It is not just an inabilty to engage in self criticism, but to engage in any debate/criticism about their religion. A person very close to us married into a muslim family, and for the first time in our lives we have an issue that just cannot be discussed, in any form at all. All debate is shut down and prevented, and the family in now slit.

Having been brought up in a house where we had a round table in the kitchen, and no subject was ever taboo, we have been reduced to walking on eggshells for fear of offending, and this is an environment where all parties have high levels of tertiary education.

These are the same people who will now not permit even the mere presence of alcohol at a mixed social gathering, but then get on a plane back to Malaysia where the state airlines is quite proud of its offerings of fine wines. The hypocrisy of it all is simply stunning.

Slowly but surely we are all being driven backwards.

bigmal

Of course you can't have a discussion because you can not defend the indefensable. I had a friend who married a muslim man from Algeria. After she married him she found out he had other wives (I know silly girl). He saw nothing wrong with this and of course after milking her dry dropped her like a hot cake. If this was just an isolated incident you could dismiss it but this man told me quite plainly that Mohammed allows this as the ratio of men and women is not even on the earth (try that in China). It is the practices of Muslims that need changing not the rhetoric whether from clerics or academics.

They have not/cannot/will not criticise islam at all because along with the very quiet and invisible islamic "moderates?" they do not- to put it in an Australian term - have the guts of a two bob watch. Secondly being brainwashed by their cultish pagan death-loving religion they also want an islamic "victory" over the 'pigs and monkeys' otherwise called 'the infidels', we refer to them as US!-Jews and Christians. regards, numbat

I think Islamic moderates are in quite a difficult position, as they are exposed to attack from both sides. The Islamic extremists attack them for not being better Muslims, while non-muslims berate them for not speaking out more strongly against the extremists. And all the while the anti-muslim brigade abuses them just for being muslim at all.

It takes courage to stand up to extremists. At least in Australia, they can hopefully do so with less risk than in some other countries.

To the first few posters;

Is the example of split families appropriate to any fierce clannish group? I imagine the same happens to people marrying into any group that defines 'them' and 'us', including extreme Christians or extreme Amish for example.

Maybe the issue is that Islam is used as an identifier by ethnic groups, and is more and more being used as a tool to be for or against a particular group, in the same way that being Jewish has always been, or being communist or being dark-skinned or being Irish or whatever.

I have a lot of respect for writers such as this author, and I fully agree with him. I would also like to see moderate muslims offer more to the wider community - all we ever hear is the nutters. Surely there is more to Islam than we get from Hilali et al?

Read up on what happened in Eastern Europe to the Jews in the 1930s, before the Nazi's got going. Very similar demographic part of the population, same misinformation, same fear, same silence. As Rhys says, thankfully in Australia we have democracy and free speech to dicuss it.

gw

AS far as I can fathom it, Muslims are not taught, encouraged to analyse themselves,their religion. But to accept blind obedience to the book, to conduct their whole life by the book.
If they have any doubts in today's climate, it would perhaps be dangerous to voice those doubts. To question the word of a religious leader, even one so stupid as Hilali, would be seen as being close to being an infidel.
A mob of sheep must go where the drover sends them.

It stands to reason that anyone unfortunate enough to be infected with the teddy (god) mind virus has lost all claims to be an intellect. It's possible to refer to these infected types as simply scholars in a given branch of knowledge such as found within a religious playpen where there is much rote learning, chanting and repetition. However to a person who has never left such a playpen the concept of the real world must be terrifying. Take away the religious playpen and what are you left with? An insecure child without a teddy? What a terrifying prospect.

The point is being missed. The Howard government together with the Labor party have created an environment were Muslims are now seen as aliens. Most people didnt think twice about what was happening in the middle-east before 9/11, now everyone has an opinion.

This has been a deliberate tactic by Bush and Howard and the rest of their supporters to demonise the Muslims, that way when we see Iraqi people being killed everyday or palestians we dont feel as bad.

There is backwardness in every religion - remember Fred Nile?

