As usual, BigotCorp agents are out in force - and, as usual, on autopilot.

For the benefit of other readers who might be interested in rational discussion, let's see what new eccentricities (apart from their spelling) they inject into the debate:

Camo: "Islam was and is not a religion, but a political system calling itself a religion... Islam seeks political control."

In some countries, yes. Rather like Judaism in Israel before Kadima and Christianity in the George "missed you at bible study" Bush White House?

Coach hits a nail, but misses the head: "Do you really believe that Islam is so superior from any other religion that people would automatically gravitate towards it?"

Superior? No. Some do gravitate toward Islam. I have no statistics on whether more people convert from Islam to Christianity or vice versa, but it is clear that quite a few people do each. I have never heard of it being "automatic" - whatever that means.

BOAZ_David brings out the worst in Christianity: "Having lived in a moderate Muslim controlled country I saw 'the look' not a few times, which would have happily carried this out. One guy was the head man of a nearby village, during a revolt in which he was implicated, his job was to murder all of the missionaries..."

Of course it was. If a bunch of Muslim imams showed up in Louisiana after hurricane Katrina trying to convert everyone to Islam, they'd get a pretty hostile reception too.

But that is what these prosletysing Christian sects have been doing for decades - marching into trouble spots and trying to destabilise Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist or other established social structures.

It's a wonder that we ever put up with them.

Since we put up a sign on our front door, MISSIONARIES EATEN HERE, they have stopped bothering us.

Onya MikeM :) I can only say you bit..'hook line and sinker'

You need to understand some history before making such ininformed statements.

I'm referring to Borneo, where it was progressivly less under the rule of the Sultan of Brunie, and more under the rule of Rajah James Brook, by virtue of the Sultan granting him said rule on the basis of services rendered (in local diplomacy regarding taxation of tribes).

Missionaries came with permission from the authorities. One missionary in particular came actually to the Kalimantan (Dutch/Indonesia) side, and spent his life and strength bringing the gospel to those who INVITED him to do so. (Lun Bawang)

Missionaries entered Sarawak with permission of the government, but after working from 1928 to the early 1930s with little advance among the Dayaks who were unresponsive, the tribe on the Sarawak side of the border which was related to those on Dutch side, INVITED the missionaries to come and teach them about the Gospel.

The Brooke government in the mean time, had decided this tribe was not worth saving, was destined to die out, and undocumented but true, was seen as 'headhunting sport' for the blood thirsty Dayaks. And permission to work among the Lun Bawang was revoked. The war came in 39, and after the war, everyone expected them to have faded in their faith, but found it had grown strong, resilient, and many of the previous debilitating practices had gone.(Like leaving ready to harvest rice fields to become monkey food due to 'bad omens' and then starving till next harvest) Permission to work among them was given again due to this transformation.

The Muslims were the 'invaders' and had communities only along the coast, much like the foreign Philistines of biblical times.

Thank you for that interesting explanation, BOAZ_David. It tends to confirm my view that when it comes to inclination to cause trouble, the one faith can be as bad as the other.

And there have been occasions when the British Raj was worse than both of them put together. The Chinese Opium Wars come to mind. From http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHING/OPIUM.HTM

"[The treaties of 1860] humiliated and weakened the [Chinese] imperial government. The most ignominious of the provisions in these treaties was the complete legalization of opium and the humiliating provision that allowed for the free and unrestricted propagation of Christianity in all regions of China."

I don't dispute either that there are some circumstances in which missionaries manage to do more good than harm. This is illustrated by the history of the Christian Church in 20th century Korea, and by the forthcoming despatch of Malaysian missionaries from Borneo to England, to convert the heathen British, http://www.lichfield.anglican.org/pressr/articles/2005/050912a.htm

However if we go back to the original topic of this discussion, it seems there are some people here who are just as hostile to Islam as some Afghans are to Christianity.

They also overlook the fact that if, to use prime minister JHo's phrase, the Allies had not "cut and run" and left the job in Afghanistan only half finished, this situation would never have arisen.

Was this a Christian thing to do?

It seems to me that any belief system that depends on the monopoly of thought is inheritantly weak.

Whether is an Islamist culture that demands submission and / or conversion to the faith, by force if necessary, or a Secularist society that can't stand the mention of God in school classrooms, they show their insecurities about their own beliefs.

A belief system has to stand up to and compete with a whole range of ideas if it is to survive and grow.

By the way... this thread began with the story of Abdul Rahman. Does anyone know what ever happened to him?

He disappeared immediately after his release in Afghanistan. I don't know if he went into hiding or if someone killed him.

Religion- what a curse it has become in a so called civilized world. where once a so called prophet declared in his farewell sermon that Women where like domesticated animals if they don't please you can beat them to death, he also declared he went to hell and most inhabitants there where women.(Thank god he didn't say Christians) Maybe that would of made it easier to declare war on non Muslims.