Country Gal, I encourage you to find an English translation of the Koran and read it. I'm sure you will see the same "human fallabilities" you speak of in the Bible in there.

The Bible was written by dozens of people over 4000 years from a variety of geographical locations and lifestyles. It is one of the most reliable books of antiquity we have, with the most copies of it, closest to the dates of the originals. Remarkably, with all of the diversity that went into it, there is incredible agreement amongst the passages. Certainly, people argue over meaning here and there, but in 2007 AD it still stands as one of the most trusted book around the world.

This is what I know of the Koran: Mohammad was walking home one day, saw something he described as "gin" telling him to write down some words, so he did. He wasn't sure what to make of it, but his wife told him this "gin" must actually be God. Anyway the words he wrote down became the Koran. Written by one man with a lot of contradiction pertaining to the treatment of non-Muslims. Written centuries after the Bible, you can see a lot of the ideas are borrowed, but with an obvious pro-Islamic bent that of course, makes Mohammad the final prophet that abrogates/nullfies every religious book written before him and forbids any holy book written after.

So yeah I suggest reading it to get a taste of what its really about. The Bible as well, particularly the NT, if it has been a long time since you read it.

Also, do not get all of your Islamic commentary from Muslim leaders, or all of your Christian commentary from Christian leaders, as you can imagine, there's an obvious bias from each.

P.S. I saw this on the web and thought it was fascinating. A nominal Jewish guy reading through the Bible for the first time of his life (apart from the passages he read for his Bah Mitzvah) and blogging his thoughts. http://www.slate.com/id/2150150/

I actually disagree with even the title of this piece, because of the contradictions involved in it. However I am not going to talk about Islam, but of the concept of leadership in the Australian context.

The term 'leadership' implies an amorphous mass of humanity needing guidance from above. This may be necessary in certain circumstances, that is on the sporting field, in the armed forces and in the military. Even then the word itself gives away a definition: leadership is exercised by someone who leads, mostly by example.

Australian society is not one where leadership is required, except in limited ways in terms of examples. Our so-called leaders are our representatives: politicians are elected to represent us, not to lead us, they reflect our views, not the other way around. They are spokespeople, not the speakers of any God's word that must be obeyed.

We, in Australia, are essentially all individuals who should fit into the matrix of society. Individuals should not have leaders, they should be lead by their own consciences and intellects. This does not mean that they cannot be influenced, but the idea of leadership is at odds with that of democracy.

Any cultural group that claims that it requires leaders when it forms a part of a western liberal democracy must look into itself and ask what is wrong with the individuals who form that cultural group. If they cannot reconcile the concept of the autonomy of the individual with their culture, no matter where that culture originates, then the question has to be asked about the possibility of conciliation between that culture and liberal democracy.

As you may be able to tell I am against the idea of non-elected represenatives or people who claim a right to power from what could be considered having greater knowledge or understanding than others.

I sympathise with the problem the author is trying to address, but I think the solution he proposes is potentially counter-productive. Rather than looking for a single leader who can unite Muslims behind a common agenda and worship, perhaps Muslim should be learning to celebrate their differences and make up their own minds about the key issues affecting them individually and as a community. Any group that seeks to adopt a unitary approach in the public square by placing itself under the authority of a single leader is vulnerable to abuse. Maybe the lesson of Hilali is to look for less leadership, not more.

What the author really wants us to believe is that Islam is just another "main-stream" religion, like Christianity, Buddhism, etc.. that needs to be promoted and made acceptable as a “religion”... if only a good leader is appointed.

The danger with Islam is that it will never stop at "co-existance". Islam cannot exist unless it reigns supreme, i.e. in an Islamic State with full-blown Shari'a law.

Islam is a Political movement disguised as a real religion. It is at best a very dangerous cult for misguiding its followers and a direct threst to all non-muslims as well.

A unified leader would be a nice dream that will only remain a dream. Look at the Middle East for example, many tried to rise to the helm for a while only to be assassinated or toppled by a revolution.

On the above question of Bible versus Qur'an:

The Bible is the inspired word of God written by God appointed men (prophets, kings, disciples of Jesus, historians, etc…) over many centuries. It contains proven historical accounts, and spells out God’s plan for humanity.

The Qur'an is the words of an alleged prophet receiving an exact copy of a text supposedly existing in heaven and dictated by Allah (God) through an angel… some 600 years after the Bible has been written, sealed and canonised as the complete reliable document that exists today.

The problem with the Qur'an (apart from its unconvincing authenticity and authorship) is that it contradicts so many biblical accounts that make Judeo-Christianity false or worse God must be a liar and a traitor.

For example why would God ask an Arab "prophet" to eliminate His chosen and cherished people: "The Jews"

or even better to completely deny the (historical) crucifixion of Jesus Christ??

Just thought I'd try an experiment here Coach...

The Qu'ran is the inspired word of god, written by a god appointed man (Mohammed). It contains historical accounts and sets down god's plan for humanity.

The bible is words of alleged prophets, receiving supposed word from a god, and is 600 words older and therefore harder to verify, than the Qu'ran.

It's an issue of perspective.

I don't believe either book contains more than hugely distorted historical references which have been translated through a chinese whispers merry-go-round of biblical proportions. Both have been written by ancient people of cultures that no longer exist in any practical sense.
How people can set such stock in the writings of people that either condoned stoning or believed in witches is beyond me.

As an example... I can recall seeing a documentary a while back, which compared the bible's tale of Noah's Ark, to a babylonian tale of a sumerian merchant.

These two instances occurred at time that was historically similar.

The sumerians told of how a merchant had constructed one of the largest barges yet seen, and of a flood that occurred. In this particular year, the seasonal deluge occurred at a similar time to when the melting frosts from nearby mountains were feeding into the river, creating a massive flood.
The sumerian was in a great storm and washed out to sea, and thus, couldn't see land anywhere.

All pretty practical stuff, and quite frankly, a more believable historical notion than the whole world flooding and having someone collect two of every animal.

Turnrightthenleft, the Koran came to M in the form of 'prophecies' spanning over many years. The fact that most of these 'prophecies' were conconcted simply to justify his own desires seems to be lost on you. The notion that over 1 bil people on this Earth do not see the Koran for what it makes me shudder.