Some of the above posters have missed the point IMHO

Islam is the only theology that hasnt been subjected to open and honest scrutiny. Judaism has, and Christianity has. Jews and Christians agree to disagree and get on with life.

Islamacists cannnot tolerate any criticism of their religion, and do not to enquire further beyond the nonsense peddled by illiterate and ignorant Imams imported from some failed state in the ME.

When one does enquire further it becomes abundantly obvious why they have to shut down any debate and enquiry.

Thank god for the internet and the libraries of the world.

Somebody once told me that the so called moderate muslims are moderate because they have not read the Koran.

Here’s how the Ayatollah Khomeini put it:
“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter their armies.”

As for the bush and Howard governments bashing Islam, I think we don't need to bash Islam. They are doing a pretty good job of it themselves. There is some pretty heavy stuff coming out of the Muslim comunity lately and I have not heard any "moderate" muslims denying anything.

They say so and so's comments were "unfortunate" or "taken out of context" or "ill advised". Why don't they say "He was wrong"

Muslims seem to get more upset over someone publishing a cartoon than they do over someone flying planes into buildings and giving them a bad name.

Ask them what they think of 9/11 and they will say "we do not believe in killing innocent people". Have they answered the question? Do they believe that the 9/11 victims were inocent? I think you will find that they believe the 9/11 victims were guilty and deserved to die because they were Americans and America is against Islam.

At least Abe Ata has made a good attempt at some cold hard analysis.The Muslim Religion much like the Christian Church of the past believes in absolutes. The reality in the world of courage and discovery is quite the opposite.

If you want to know about God's laws,study the religion of maths physics and science.These laws and logic are truer than any Koran or Bible,that were written by mortal ignorant men with their own personal agendas.

Abe,

Many muslim scholar comment and condemn weirdos's like Sheikh Fayez and others but it gets little attention in the media for whatever reasons.
Please stop repeating the rhetoric of 'Muslims must speak out and against' because it is really becoming frustrating.

If you want to be constructive, why don't you point your question to the media of not giving more space to modern Muslim scholars (you can look at the US media and Dr. Faisal Abdul Raouf as an example).

Australian media like weirdos like sheikh Fayez because his comments 'sells'.

Good article Abe, and F.H. I note your comments with interest.
I'd value your feedback on the following issue though.

1/ http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec1.htm
check out that UK web site and then see this vid.

EVERYbody please read with detailed scrutiny, the page on that web site and then move to the next page and read it with equal diligence.

2/ VIDEO (Cartoon protest)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=I0yoR8R4T1w

Now..F.H. do you not see some causes for worry and concern that such groups might heap a huge guilt trip on moderates and tell them such things as "This is the consensus of the Muslims, from the time of the companions until now" ...

What are moderates going to say to counter this ?

Hope you had a good holiday time :)

If this continuous instigation of violence and hateful rhetoric was being expressed by "Christians", would "Christians" be suggesting that the academics speak out? Or would what usually happens with "Christian Cult" nonsense. The everyday "Christian" stands up and says, "You are not behaving as a Christian". "Do not call yourself Christian". "You are not one of us." "Begone Satan."(I put that one in for Boaz David :-))
The point is they would be shouted down and the Christian leadership would put an end to it. And the police would be all over them like the David Koresh business.

The main difficulty with Islam is they have no central leadership. They have "Councils" but, these councils are more about extortion and maintaining Islamic authority than being true leaders of Islam. Islam needs a central Mosque from where all Islamic theology can develop from. Too many of the Mad Hatter types popping up with a colourful name and really not putting much else into the reasoning for more of the ol' jihad. It's enough to simply say your Anti-American and your "top forty with a bullet".

Why would the academics have any more courage than the everyday Muslim? Or be able to intelligently argue the Koranic versus these nutters choose to exploit in the name of violence?

Rather than simply presume that the apparently chauvinistic passages of the Koran are necessarily advocating violence against non-Muslims, Muslim academics should explain how those passages are interpreted in Modern Islam. After all we do not expect the Christians or the Jews to treat ‘non-believers’ the way Joshua did, ie destroy every man, woman, child, animal and blade of grass in the non-believers domain, (even though neither the Christians nor the Jews have never renounced The Book of Joshua).

