to how Islam makes sense to me:

- Historians work (Muir, Sale) talk about an honest & wise merchant who never worshipped an Idol. The man was illiterate, have no history of neither philosophy nor poetry.

- He was wealthy by family and marriage.

- All of a sudden, at the age of 40, he decided to invent a new religion! But hold on, the new religion confirms the Torah and the Bible commandments and ask all Muslims to believe in all previous prophets and Holy books: what did he gain then? He was offered money and monarchy to stop preaching.

- The Quran glorifies all other prophets and messengers but Mohamed (PBUH)Even though he was a wise man, he could not see that inventing a monotheistic religion to pagan Arabs will cause him disasters. Being persecuted and chased out of his city for 13 years, Losing everything he had, living on the streets, seeing his followers persecuted, tortured and killed you it’s puzzling why didn’t he stop preaching if he made it up.

- All the persecution for a religion that teaches: monotheism, prays, fast, do good and believe in all prophets and Holy books.

- In essence: the Quran, the Bible and the Torah teach the same commandments. (Excluding the Nicea creed) a Muslim, a Christian and a Jew share the very same commandments: the oneness of God, pray, fast, pay the alms (poor dues) and be good.

You sound like devout, truth finder Christian(s). Isn’t it more important for you to review and debate how do you honour the first commandment with a theory forced upon you 4 centuries later?
Religion is not a dogma, I studied and compared all Holy Scriptures and when I was comfortable with the Quran, I was not fearful to reject parts of the hadith or story that conflict with it.
I encourage you to do the same.

That’s all folks!

Peace

BD You stated "When F.H. and others actually acknowledge the events we refer to, and cease treating them in a way which the rest of mainstream Islam does not do, then the debate can progress."

Let me make sure that I understand you, BD (I wonder if you can even see the inherent arrogance of your above statement).

To put that statement in simple terms you are saying: If F-H admits that you are right and he is wrong then you will stop rabbiting on about the ‘evils’ of the Q’uran and actually debate the actual article, for a change?

Now you will have to admit that your interpretation of the old and new testament is not shared by all Christians as well as yours and F-H’s interpretation of the Q’uran is not shared by all Muslims. Okay?

Well, with this in mind I think the only fair way to settle this is if you admit that Jesus is not the son of god and F-H admits that Mohamed had violent tendencies.

How’s that?

OR

You could accept that F-H has as much right to believe in the good of his chosen religion as much as you.

Choice is over to you BD.

Philo - you claim I misrepresent you. I have explained to you that I do not see how continually denigrating Islam is conducive to solving the problem of terrorism and establishing open communication with our Muslim community. I don't see where this is mispresenting you. You appear to want Muslims to accept Jesus as their Lord - why should they have to do so? Why can you not accept religious freedom?

David_Boaz. Just a quickie. You say.
"If someone says to me 'Jesus murdered 3 people'... the last thing I am going to do is respond with:

'"Oh..but Christianity is this and this and this "' No, I'm going take the attack head on, and retort with '"No, Jesus did not murder 3 or any people, as there is no evidence to suggest he did"'

Doesn't make you mad that mostly Christians don't follow Jesus' example?

How many people have died at the hands of Christians. Then again Jesus never proclaimed to be a Christian did He? Like Leslie I think there are lots of people who proclaim their Christianity for personal advantage. Take it easy old fella. (Morning dew).

Ok whilst everyone is trying to destroy everyone elses version of religion, I have a question :)

According to the Noah and co story, big flood etc, in both the bible and Koran... Have you figured out yet what happened to all the fresh water fish species and all the Australian species etc? Did Noah have aquariums to keep the fish out of the salt water? Did he take a detour trip to Aus, to drop off the Aussie species? Just asking :)

Yabby,
Way off the subject! What happened to the fresh water fish during the Tsunami 12 months ago in Indonesia? What happened to the fesh water fish on the east coast of Australia 450 years ago during a Tsunami believed to be about 450 feet in height? They obviously survived, or in your theory they evolved after the tectonic plates settled. The Earth has been impacted by meteorites before, and species have survived. Where I live was once a sea basin, now about 45 meters above sea level, fresh water fish inhabit the streams above the salt water tide, that once were salt water sea bed. How did we get fresh water perch in all the fresh water rivers along the coast? The ocean is a salt water barrier from them moving into new rivers. Please Explain!!

Philo, the question is actually more on topic then you think, for its about claimed literal accuracy of holy books, which is what you guys are squabbling about.

