dobbadan, please don't insult our intelligence with religious urban myths.

The "story" you tell has been wandering around the internet for a couple of years, but without a single shred of supporting evidence.

What should alert you to sad hoaxes of this nature is the fact that every instance is word-for-word the same as all the others, and none of them has any references, just "the child could not make up a story like this".

You should also get a clue from the lack of convincing detail in the story itself. Did the guy in white dig them up each day and then bury them again? If not, how come they were still "under the sand" when they were discovered.

It doesn't concern me that you believe this stuff yourself - it is I guess about as believable as most other stories of this ilk - but please don't try and pass it off as true.

It's not even as though it is on-topic.

Unless of course you are presenting a stereotype of a follower of your own faith. That would be relevant.

Aziliz: That's why I generally avoid such issues and only post to show a different perspective of my faith, as someone who believes it.

The funny thing is that I agree with Laurie and the others - the constant barrage of 'religious' posts, generally either antagonistic to my own faith, or clearly promoting another, is quite boring and detracts from the topic(s) at hand. I am sure most readers generally scroll right past them.

Maybe OLO should have a "religion" section where it can be a free for all, or something. :-)

Well the topic is 'how Aussie' do we have to be.... from a noticably 'Islamicly' dressed woman, which raises the question about the faith itself. Can the faith which underlies the costume be accebtable here ? Is there any potential conflict in that faith which was make 'being aussie' a difficult thing ?

Hence the relevance of the discussion of "Islam" as a faith.

DAWOOD. My goodness mate.. you recent intellectual gyrations seem to be that which gave the meaning to 'ducking and weaving' :) but ur on the ropes mate... avoiding the painful truths.

Apostacy is relevant to the topic, and we need to note 2 points here.

1/ It IS part of Sharia law. It may be argued in terms of nuance etc by Dawood and Aziliz etc, but we need to look not at the ducking and weaving crowd, but at the actual schools of Islamic law, of which there are at least 4 major ones. THAT.... is where we derive our reliable information, NOT from 'this scholar or that scholar' who conveniently fits our direction at the time.

2/ Apostacy as 'treason' ? YES ! exactly.. Islam is by essential nature a 'State'...and Islamic one, and where it is not yet, it is the goal. Can any Muslim here deny this ? So, apostacy from the faith is ALSO 'apostacy/treason against the state'. Hence the validity of this discussion.

Dawood.. mumbling on about various "nuances" of Sharia is not helping your cause, it is just muddying the water and presenting Islam in a 'Make it up as you go' light. Lets stick to the Pillars and the schools if Islamic law ok ?

One of which is "Mohammed is the Messenger of God" there are repeated references in both the Quran and Hadith which make it ABUNDANTLY clear, that not believing in Mohammed is a rejection of Allah and deserving of hell. Refer Quran.

Rex and Laurie. Sorry for laboring these points. In a democracy, we all have to live with the consequences of other peoples 'vote' :)

Not avoiding painful truths, just accepting how the Islamic tradition works, especially its diversity, as I have been taught by traditional scholars.

You refuse to see hadith about apostacy that did not always mean death for the people, such as the well known one about a Bedouin who came and gave allegiance in Islam, then became sick with a fever. The next day he wanted to cancel his pledge (of Islam), and eventually left Medina cancelling his pledge. Muhammad didn't kill him, nor did anyone else. There are at least 6 narrations of this story in the major hadith collections, amongst others.

Apostacy is not treason, which is a state issue. There is a difference between "mujarrad al-ridda" - simple apostacy, and that which includes rising up against the state. Someone can be killed for the action of rising against the state, of which apostacy is merely incidental. People are still killed today for treason, so what's your point?

I also am not even attempting to defend the actions of the people in Afghanistan - I think they are wrong, plain and simple. I believe that their understanding on this issue is incorrect. A great many contemporary scholars agree with me, and this is the real issue. I am merely showing that different ideas exist within Islam on this particular subject.

But you can slag me and my religion all you want - as F_H said a few days ago, it's nothing personal. You dislike Islam and all Muslims equally. Words speak louder than actions in this case. :-)

Boaz, there are some ironies here that have clearly escaped you.

When normal people put forward their view on a topic, it is usually accompanied by a perspective. That perspective can be "I am a Muslim" or it can be "I am a politician" or it can be "I am David Flint" - each of these statements, either express or implied as they say, should be a starting point for both their position, and for any subsequent discussion.

By ignoring that perspective, you are likely to find yourself saying the same words over and over, rather than engaging the speaker in any form of meaningful dialogue. A bit like a politician interviewed on television, where they rework the question so that they can give their pre-prepared answer.

That's not a "discussion", and nor is this.

Salam's position is that Muslim-ness should not be measured by the actions of a fanatical fringe.

Your response totally ignores this, and says that Muslim-ness is, by definition and by scripture, personified in the actions of a fanatical fringe.

When challenged that Christianity has its own fanatical fringe, you glibly disown them - they're cannot really Christians, is your defence. By definition, Christians don't act like that.

Do you not even glimpse the possibility that this might be hypocritical? That you might be passing judgement from an extreme position on another extreme position, and ignoring the multitudes in between?

I'd really appreciate it if you refrained from restating that "ah, but this hadith says this, and that hadith says that" - after all, even you don't contend that the bible is to be construed in the twentyfirst century exactly the same way as it was construed in the second or third or fourth, or whenever it was written.

You may not believe me, but it really does make you sound like an ignorant bigot.

I have to agree with your points (as a Christian) Pericles. It should be pointed out that it is increasingly clear that western muslims do not believe their Quran is inimmitable (unchangeable and sent from God rather than written by a human). The flip side of this is that in Muslim countries this is not the case at all. Where Islam is in control, the Quran is veiwed as inimmitable and direct revelation from God. In this context your points do not have any bearing, as all muslim's (in the Islamic state) must follow each and every hadith, and are not allowed to question Islam's position on anything. They also have no role in determining Islam's position.

Since it is impossible to tell to which type of Muslim we are speaking, and given that Islam does not accept the moderate western muslim as a muslim, BD's points are acceptable when he is talking about muslims or Islam, but not when talking about western so called muslims.

What do you think Pericles?