http://www.stormfront.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=38

muslims commit too much crime

There was atleast 63 gang rapes in 2004 with pakis and lebs committing most of them.

http://baron.networkwhite.net/news.html

http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1050

In addition to "hoppas" references you can add this gem which appeared in todays Australian, Friday 10th Page 15 under Cut and Paste. The last three paras are in stark contrast to image the Irfan is trying to portray both here and elsewhere.

When the muslims can grow up and become part of the 21st century then what they may have to offer has a chance of being listened to. Until then they have no credibilty at all.

In the meantime they will continue to chip away at the margins of society,extracting concession after concession, and never once sitting down and asking themselves, " what can they do for humankind before they demand humankind respect them".

Irfan
I am terribly busy at present.

Your post strikes me as a reflective one. I have read the views of Professor Falaakh, as you supplied.

I haven't fully digested them...yet.

However I must say few Australians or non-muslims understand either Sufism or it's significance. It's a topic, that with an intelligent explanation, most would garner some benefit.

If you feel the same, and can oblige, make it simple... :-)

Genetically I have a lot of similarities with Chimpanzees and thus Sharia Law may have a few similarities with the Western System.Chimpanzees have 98% of our genes and the 2% makes an enormous difference.

I don't want to be a chimpanzee and I don't want Australia to go back to the cruelty and injustice of the Old Testament.

Arjay wrote, "Genetically I have a lot of similarities with Chimpanzees and thus Sharia Law may have a few similarities with the Western System.Chimpanzees have 98% of our genes and the 2% makes an enormous difference."

In fact, it doesn't.

What makes the difference, as reported this week, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=0005FB4D-6102-140F-A10283414B7F0000 , is not just the different genes but how the majority that both species share are interpreted.

The same is true of religious texts of the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism). The three all accommodate a range of interpretations from fundamentalist to critical intellectual ones.

To judge religions purely from their texts is to judge the difference between chimps and humans purely from their DNA.

Contributors disparaging Islam in this discussion thread have clearly forgotten how brutal Christianity has been over its history and what violent armed disputes it has fostered (Northern Ireland, anyone? A role model for Palestinian, Chechin, Iraqi, Hindu, and Basque terrorists; even for Timothy McVeigh?)

Mike... I encourage you to take a course in some basics of Old and New testament introduction.

Then you might hold back from some of your less spectacular muffs :) like the comment linking 'Christianity' to the problem of Ireland.

The struggle between Catholicism and Protestantism in England was fundamentally political, not religious, but without expanding that further, I'd like to underline the important OF the foundation texts of various faiths.

You said 'They all accomodate' radicalism and fundamentalism etc.....
This is not correct in regard to Christianity if by 'radicalism' you mean the violent defense of the faith, such as is the case with Islam.

Just because incidents of brutality are 'mentioned' it does not suggest we have a licence to repeat such behavior which, with the exception of the judgement of some peoples in the early Old Testament, was universally condemned by God.

There is not a single verse in the New Testament (on which Christianity is based) which urges believers to 'fight' for that faith. What it DOES do, is urge them to be patient and longsuffering, to be strong and endure, and further to love those who persecute.

So, I have to take vigorous exception to the idea that the radicalism and extremism of which you speak can be attributed to the founding documents of our faith.

If on the other hand, you simply mean that Christians will actually 'believe' that aside from Christ there is no other way of Salvation, and that this constitutes 'radicalism' I won't argue with you.

The important thing is not the merits of historical Christianity, but the cross of Christ for ourselves, to offer our lives up in humble sacrifice for Him who 'became sin for us'.

He died, that we might live. The righteous for the unrighteous.

He rose that our joy may be complete. That our assurance of "a place He is preparing for us" is not just 'pie in the sky when u die' but a solemn reality that we can participate in even now, as we are renewed day after day in Him.