Your answer doesent win a prize sorry, for tsunamis affect coastlines. More freshwater fish can swim downstream for upstream, where there were no tsunamis. A world flood, as is claimed, would
cover all land, not small bits and pieces, so there would be nowhere for freshwater fish to survive all that salt. BTW we still need an explanation as to where all the water went after the world flood lol.

As to your perch questions, in times of heavy rain, freshwater fish can be washed downhill, I havent seen them being washed uphill too
often...

So my question might seem off topic at first. But if its bleeding
obvious that there are glaring faults in holy books, as with the Noah story, clearly then they are not so holy and not worth squabbling about, as they are human words, full of faults, as
we are...

If there were no holy books to squabble about, you guys might all
just get along fine :)

Ranc
it does not make me 'mad' that 'most' people don't follow Jesus, I would hazzard a guess that ALL people don't follow Him 100% of the time. But sanctification is not an overnight thing. We are continually 'being' transformed, and to the extent we respond to His still small voice in our hearts, we will be walking with Him.

I'm actually rather hopping mad right now, I sussed out the story of the Cronulla Beach attacks and 'sure enough' here is the deal.

"GET off our beach. This is our beach. We own it." Who is reported to have said this ? read on.....(please)

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,17469247-5001022,00.html
Yep... you guessed it. "Middle Eastern Males from Western Sydney"

And here is a statistic
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/9C0252B88F63421ECA256ECF00073CB7
<<South-west Sydney shootings: The increase in shootings was particularly evident in the Canterbury-Bankstown and Fairfield-Liverpool Statistical Subdivisions. The rise in handgun shootings in those areas was more pronounced than the increase across the remainder of the State between 1995 and 2000. Furthermore, shootings in these two subdivisions accounted for more than half (55%) of all handgun shootings which occurred across New South Wales during 2000.>

No, not ALL Muslims are like this, but the few extended families who ARE..should be STRIPPED of Australian citizenship AND DEPORTED FORTHWITH ! (As should any Asian Gangs like remnants of the Big Circle in Cabramatta)

I ask you all, if you have time, to write emails of support and encouragement to the Cronulla Life saving club at this link.

I have recommended they make a CODE which can be phoned to a network of Locals (with brawn) who will phone others, to stream down to the beach if gangs come and to DEFEND IT.

http://www.cronullasurfclub.com/main/contact.asp

cheers all

Mr Pig,
Firstly, thank you for pointing out the error in my wording in my last post. Perhaps much like you - a poorly phrased comment but containing the right sentiment?

I was in fact trying to point out that if FH received incorrect information and the (lord knows how many) fingers were never actually cut off, this would not diminish the fact that both Muslims and Christians contributed to the atrocities that have been verified and reported through various international organisations. Again, late at night and sleepy…

Before you start, yes I have looked and can’t find reference to it anywhere. However, as the reports are far from complete and FH may have closer sources to the events, it would be too soon to call him liar or deceitful (in fact I won’t do that as that would require evidence). Still, the point to be made is that for every slight against a Christian by a Muslim, there are just as many to be found back.

The ultimate point is that this is not a numbers game. Community requires forgiveness (something I though Christianity had in buckets). Until we start looking to how we can work together – from both sides – the stupidity of ‘my religion is more right than yours’ will continue. And then, if one wins, where will all the others be? Next on the list? Whoever wins, the rest of the world looses.

Peace all…

I suppose BD, that you will lead the charge on to the beach, with your halo shimmering, bible under your arm and god on your side. Very peaceful and loving.

Terrorism is a religious thing that has been utilised throughout the ages by all religions. We have it now in a lot of christian and Muslim countries and its not coming from the people, its coming from the religious evangalists. We see it in the god fearing politicians, as they pray to god in their palaces funded by others. Just like all religions, their places of worship, the distrubution houses of psychological terror, are fine examples of their concern for their under priviledged believers.

Rational people should be afraid of terrorism, the muslims, christian, jews shouldn't, as it is a part of all religious life, to die for your god, no matter the reason or rational behind it.

Yet it is the preachers and leaders in all churches that talk up the downfall of any opposition or conflict, yet slither into the background when the fighting is to be done. Dont they BD

Boaz - you must have missed my response to your previous post - too busy scaremongering yet again!.

So at risk of boring other posters and due to your latest diatribe on Muslims I feel it is still relevant here it is:

"BD You stated "When F.H. and others actually acknowledge the events we refer to, and cease treating them in a way which the rest of mainstream Islam does not do, then the debate can progress."

Let me make sure that I understand you, BD (I wonder if you can even see the inherent arrogance of your above statement).

To put that statement in simple terms you are saying: If F-H admits that you are right and he is wrong then you will stop rabbiting on about the ‘evils’ of the Q’uran and actually debate the actual article, for a change?