Side issue: Abe Ata mentioned that a muslim cleric had insulted women by depicting them as 'pieces of uncovered meat' however in the same analogy he depicted men as 'stray cats unable to control their sexual urges' and no-one (except me) has complained about how no-one has found this offensive. The sexual discrimination against men inherent in the lack of recognition of insults against men is ironic is it not?

Abe Ata has done a remarkable thing, opened up his true thoughts to discussion.
SBS Television has a one hour of American news each week. There various experts and columnists get into very frank debate about the latest news in their country. They actually seem to dissect every drop of what is happening .It all appears frank and open.
Maybe it is too much to ask of most countries,but a blanket ban on all discussion drives that discussion underground and encourages theories that could be wrong.
All Australians have a right to know what is being done in their name and in their country. By all who call themselves 'Australian'.

ROB51etc...

I'm most focused on your point about 'How Modern muslims interpret' the Quran etc..

Mate.. I wish I could spend an hour or 2 with you on this. You have not quite 'got' Islam as a faith yet. You are approaching it from a relativistic western viewpoint. Trust me, it is not like that, not even a little bit. You might find some examples of moderation in some Islamic circles but this would be contrary to the Sharia which is the ultimate Authority for Islam. The Sharia is based on what is called 'The consensus of the Muslims'..and the web site I linked to, says (regarding killing those who insult or denigrate the Prophet) "And this has been the consensus from the companions until now".
There are 2 technical terms there. 'consensus' and 'companions'.
The hamas charter is also based on the same thinking as this.
PLEASE read that web site and realize that that is NOW.. the people pouring into the streets with signs KILL THEM.. are 'now' mate...

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec1.htm

Scratch below the surface..and you will see it.

Not too far in the future we will see another 9/11 not something I want but just a fact those intent on murder will get around the forces against them some times.
And not something I enjoy but those moderate on our side who berate us as racist or relidgious right will one day understand the intent is to kill or enslave us all.
We stand on the brink one Muslim nation wants to kill all the Jews!, yet a poster wants us to look back in history to find suport for Islamist?
In time to come after murder and hate has reminded us of the lie that we can live together ask yourself why both side of parlement told us it could work?
And sorry BD as a no longer Christian or beleiver in any God why do we let such tell us how to live?
Man made God, sadly in mans own image.

Muslims and their Academics would not question their own religion for fear of uncovering the truth.

To real theologians, Islam is a false religion.

Like any counterfeit, one can only hide the truth so long as the truth is not revealed.

But fortunately truth can be searched and can be discovered but Muslim simply won’t bother with the facts, their alleged prophet knew better.

So the problem is not finding eloquent defenders of the Islamic faith but to open the so called “holy” books of Islam to public scrutiny and objective criticism.

Of course that will never happen – Islam would never survive such a cathartic analysis.

Just because Mohammad borrowed some Biblical stories does not qualify Him as a Jewish prophet, nor does it make the Qur’an a divine revelation.

Muslims worldwide blindly believe that they have a part in God’s plan of salvation. For example that they are entitled to a piece of the Holy land of Israel...

They are not told the full truth about God’s ultimate revelation in His Son Jesus.

No further revelation (Jewish or otherwisw) was ever needed after Jesus.

So to my Muslim and non-Christian readers I say that the key to human justice and world peace is only found in God’s plan for humanity that came to life in Jesus.

The Word of God is Jesus – any contradiction to the Bible is therefore a false prescription that can only lead humanity astray.

Jesus is coming back to Judge the world - those who haven't received Him the first time.

Even muslims know that - but don't believe that He is God... and of course they will continue to believe the lies.

My, my - a veritable Islamophobe feeding frenzy!

How utterly predictable (and ultimately unhelpful).

My, my, CJ Morgan -How utterly predictable (and utterly unhelpful).

