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.