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