CJ Morgan I doupt many find your posts on this subject balanced or usefull.
I however ask once more why? why must man fight and die in the name of any God?
The fact that Islam only shows one face to me and that as is my right, I do not find reason not to fear its extreme members and can not tell moderate from extreme is just part of the question.
How can anyone think of the endless list of Gods man has bought forth every one but theirs is false?
That any God made man to spend all our lives and after life loveing him? surely not unlike North Koreas leader? why?are we toys in a sand box?
And please how can anyone not understand the next world war is near? that we must one day soon yet again fight for the right to stay alive.
Can anyone think that wipeing out the nation of Isreal is not bigoted and racist? yet more than one Mulslim nation awaits its chance to do so!

Abe,

Why don't all Muslims speak up, stand up, oppose the garbage that this religion has created? Simple really isn't it. Fear of vengeance. Nothing to do with the writings of Islam at all, just physical fear of being targetted by the ignorant who use violence to try and force others to believe.

Well said Runner.

Islamic moderates are only in a difficult positi9on because they run with the pack. Do they report family, friends and neighbours when they observe anti socoail or worse behaviour? No they don't. They hide it instead. That's a difficult position created by their own weakness and failure to practice the writings of Islam.

Mickijo. Just so mate. Blind and obedient. Not allowed to think for themselves. Just seek revenge for all those wrongs thousands of years ago.

When even the powerful politicians of our own country Australia, also the poiliticians of Britian, France, Denmark, and other European nations are afraid to take a stand against the radical Muslims in their midst for fear of being violently targeted in some way, why should the ordinary powerless moderate muslim in the street be game to speak out.

These radical ratbags have got us all by the short and curlies and they know it.

I don't think for a minute that speaking out will suffice. Muslim academics I know how been speaking out against the elements for years but its not their views that the Murdoch media will publish or televise.

Reporting and creating fear is BIG business for media empires and their corporate kinships.

If moderate Muslims s (a term I loathe -it implies that moderate Muslimism is only a recent political stance) should speak out - who should decide who is moderate and who or what is radical?

This might seem like a silly question but it is not.

Why? Until we decide what is moderate or radical in our own political culture who are we to decide for others.

John Howard for instance is to me the most radical conservative and destructive man ever to be PM.

To others he is a moderate.

The so called "moderate" platform within our own political machinery needs to be developed around bipartisan agreements about what is not in the national interest.

As the word “moderate” suggests, moderation requires sustainable dialogue to occur, not just react to extreme measures.

Going to war in Iraq would not be considered a moderate imperative, but it is one that many here readily supported.

I recall many of these so called “moderates”, (many of them academics who could not get a job in our defunded universities) who were obviously peace loving speaking out and marching in the streets with others against this war. Remember that?

They were dismissed as radicals back them or called “deluded” for declaring that the US, UK and OZ going to war in Iraq would not fix squat.

But now everyone wants these same moderate Muslims to stand up and speak?

That said, I think the author needs to re-explore his own community.

And on another tangent, as an Indigenous academic the reception I and others get in our community for our moderate views are sometimes the same anti intellectual rebuttals that all academics have copped since Howard’s brand of blamegame conservatism became a popular political fashion accessory for the great unwashed in this nation

I have always taken the view that the West carries its ideas of civil libertaryitism, and Freedom of the press too far when it comes to matters of national security and one day would find that it had actually shot itself in the foot with those noble ideas. Well that day has come.

That is why we can not deal effectively with the likes of radicals like Shiek Hilali.

And one other thing. A majority of nations within the United Nations, being of black and Arab origin do not have the best interests of the West at heart ( and that is putting it nicely). The West should not put the wishes of the United Nations and so called world opinion ahead of the security of it’s own civilization and people

A lot of recent events tell us that Islam cannot survive scrutiny. The basic support system of this religion must be very weak. The demonising of Rushdie and the response to the Danish cartoons indicates insecurity and blind faith in some sort of illusion. The death sentence handed out to backsliders does not indicate faith in the strength of their religion. The 72 virgins waiting in paradise for “defenders of the faith”; is surely too fanciful for the most devout to believe. If the faith needs to be nurtured in a bed of cotton wool to survive it certainly has no answers for today’s problems.

sharkfin. the West is not a white utopian hegemony dripping with liberal democracy as you imagine it to be.

