Dear Naive and uninformed Marilyn

clearly you know as much about the growth of Islam and its history as you do about sound social policy and international relations :) which is not much in my humble view.

Here is a link, and if you can differentiate between the 'terrorism' of Mohamed in his Tabuk Campaign and that of today, I'll go 'he' for chasey.
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MH_LM/campaign_of_tabuk_and_death_of_ibrahim.htm
Scroll to:
The Threat of Byzantine Invasion and Muslim Reaction
then to
Muslim call to arms

He forced Christian tribes to become 'traitors' (under threat of death/war) to their Byzantine Allies, to create a "security zone" (sound familiar ?) which was basically saying "You mob die first, and while you are being slaughtered, I'll have time to get my military act together". A dabble in murder along the way was also not a problem -Hashim, brother of Ukaydir, Prince of Duma.

ETHNIC INTERESTS.

Regarding the Article, yes, I TOTALLY am opposed to 'Ethnic community groups' which in turn lead to 'attempts to influence foreign policy' in terms of the perceived interests OF that group.

Ameer Ali "Don't regard Hezbollah as a terrorist group" for example.

The following are RACIST by nature:

South Melbourne HELLAS soccer club
Inter Milan Soccer club.
Cypriot Cultural Association.
Greek Cultural Association.
Polish community association.

and so it goes on..........

END RACIST ETHNIC BASED COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS NOW !

"Read the Koran and then tell us you are truly confident in your belief that “The world of fundamentalist Islam has no real beef with the Western world.”"

Kalin - I won't argue tha fact much of the Qu'ran is indeed volatile, and prone to violence, even more so than the bible.

But, like the bible, the effects of the Qu'ran are dependent upon the interpretation.

Were I to have been a woman making such an argument three hundred years ago, I would have risked being labelled a 'witch' and been at risk of being burned at the stake, or more likely drowned.

This is a cliched example I know - but the bible, like the Qu'ran although to a lesser extent is riddled with arguments that are no longer relevant - and sensible Christians know this.
So too do sensible muslims know that this is the case with the Qu'ran.

I am simply arguing that Israel is by far (and place the emphasis on the 'by far') the most hated group in the arab world, well above and beyond the western world, and much of the hatred among fundamentalist islam is derived from the unflinching support that is offered to Israel by the US.

Marilyn Shephard

You have'nt really answered my points against the article..

But still I can still try further.

"The Israeli's are not at risk of extinction and the deranged claims that they are are driving me nuts. 42% of all the Jewish people on the planet live in the US and only 39% live in Israel."

What has the proportion of Jewish people in USA got to do with the proposition of the extinction of Israel?

"There was no such thing as fundamentalist muslim "terr'ism" until the west used them"

Then who did the bombings in New York, Bali, London, Madrid and India?

Have you cried out about the poor people who suffered there? The total was a much greater number than the Lebanese who were regretably during the recent crisis.

TurnRightThenLeft,

Thanks for the response.

I am not arguing that Islam is the only religion which can be bent to violent ends, but I am saying, of the mainstream religions, it is easily the worst in this regard.

Whilst Christians have waged war in the name of their religion, the religion, fundamentally (ie the New Testament) contains nothing which advocates wars of aggression. Judaism is somewhere in between, but essentially, has an ethos of don't mess with me and I won't mess with you (please enlighten me if that isn't right as I am not terribly familiar with Judaism beyond the Old testament). Similarly, Hinduism as with most polythiest faiths, does not significantly advocate unprovoked violence against unbelievers.

Islam on the other hand, has numerous passages which actually advocate unprovoked violence against unbelievers.

It is fundamental to the functioning of a liberal democracy, that those within it, respect and tolerate one another. Islam, as a faith, produces far more intolerant militants than any other major religion, and is not compatible with the liberal democratic societies of the Western world.

Although primarily a Western phenomenon, nations with other predominant religions have embraced democracty with some success, India, Israel, Japan, Tiawan, etc, but it is difficult to identify a single successful liberal democracy in the Islamic world, other than perhaps Turkey but even Turkey is in a constant struggle against fundamentalist takover.

In short, we need to wake up from this deluded assumption that all religions are inherently peaceful. When a tolerant society engages an intolerant one, logically, they cannot both prevail.

Kalin

I am hardly an expert on Judaism but the essence is not in the Old Testament but in the Talmud which is the interpretation by generations of rabbis of what the orthodox describe as God's Law. Some would even say that the Talmud is God's interpretation. Amongst the modernists and the Liberals reference to the Bible is variable, particularly with those who doubt that any of it is God's law but human beings seeking the truth. (or the many that doubt that there is even a God.

Jesus' teachings are based largely on these rabbinic interpretations, for example "Anything that is hateful to you do not do to your neighhbour, that is the whole law, the rest is commentary" was paraphrased by Jesus. Your interpretation "don't mess with me and I won't mess with you " has some relevence.

Of course Judaism does allow people to protect themselves and killing someone if it is necessary to stop them killing you is essentually OK. It is a lesser of evils. Christians do the same.

I cannot speak for Islam but I understand that like Judaism it does rely on interpretation. Certainly I have known some wonderful Muslims and suspect that the Koran like the Old Testament is interpreted by scholars and is not all that it seems at first glance.

Thanks for the lesson on Judaism.

Obviously, not everyone who follows Islam is liable to be a rabid hater of ‘unbelievers.’ I too have known many fine people who called themselves muslims, but in each case I would have to say they were pretty flexible in the way they followed the edicts of their religion, not unlike many people who claim to be Christians but who have never read the Bible. Such people have fairly vague understandings of their faiths and merely have little more than a cultural affinity for these religions rather than being truly religious. Such people generally are influenced by the basic moral teachings of their faith but tend to ignore the parts that don't seem suited to the modern world. It's the process of secularisation I suppose. Such, IMO, are the ‘moderates’ of Islam.

Nevertheless, Islam, far more so than any other major religion, is liable to produce large numbers of violently hostile people, completely intolerant to those of other faiths. Why? Because Islam’s Prophet, by his own example, and by the explicit words in his book (which Muslims believe is the perfect and unchallengeable word of God), make it clear that propagating the religion by means of violence is totally acceptable and that other religions should only be tolerated under Islamic rule. Interpretation can temper the implications of this, but at it’s root, Islam is a religion of force, oppression and violence.

This is FUNDAMENTALLY incompatible with liberal democracy.

People interested in the Middle East, terrorism and other problems currently associated with muslims, really should at least ‘browse’ the Koran - it is a fairly easy read - and very short compared with the Bible. It was a real eye opener for me (I read it in the after math of 11/9/2001).

Islam is different.