Now you will have to admit that your interpretation of the old and new testament is not shared by all Christians as well as yours and F-H’s interpretation of the Q’uran is not shared by all Muslims. Okay?

Well, with this in mind I think the only fair way to settle this is if you admit that Jesus is not the son of god and F-H admits that Mohamed had violent tendencies.

How’s that?

OR

You could accept that F-H has as much right to believe in the good of his chosen religion as much as you.

Choice is over to you BD."

As I said the choice is yours to actually put those so-called Christian values of compassion, tolerance and forgiveness into practice or to continue with your regime of intolerance.

With proponents like you and the other 'usual culprits' Christianity really doesn't need any enemies.

Reason:
If you are going to blame it on the sub editors, get it right the second time around.

"Before you start, yes I have looked and can’t find reference to it anywhere."

Obviously, it never happened.

"However, as the reports are far from complete and FH may have closer sources to the events,"

Wonder what they might be, revelation from god, a big red phone directly linked to the executive of the UN war crimes tribunal. I know you aren't seriously suggesting that FH has some super secret inside knowledge he is unwilling to divulge, information that is unavailable to the rest of us. Are you?

"it would be too soon to call him liar or deceitful"

Srebrenica happened roughly decade ago, how soon is soon enough to start questioning his veracity.

"in fact I won’t do that as that would require evidence"

Strange standard of proof you have here, making the claim of atrocities is the thing that requires the evidence. Just how is one supposed to prove a negative by the way. This is the same argument that prompted my initial response to you.

Apart from this you seem to want to twist things back onto what I assume is your preferred territory, making the case for the equivalence between the evil of christians and muslims. To this you are welcome, it is not something I am interested in.

"The ultimate point is that this is not a numbers game."

One person I can think of is acutely aware of this I imagine. No, that was a cheap crack. It is a historical/logical game at this point.

If on the other hand you wish to continue trading bromides with the likes of FH, and convince yourself that you are engaging in some form of worthwhile community service (dialogue, outreach, ..., zzzzzzt, ..., insert boilerplate here) then please continue. Because as we all know:

"Community requires forgiveness"

OK, it was looking a bit forlorn last time I checked.

"Until we start looking to how we can work together"

Simple. Start by insisting on honesty.

Mr. Pig,
May I ask why you appear so overly passionate regarding this post? Just a few points…

Because I state that I cannot find mention of the incident does not mean it did not happen. Though I have never claimed that it did.

However as my research into the matter is limited and I don’t have access to the full facts of the entire Bosnian conflict, I don’t expect that I have every fact on the entire incident. That you are so sure, perhaps you can point me to the best source materials to cover every incident over the near 5 year conflict, from which you gain such certainty?

As to my mentioning that FH may have a source closer to the matter – this does not imply a divine or mysterious source. It simply inferred that he may know people in a better position to you and I from which to judge the truth or otherwise of the matter. Again, if you have better sources than ‘Google’, I’d love to read/consult them.

When I referred to requiring evidence before making a judgement, I was speaking in relation to the fact that FH had intentionally told a lie. Until you – or anyone else – can prove this, he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Sound familiar in this society?

I have no intention of defending or attacking any religion. You have accused FH of lying, without countering his statements with anything other than ‘because I can’t find evidence, it doesn’t exist’. I simply believe you have acted inappropriately and need to be challenged in this regard.

I would again ask why you seem to have a very pit-bull like attitude to this matter. I very much agree that truth is most important. However a little diplomacy and tolerance could go hand in hand with your questioning.

Perhaps you can indicate why this particular comment – among many claimed by the various religious – has got your goat?

MPP,

Its really simple: where I lived at the time (ie Egypt) it was all over the news because it was a matter of concern to locals.

1. I travel a lot more than the average person and my personal experience the truth is always in between Fox, CNN, BBC and aljazeerah.

To state that a source is absolutely honest is super naive.

2. As reason stated, it is not the content of the massacre that is the issue but that it was in fact committed in a name of a religion that its main stream claim it to be peaceful. Hitler committed crimes in the name of Christianity (just go check his speeches on the german government archives website). he murdered 6 million jews.
How silly will it be of me to come and say they 'were 5.98 million' or 'not all were gased but some were lynched'.

It is a sickening massacre that someone committed in the name of your religion whether you accept it or deny it.

There are a number of levels on which this question should be analysed.

1/Terrorist Muslims.

Those who pose a direct threat to the State, and to people of all persuasions, due to the degree of harm and violence they intend to inflict because of their hatred of the State and its prevailing Religious/Ideological position

2/Socially Agressive Muslims

Those who tromp down to Cronulla beach and 'stake a terrirorial claim'
"It's OUR beach, we own it, get off it" kind of thing. The convenient public transport makes it an obvious target of those living far away.