I tend to agree with Ranier about the Murdoch press and the reporting of fear rather than moderation is more effective in creating advertising revenue.

The real problem is, separating out the media motivation, and the real central core issue confronting us.

MODERATES vs RADICALS.

Sille suggested there is an issue of 'insecurity' at work. I can see how this could be perceived but have to differ in the other direction. I see the radical Islamists as supremely confident.
Here is the classic example. How the people holding ideas of this web site (such as Abu Izzadeen akaOmar Brooks)is beyond my comprehension.

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec2.htm

Read that bit first, then click the 'previous' section to see how this killing of those who insult or find fault with the Prophet is tied directly to Sharia law, which Hizb Ut Tahrir would certainly advocate for Australia if Muslims are powerful enough.

Imagine it, democratic freedom is used to establish something so horrific and diabolical, like the Inquisition on Steroid AND Turbo, where there would NEVER again be any hint of democratic freedom.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/17/warwithin.overview/index.html

The man shown in that story (Brooks) charged into Regents Park mosque and berated a British government rep for coming into 'Muslim Areas'.
He also berated the Regents Park Mosque mob for being slack Muslims and promised Islam would take over UK ...like it or not. (and reporting this means we are Islamophobic ?)

THE CYCLE. For the benefit of CJ Morgan who cannot differentiate between legitimate warning and Islamophobia. I'll go step by step.

1/ Muslim Community exists.
2/ Foreign Policy or social policy of their host country does not 'fit' with Islam.
3/ Idealistic youth are alienated and disgruntled.
4/ Radicism which already existed in a small way, seizes this opportunity to promote their interests.
5/ This brings a backlash, intervention, arrests and a 'Victim' mentality ensues.
6/ This then further creates radicalism and so on.

The current polling suggests 50% of UK muslim youth want to live under Sharia Law. That probably represents over a million people.... and THAT.. is cause for serious concern.

Boaz,

My point was simply muslim youth need to be educated 'properly' similar to the model adopted in the US. The issue now of what is reaching them through Aussie media is either weirdos like Sheikh Fayez, Ex-Muslims like Irshad Manji or attempts to lure them into another faith. No offence Boaz but you are part of the problem and not the solution.

I think if we are serious about it we should give more mind and media space to new Aussie Muslim scholars and there are many good ones. The idea of giving 'pages' of the un-'australian' newspaper to Sheikh Fayez comments is irritating to all Australians commencing with Australian Muslims.

Peace,

T

Well bring it on Fellow Human.I want Habib and Hilali to stand for election so we can see how many lunatic fringe dwellers exist here.I bet there will be a lot more than the one or two percent of Muslims that many allude to.

my my, defending the poor peace loving, community - enhancing moon worshippers yet again, how ultimately unhelpful. What the heck, I'm converted. Let's all don fake beards, stick a few old sacks on the missus, and proclaim 'hug a Jihad day' every Jan 26th (just so we don't offend anyone). Oh, and let's get rid of that 'dog' of a flag and get some crescents on there instead. Allllllllaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh Aaaaakkkkkkkkkkkkkbbbbbaaaaaahhhhhhh!

Fellow_Human,

How was your trip? I hope you had an enjoyable holiday.

Why are you calling Sheikh Fayez and others weirdos? My understanding is they are simply quoting passages from the Qur’an. Jews being pigs and apes, kill all kafirs etc…

How could a “new Aussie Muslim Scholar” speak any different? How would they sugar coat a word like “killing” for example?

One of the problems with Islam is its insistence that it is a religion when we all see that the Political aspect is so primordial and predominant – it goes back to your prophet Mohammad and his push to conquer Arabia in his short but bloody military career.

It’s unfortunate for you (Muslims) that you cannot change the nature of your “Ideology” called Islam. You must press on with the aggressiveness nature set by Mohammad and his disciples. Anyone who soften the approach is labelled a non- or ex- Muslim.

