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