3/ Politically Agressive Muslims
These are those who wish to change our laws for the benefit of their own religious group.

Discussion:

Clearly, 'terrorist' Muslims pose a direct physical threat to Moderates, so they wish to distance themselves from them.

But, how many 'moderate' Muslims will wring their hands with sadness, that the 'socially aggressive' ones have successfully driven out all caucasians ? When they suddenly see themselves surrounded by their own ethnic group on the beach, will they protest in the streets about the marginalized Aussies ? No, of course not, this is called 'collective behavior'.

It also underlines my on-going mantra "It is not the moderates who drive social agenda's it's the radicals". So, no matter how nice and friendly an individual of a particular ethnic group maybe one on one, their "collective behavior" is what must be evaluated from a policy point of view (re immigration police focus etc) At least Irfan did speak out about the treatment of Christians in Pakistan, what about 2 Pastors in Melbourne ?

Finally, why mention 'Muslims' rather than 'ethnic/religious groups' in general above ? Simple, read the newspapers and government reports to see 'which' community/religion is doing most of the disturbing or terrorizing.(Statistically verifiable)
http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=581

BD

Still continuing the "my religion is better than yours" rant.

Why do you expect me to respond to your posts when you continually ignore mine?

Is it because:

a) I am a woman
b) I am a self proclaimed atheist
or
c) Just too full of yourself to read through others' posts?

Scout,

Let me take a guess at your question to Boaz.
BD is a professionally trained missionary (the 'I totally reject your truth and replace it with mine'). 'God is love to him' is practised "God is Love, you are wrong" which always charges him for a new debate with anyone. He is the 'Mosqueteer' with a spiritual sword and that is probably why he made it his mission to attack Islam and Muslims and not any other religion. islam to him, is an alternative story of Jesus and he will always see us as the other, no matter what we do.

I met few guys like him in my African travel and while I admire their tolerance and persistance, they are just consumed with their ideology. They see the world through the 'matrix movie' every person "is a lost soul but does not know and have to be saved whether they like or not, they will thank me later".

Boaz mixes up absolute truth of physical laws and absolute truth in spirituality. The first is a proven obvious to everyone but the latter mystery and beauty is that it is and should remain personal.

Man, I am 40 and I need a Harley!

Scout, BD, FH and religious others don't answer, purely because they can't. You must understand that those that live so far in the past and who are controlled by despotic, violent delusions, are incapable of intellect outside their fantasies. Plus they are lost when women ask questions, it goes against their indoctrination, after all we are all inferior to them and sadly women they rate even lower, as can be seen by the example they provide the world with.

The constant, my delusion is better than yours, is all they have. No useful positive historical or scientific support, just a history of death and destruction. You will note, that they have always used Hitler and others as examples of atheist war mongers, but as has been pointed out to them for years, Hitler as well as most communist leaders were deeply religious. Thats why the churches survived WW1, WW2s and all the communist takeovers whilst the people suffered.

The wrong type of muslim is any muslim, as is the wrong type of christian or Jew or any ism for that matter. If you refuse to debate scripture, they are lost, their minds are empty. Have you noticed how you never see them on other threads that deal with Science, economics, environment or health.

The total lack of their input when discussing the despotic use of funds by their church leaders, the constant abuse of children by the upholders of the church and the glaring differences between their lives and those they espouse for others.

Where do you see them trying to change what is happening to our planet and when do you see them discussing the total brainwashing that they prescribe for children that are sadly under their influence. The jails of the world are filled with religious people who believe that god made them do it. A great recommendation indeed.

No they will only answer when their program clicks in and says, god question, recite, don't answer.

The Lebanese Muslim agenda in Sydney is to clear territory for their exclusive use. Cronulla is acessable by rail so it makes it easy for them to congreate at Cronulla on the weekend. They do not come as a family but as a communitiy, so want to move all who are not part of that community from their territory. These Muslims come dressed in their head to toe clothes and are the most often in trouble in the surf. Can you imagine a Speedo clad lifesaver rescuing a fully clad Muslim girl?

This also happens in Parks with childrens play equipment. They cannot share with families not of their community. Muslim youth intimidate local youth because they think in terms of territory and cannot assimilate into an Aussie shared beach culture. These Muslims are not extremists bommers they are social misfits into the Australian culture and pyche. They want to claim public space for exclusive use, e.g. swimming pools.

The alchemist,

I think I qualify to answer some of your delusions since I am not a Religious Fanatic - but someone interested in facts and truths, and who lives like you in the 21st century. I hope your scientific wits can accommodate me.