Also what with the “Moderates”? Who invented this label anyway?

For me if one is a Muslim he/she must follow Islamic law to the letter. If not he/she is a false Muslim. One cannot be partial or nominal Muslim.

To be a Muslim is to take part in Jihad (in all its forms)... like you preach daily in your Mosques (we got proof). When sometimes a phrase leaks to the media, you label the speaker "radical" or "un-islamic".

So how can we trust any of you when we know the reality of your so called religion is to transform all the world to Islam?

The only reason you want to prolong the dialogues is to gain more momentum and reach the necessary numbers to impose yourselves on us.

F.H. I doubt I would be part of the 'problem' as you put it, if I didn't find such things as this in the Quran

"Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them"
(Surah 9:30)

Now.. I suggest to you that 'that' is the problem :) You conclude your post with 'peace' but your book is contrary..I'm Christian, and I believe with all my heart that Jesus is God the Son, Son of God, and your book specifically singles me and all those of my faith out and calls on Allah to curse us and fight us and destroy us..BY NAME :)

Now.. this probably could be written off as just some religious kink if it were not for the fact that Mohammed also curses Christians and Jews on his death bed... (hadith Bukhari Vol 4 book 56 number 660)

So, we have convincing evidence from A) Quran B) Hadith that we are the scum of the earth who Allah must destroy ... *ouch*.

If these passages were based on something diabolical like "Christians each little Children, may Allah destroy them" I could likely agree 100% but the reality is, it connects Allah destroying us with a fundamental and unchangable aspect of faith "Belief that Christ is the Son of God" so.. there is nothing to 'contextualize' or 'interpret'..it's as clear as date palm in a desert mate.

The problem is further exacerbated by the likes of Omar Brooks (Aka Abu Izzadeen) in UK and Fayz from Australia. Hilayli is just a cuddly joke :)
But THIS bloke is a danger.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/17/warwithin.overview/index.html

The best part about Izzadeen is that he is a PAUL prior to meeting the Risen Christ on the road to Damascus. Glory to God :

On election day in NSW we will understand how many from within this comunity do not think devision is wrong.
This comunity is not ever going to blend in and future deaths and pain lay at the feet of those who do not act against the worst of them now.

I see that stereotyping is alive and well and in common use on this forum.
Here's how its done:
Step 1: Invent a label based on some perceived characteristic held in common by a number of people, but for which a real organised group of people does not actually exist. eg. "Moderate Muslim"
Step 2: Classify people with this characteristic under the new label. eg. any Muslim that isn't currently plotting to overthrow the "West".
Step 3: Dream up some more, either observed or imagined, characteristics, behaviours and connections that these people may or may not share. eg. afraid of extremists, or not real followers of the Koran, or secretly believe in the triumph of Islam over the West but dare not say it or act on it.
Step 4: Proceed to attack (and in some cases defend) this imagined group of people based on the qualities identified in step 3. eg. they should speak up and defend themselves? etc. etc.

The author has done well to outline a fact that there are many many REAL varying and independent groups that come under the umbrella label of "Arab-Muslim", and that there are many Muslims from these different groups that ARE speaking out, and i thank him for shedding some light on these complexities.

Understanding leads to peace, segregation does not.

Boaz,

The point is we need to accept and respect each other's faith.
I can ask you to fully reject most of the OT as it is full of racial and violent references but it is how you interpret it that matters.

Peace,
T

If they have any ability at all, the Islamic academics would do well to start by writing a logical and concise rebuttal,in clear English, of the following:

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/quran.htm

The absence of any such rebuttal would then support the contentions of a number posters above who source the problems back to the Koran itself. The presence of such a rebuttal would also be revealing,and informative.

But dont hold your breath.

Fellow_Human: A big ask from you! Have you read the nonsensical koran at all? you ask sane, thinking people to believe/respect that?
Have you noticed at all the death-loving adherents of islam and how they respect other beliefs at all? And we are to respect that?
Perhaps their misogynistic attitude towards women including cowardly insane, brutal honour killings/murders? Another cruel islamic belief and we are to respect that?
Lastly have you heard the so-called sermons from your imams where death is called down upon pigs and monkeys as well as destruction of democracy (do not have to tell you who pigs and monkeys are eh?) I have read transcripts and there's no way I could repect that type of dribbling diatribe.
Having said that in this free country you, as you well know, you are able to believe and practice whatever nonsense moves you. You are able to insult call down curses on this country, democracy other religions. You can lie to us as to your aims for islam in Oz. But please have the decency not to ask us more sane and sensible to respect your stupid pagan beliefs - please! Regards, nubat

Boaz, it is clear that you will try absolutely anything in your mission to increase tension between religious fanatics.

>>The current polling suggests 50% of UK muslim youth want to live under Sharia Law. That probably represents over a million people.... and THAT.. is cause for serious concern.<<

I don't know what in this is in your terminology, Boaz - exaggeration? But given your access to sources on the Internet, I would have to classify it as a blatant lie. Here is the most recent poll as reported on 30th January 2007 in the Gulf Daily News:

"According to the Internet and phone poll of 1,003 Muslims, 37 per cent of 16-to-24-year-olds said they would prefer to live under Sharia law compared to just 17pc of the over-55s. The same number of young Muslims said they would prefer to send their children to Islamic state schools while 74pc said they preferred Muslim women to wear the hijab headscarf in public. Among the over-55s, the figures were 19pc and 28pc on the same questions. A small overall minority (seven pc) said they "admire organisations like Al Qaeda that are prepared to fight the West". The figure was highest among younger people (13pc) but just three pc among older people. In general, more over-55s felt they had as much, if not more, in common with non-Muslims in Britain than with Muslims abroad (71pc), but that fell to 62pc among 16-to-24-year-olds."

Now you can play with the numbers any way you like. But one thing it immediately suggests to me is that "kids get smarter as they get older".

And think also of the method... "Internet and phone poll"

Skew, anybody?

My other immediate observation is that there are only a million or so Mulims in total in the UK, so your assertion "that probably represents over a million people" is a total nonsense.

I know it is a vain hope, but please, just for once, think before you write such obviously inflammatory garbage.

bigmal, you are falling into the Boaz trap.

Jay Smith says at the beginning of his polemic:

"Obviously this is a task that no-one should take lightly, and I don't intend to do so here. For that reason, I have decided not to attempt a simplistic analysis concerning the authority of the Qur'an and the Bible in one single paper. Instead I will begin by dealing with the authority of the Qur'an in this paper and then turn my attention to the authority for our own scriptures, the Bible, in a follow-up paper."

That was twelve years ago. So far, nothing.

Does that indicate to you that i) Smith was simply dissembling about the "follow-up", and in fact had no intention of creating any balance, or ii) that after twelve years of exhaustive study, he could find nothing to doubt the authority of the Bible?

Actually, you don't need to answer that, it is already patently obvious where your bigotry lies.

Pericles

I am not as much bigoted as you are stupid. I have not made the points, just asked that it be rebutted by a Islamic scholars as demonstration of their skill and willingness to have an open discussion as to the provenance of their Holy Book. The fact that the author said that he will also do an assessment on the bible, and thus far hasnt done so is irrelevant. The claims he makes about the Koran should be debated on their merits.

If what Smith says is a crock then let it be shown. For my part I have no view on Smiths work,other than it certainly raises many many issues. I am certainly nor prepared to waste my time doing an analysis of either the Bible or Koran, but I do notice that whereas the Bible and Jewish texts have been subjected to open scrutiny over many centuries,the same is cannot be said of the Koran.

After all that is consistent with this OLO authors premise.

Pericles,
You owe BOAZ an apology. His post wasn't a blatant lie.
2004 estimates 2 million Muslims in London.

Muslim or British: Polling indicates that a majority of Muslims perceive a conflict between their British and Muslim identities. Two polls show that only a small proportion identifies itself first as a British (7% and 12%), but they differ widely on the number who identify first with their religion (81% and 46%).