How can the scientific community explain these Facts and Truths in the lab?

1. All of God’s predictions (prophesies) have come true.

2. Historical Jesus lived, died on a cross and raised himself up again defeating death.
(A feat No other human before or since has pulled off)

Before you refute something you have to be able to prove it wrong. Right?

And the reason why ‘some people’ don’t have much of an input in planet earth is because there are (believe or not) more important matters that simple humans cannot or refuse to comprehend as long as they search for answers without first consulting the manufacturer’s manual.

Philo,

I agree – The reason is that islam is not ‘just another religion’ it is a complete social and political communal package. No matter where they may come from they all must conform to their system or else be persecuted and chastised by their own pears.

To assimilate to them is to renounce their religion – their identity – therefore become a target for reproach by their own.

So it is a lose-lose situation for all muslims. They are damned if they do assimilate and damned if they don’t.

With the rate they are multiplying in numbers I am really alarmed for the future of our nation and the world. It is a social cancer than pretends to be a beautiful freckle.

Coach, 1, name the prophesies that have come true that your god prophesied and are written in the original Greek text, that refers to the jew dissident they called jesus.

2.Which version of the so called resurrection are you referring to, the originals or one that you have read in a false translation, called the bible. You can stick your scripture, as it is totally false and worthless. But if you want to put up theological history, go for it.

Hey Alchemist - give Coach a run for his money - PLEASE.

Coach claims NOT to be a religious fanatic - you should check out his attempts to coerce me on Bashir's Thread. He claims I am arrogant for not accepting Jesus into my life.

I made the point that if Irfan or FH had made similar attempts to bring me round to Islam - the hue and cry would be heard around the globe. Coach didn't respond to that point. Selective reading I guess.

Speaking of selective reading still no response from the normally garulous BD. Very strange. Could it be that he doesn't want to admit that all he is trying to do here is to get our Muslim contributors to admit that their religion is 'wrong' and christianity is 'right'.

How pathetic.

Well as I have stated there appears to be reason to fear extremists from any religious persuasion.

I do have to commend FH's restraint. And many Happy Returns to Fellow Human - you'll never have to turn 40 again :o).
- BTW - A Harley! - only good for a straight line - guess I just prefer Jap bikes.

Anyway peace to all - even Coach (maybe you should take up dancing).

Dear Scout

so sorry it looked like I ‘ignored’ you previous post. I did look at it, and responded in my mind, but I was rather troubled by the ‘territorial’ grab well outlined by Philo and clearly presented in numerous new stories that I presume you did not read ?

F.H. I advised DEFENCE.. very Islamic :) if you believe in it, don’t criticize me. Citizens arrest is a lawful and therefore ‘Christian’ act.

Scout, I don’t know what it will take for you to see the wood from the trees, but a couple of points mate.. Did the quote from the gun crimes statistic actually register with you ?

1/ If YOU went to Cronulla beach clad in a bikini, and a number of Muslims males harrassed and abused YOU, and said you were a skippy slut and why are you on THEIR beach anyway ...... (u see, they don’t know about your ‘tolerant’ attitude here :) You would “tolerate” that?

Three years of tolerance is quite a bit you know. AMAZINGLY when the anglo/celts decide ‘enough is enough’...oops.. out come the police in FORCE...where were they when the ethnic gangs were trampling on anglo/celt/non Arab freedom of association at public beaches for the past couple of years ? Its an interesting question. Now.. suddenly. the charge . ‘you’re intolerant’... people must laugh at some of your statements..truly. I suggest you back that charge up with something other than ‘sentimental opinion’.

2/ The topic is about the ‘wrong kind of muslim’ and I believe I tackled that subject in quite a balanced manner, differentiating between the various shades of Muslim i.e.
a) Terrorist (small but dangerous)
b) Socially aggressive (More, but not a majority)
c) Moderate (Most)

3/ I responded to a question by Rancitas, so why the accusation “my religion is better than yours-ism” ?

4/ Question.

Why are we ‘intolerant’ for defending freedom of the beach when one small ethnic group who claim it as ‘their’ beach and harass non ‘them’ are not so described ? If you don’t see that as problematic you need to rethink.

That DB, in your last comment is the most important note; “THINK” they do, they think very well, just not the thought of here and now, and they seem to possess only the capacity to engage a thought process devoid of realism.
I come to understand why Left leaning mind and psychopathy correlates to negative philosophy, the Make me feel good type and rearrange the process to a more palatable edition so to accommodate their processes.
Swike sceared me the most: his account is near the exact philosophy- and the starting point of intellectual antipathy: espoused by Benedict De Spinoza.: http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/spinoza.htm.
The similarity of ;Pantheism of newly intellectualization and Islam are similar; Islam’s Metaphysics is simple: there is none, everything is God, Much the same as other Left antipathic intellectual, to a point where they describe themselves as GOD The typical process of consciousness and to a psychological belief and are of the same subject matter. There is the correlation of Modern Left and Olden Islam. The state of mind and consciousness.
These Ingredients do not exist in any other religion, or their evolution. What we do know it is a part of Mankind’s subconscious mind is to respect a Superior being. Basic psychology and by force obviously can change conscious interpretations on who or what that being is and what it represents. And with that small brief: Where and when was that applied in History. Do people now understand why History has to be re written to accommodate the antipathy.

The alchemist,

What’s the matter you could not respond to my challenge so you use intimidation? It Won’t work sorry

For your information the old testament (where thousands of prophesies were written hundreds of years before Jesus) were in Hebrew and not Greek. But what do you care?

For someone who doesn’t respect the scripture you seem to be an expert in the subject.

People like you will demand a bacterial count before they drink from their mother’s breast. It does not matter if it is written in Hieroglyph or English you will still not believe because your are not able to.

The ball is still in your court.

Prove me wrong without the scriptures.

Scout,
Speaking of pathetic – why don’t you answer my questions if you feel so up to it? Are you worried I might hurt you or something? Stand up for yourself and stop running for cover.

Ignorance is no longer an excuse in this day and age.

Anyone can separate facts from fantasies.

The illiterate are really those who don’t want to know.

But we’ll let you celebrate Christmas anyway. Unless you prefer to join the FH clan and experience first hand how ladies are treated.

Coach

If you are not a Christian religious fanatic, I will eat my hat.

BD is a fanatic in my view (and he knows I think that), but he is not punishing and aggressive as you are. He has rigid views but he is often open to another viewpoint (if it is not about Muslim/Islam).

You do not demonstrate any of the Christian values with which I was reared. You are cunning. You are not baffling. And you are not all powerful.

Please stop harassing Scout. She is entitled to her views - just as I am.

You come across as a great big male bully (the backyard school type)! I bet BD despairs when he reads your posts. I believe that you are an emarassment to people who hold and/or practise Christian values.

Even so, I wish you a Merry Christmas
Kay

I believe we need to understand the Middle Eastern culture that for thousands of years has been based around exclusive Religious law and tribal and cultural affiliation. They are tribal and fight aggressively for territory even in their country of origin. They have never known how to share inter-racial territory, without imposed taxes upon those not of their clan and tribe. Their religion and national law is formulated upon the same cultural values they believe to be superior. A Muslim family finds it difficult to just hop on the bus to the beach as a single family and erect their own shade and join in the multicultural atmosphere on an Australian beach, they prefer to do it as a tribe. They are fixated upon tribal territory and "our captured space".

Until they can assimilate and move away from their tribal thinking we will have problems. Tribes cannot function happily in democracy, as in all tribes there must be a spokesperson and an autocratic leader. One only has to look at New Guinea to see that tribal difference has destroyed their attempt at democracy and their economy, of course nothing to do with Islam. But Islam functions within tribal parameters.

In a sense we are asking Muslims to become part of a universal and diverse secular and religious tribal society. Except that, the Aussie tribe respects the choices and values of others they disagree with. When they wish or do violate the will or acceptable choices of others then they violate the Aussie tribal law.

These separatist Muslim movements from the basic Australian society are in some sense just as disturbing as the threat of terrorism. Ask the residents of Cronulla and Terrigal.

Coach, this thread is about muslims and terror, not about religious blanks trying to show how inadequate and deluded they are. Until I know which of the “thousands of prophesies” you are referring to, then I cannot either agree nor show you where you are wrong. Just list a couple of hundred.

You should also decide as to what you are referring to, either the Hebrew book, or the book of interpreted letters written in Greek, by jews for jews, that you call the bible. The book that wasn't written by those that are ascribed to it, nor in the period you speak of. You will find the true history of those parchments, doesn't equate to your fantasy, just like the Koran doesn't equate to muslim fantasies.

Coach, we do understand how the religious blanks are deluded beyond redemption, but try to at least be consistent in your fantasy. When you are not, we don't get a good laugh. You give a good example of the deceit that the religious use, to try and disguise the inadequate truth of their psyche.

One can only wonder how many Mosques here are reading Saudi material.


Expert: Saudis Have Radicalized 80% of U.S. Mosques - Haviv Rettig

Over 80% of mosques in the U.S. "have been radicalized by Saudi money and influence," according to Yehudit Barsky, who heads the Division on Middle East and International Terrorism at the American Jewish Committee and is executive editor of Counterterrorism Watch.
For each mosque they invested in, the Saudis sent along their own imam (teacher-cleric), meaning that "the people now in control of teaching religion [to American Muslims] are extremists…Some of the leaders have even condoned suicide bombings in Israel and against American armed forces." (Jerusalem Post

Kay, nicely said.

R0bert

Coach - the only question that you have asked me was a thinly veiled attempt at blackmail.

"....there is a master of the universe - his name is Jesus - I am curious as how you chose not to believe this fact? Do you know what you are refusing to accept? Or is it mere arrogance on your part?"

I have replied to this childish attempt at intimidation.
>>http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3860#22843<<

You would have to be the most unchristian christian I have ever encountered.

Kay & R0bert - thanks for the support.

BD - no you have not answered MY question, as follows:

Do you want F-H and Irfan to admit that their religion is wrong and your version of your religion is right?

Your repeated attacks on Islam indicates nothing more than malicious intent.

True Islam is not the religion for me - but then neither is Christianity.

I am still as fearful of religious extremists as ever.

Scout,
Some questions are not genuine, just waffle. Since posts here are limited it is better to use the forum to say or answer questions in line with the focus of the debate.
Now I've lost a post.

Dear Scout

I don't find the way you frame the question very agreeable, it reduces a commitment to God in Christ to 'winning an argument' and does indeed smack of 'My religion is better than yours'

I've maintained all along, that being Christian is about knowing Christ. Turning from all known sin, and embracing Him as forgiver, renewer, transformer and life giver. No matter how you percieve my posts, which are often couched in terms more appropriate to a 'current affairs' framework, and where I speak simply as a citizen of a democracy with legitimate interests...

My hope and prayer for Irf, and F.H. and for you, and for all who read my posts, is that they come to know the Son of God as their Lord and Saviour.

They/you might not see the gospel as clearly in my posts as I try to make it, you may mistake my 'citizen of a democracy' statements for 'religious arrogance' I can't change that, I can only reflect and search my own heart, and seek to be more sensitive to what Christ is saying to me in the context of His word, and life and witness of His Spirit in my heart.

No matter my own personal failings or strengths in my posts, His truth is still there, and it is waiting for many to discover it.
Please seek.. that you (and all) may find.

Scout,

>>attempt at blackmail....You would have to be the most unchristian christian I have ever encountered.<<

Thank you. I love you too. Now sit down and put away that weed you've been smoking.

You are really an annoying person... no wonder you are so independent

FACT: >>there is a master of the universe - his name is Jesus.<<

QUESTION :>>I am curious as how you chose not to believe this fact? <<

TRANSLATION: I would like you to give me a "logical" run down of the steps you took to arrive at your conclusion. Did you wake up one day and said this is my preferred option? Or was it a process? What / who influenced your theory? Etc…

Simple? (this is where you give your answer)

We will deal with >>Do you know what you are refusing to accept? Or is it mere arrogance on your part?"<< another time I don't want to cram too much down your throat in one go.

Coach, we understand the depth of your fear. It is always sad to see someone so bereft of sanity that they must attack the sane. Blind faith, is just that, blind with the fear of reality.

“FACT: >>there is a master of the universe - his name is Jesus.<< “

I wonder from what orifice of your anatomy you pulled that from, although I doubt there would be much difference in what comes out from any of them. Theologically, it is god that is master and creator of the universe, Jesus is but his son bringing the word to the world. Realistically, that is just a load of deluded rubbish, but one that the tolerant sane entertain in others of lesser evolved intellect.

I am just wondering if you could answer my questions, you don't have to list the thousands of miracles, either in the new or old testaments that have come to pass, nor a couple of hundred, ten will do.

With terrorism, we can see the veracity of the religious in how they have approached the Sydney situation over the last couple of weekends. I seem to recall a religious preacher on one of these threads, promoting the assembly of locals at Cronulla. Looking at what has occurred, we can see what we may have in our future as a result of religion and its ways.

Like all the religious, you are incapable of giving answers for your despotic beliefs, until you can, you will remain a typical example of the primitive unevolved.

The alchemist,

I see now that you are also a psychologist, biologist, a theologian …whoa! how impressive.

I know you’re trying to make your post count but you raised too many issues here. What are you scared of? I won’t go away.

Let me tackle just a couple with my feeble, deluded, insane mind before we move on.

1. >> Blind faith, is just that, blind with the fear of reality.<<

My faith is based on solid facts. The distortions come from fearful people who cannot handle truths.

2. >> Theologically, it is god that is master … Jesus is but his son bringing the word to the world.<<

Spot on - you are right again…except for maybe a tiny insignificant detail that’s: Jesus and God are one – Jesus is ‘The Word of God.’ But we won’t use this against you, that is above even your super evolved human intellect. (It requires faith…and only God - your creator - can give you that.)

Now for the prophesies you’ve been waiting for – I’ll start with one. We wouldn’t want your brain to overheat, would we?

Please research this:

A detailed description of Jesus’ death 1000 years before He was born, when crucifixion hadn't even been invented as a way of torture.
You will find that in Psalm 22, 12-18; Psalm 34:20
This of course was reported after the facts by Jesus biographers like Dr. Luke 23:33; and one of John 19:23-24; John 19:33

The alchemist, 10 December. 3856

The coach may not need my help but I am giving it anyway.

Most people are more or less equally intelligent, give or take a little. All things being equal both should reach the same conclusions, give or take a little. When two seem to disagree, the first thing they should consider is: are all things equal, or unequal?

If all things are equal, then a genuine disagreement may exist and the normal rules of debate should result in a fix. I have never witnessed a genuine disagreement (apart from a punch up). All I see is people misunderstanding each other.

If all things are not equal then a disagreement is not possible, only a misunderstanding is possible. Disagreement and understanding can co-exist, but never agreement and misunderstanding.

If you, alchemist, were to explain to coach's satisfaction, what is was you didn't believe, he would almost certainly agree with you. The chance of coach agreeing with you would be infinity -1 over infinity. Considering your misunderstanding, the chance of you guessing the one over infinity chance where coach would disagree with you is too remote to consider.

Atheists generally consider themselves super intelligent, yet no self-respecting first year university dropout would allow himself to be hung by the testicles, trying to prove or disprove a negative hypothesis.

If there is a monkey in the house, would it please leave? Gogy Gogy Gogy.

Coach,

Have you ever heard a sermon on “Don't cast your pearls before swine”. Or if rejected, when coming in the name of the Lord, “Shake the dust of your coat, against a household or a city”. If not then I suggest you look for a truer church

Coach,

You insist on the "Boaz wanna be" so time to test the faithful: how can Jesus & God be one when Jesus:

1. Was praying for God.
2. Although introduced tolerant spiritual teachings of the Torah, he clearly identified the commandments & Mosaic law as everlasting (God is One).
3. Thought God foresake him on the cross.
4. Did not know when judgement day is but pointed 'only the father' knows.
5. Torah first commandments since Adam "God is One". Why would God 's key message on his unity?

Doesn't all of that confirm that Jesus cannot be God and he was in fact a prophet?

Where is the reliable proof/ justification for you to ignore the first commandment?
Awaiting a theology skills display..

It may be irritating and annoying for non-Islamic Australians to have become regularly confronted by a religion and culture which is just such a damn nuisance to have to understand being so alien to our own.

All the same, it is probably a fair tit for tat to expect people to at least attempt persistance at tolerance and understanding since we have so whole-heartedly supported this government in political and military infiltration of Islam-dominant cultures.

Not to mention the pang for the good old days, prior to the rapidly increasing globalisation of Western capitalist culture and Western 'democracy',(round about the same time we were having to learn tolerance for the 'yellow-peril' also so alien and such a damn nuisance, oh it was so easy back then, comparatively)prior to all these complications which require more of us intellectually than we're used to dealing with!

Guess ya just can't have your trips to Bali, Big brother and footy and barbies on Saturdays AND your complete peace of mind about what's going down in the rest of the world anymore.

tsk...what a shame

Fellow Human,
On your last post I can generally say I agree with yout infrence that Jesus was a prophet. However he was more than just proclaiming a message, he was demonstrating the very heart and attitudes of God by his life and deeds.

That is his primary "Word from God'; it is more than an understanding a doctrine about God being one, it was the demonstration of the sinless life and the forgiving heart of God. Fanatical adherence to monotheism is not as important as the devotion of mind, body and soul to the character and attitude of God, and reflecting of those in our human relationships.

Christians I believe should not worship the humanity of Jesus, but the character he expressed and proclaimed that is worthy of all praise because he faithfully represented God. God is not a spatial being, so we do not worship a creature. God is one spirit, and the spirit Jesus expressed as the Messiah should gain our respect that we follow his life and example. His words agreed with his life, and demonstrated compassion to his enemies. Hence we recognise God can forgive even his enemy, and those that represent him who are crucified in His name. This is the day of grace and the day of reconing, as Jesus taught, occurrs after death. Those that follow him must take no revenge upon one's enemy.