Implementing Islamic law: Muslims widely state that Shariah should reign in Britain. Forty percent approve of Shariah being applied in predominantly Muslim areas, and 61% want Shariah courts to settle civil cases among Muslims. All of 58% want those who criticize or insult Islam to face criminal prosecution. Schools should be prohibited from banning female pupils from wearing the hijab, say 55%, while 88% insist that schools and work places should accommodate Muslim prayer times.

Integration into Britain: In a nearly mirror-image of each other, 65% say Muslims need to do more to integrate into mainstream British culture, and 36% say modern British values threaten the Islamic way of life. Twenty-seven percent feel conflicted between loyalty to fellow Muslims and to Britain. Of those who despise Western civilization and think Muslims "should seek to bring it to an end," 32% endorse nonviolent means and 7% violent means.

Attitudes toward Jews: Polls confirm that the antisemitism widespread in the Muslim world also rears its head in Britain. About half the Muslims polled believe that Jews in Britain have too much influence over Britain's foreign policy and are in league with the Freemasons to control its press and politics. Some 37% consider Jews in Britain "legitimate targets as part of the ongoing struggle for justice in the Middle East," and 16% state that suicide bombings can be justified in Israel. (Among 18- to 24-year-olds, that number rises to 21%.)

In sum, more than half of British Muslims want Islamic law and 5% endorse violence to achieve that end. These results demonstrate that Britain's potential terrorists live in a highly nurturing community.

Thanx Aqvar.
Pericles, delete the word 'young' and it seems to hold fairly well.
Source:Daniel Pipes.

F.H. 'respect each others religion' ? c'mon mate.. how can I respect a faith which curses me and every member of my mob and "calls" down the wrath of Allah on me because of my core beliefs ?

By the way, your post does not address directly to the issue of 'May Allah fight them, curse them, destroy them'

All I can do is give the Christian response. "The Son of man came not to be served, but to serve and give His life as a ransom for many" and that includes you.

"I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

"It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick"

Quran
3:31 Proclaim: "If you love GOD, you should follow me." GOD will then love you, and forgive your sins. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
3:32 Proclaim: "You shall obey GOD and the messenger." If they turn away, GOD does not love the disbelievers.

Here man is advised to follow/obey/emulate the 'Messenger'..Mohammed.

Mohammeds Mercy.
Yep, I can see myself at Khaibar standing over the headless corpse of Kinana Chief of the Jews who I just ordered killed (because if he was alive, I cannot take his beautiful wife for myself) while his wife and her cousin are brought (past them) to me, and I 'generously' reach out my hand of love and affection to Safiyya Bint Huyayy (whos beauty was mentioned to Mohammed by others) and inform her that now I am taking her as my latest wife. (having previously kiled her father) But hey, she had 3 days to emotionally recover from this trauma and then 'fall in love' with her husband and fathers killer and happily accept him invading her body.

The mental gymnastics it takes to 'rationalize' that action alone, is beyond my comprehension.
Show me a Muslim leader who will criticize/condemn this, and I will show you an honorable man.

Muslim academics can't really oppose force being used to turn over the host societies. A crash course on the Koran and the Hadith is at
http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/submit/koranhadith.htm
and I recommend people remove their blinkers and check the ayas (verses) on the Internet and at their public library.

Quietly meditate on the various thoughts, and look up more for yourself!
- John, of Perth

Boaz,

There is similar material in your books used by Pope Urban II, Hitler and recently in Rwanda where a 94% followers of your faith massacred 800,000 Tutsies.

Its really naive to condition the acceptance of others based on what they beleive in. I can disagree with the content of your faith but will defend your right to worship. There is no 'good' or 'bad' religions but there is good and bad people and ways of interpretation. There are violent hindus and buddhists and the most blood spilled in history was in Jesus' name.

Peace,

T

For those who still doubt the real intensions of Islam on this planet.

Listen to Hizb el-Tahrir latest Kaliphate Conference in Sydney

http://www.zshare.net/audio/ht-khilafah-conference-28-1-07-mp3.html

Dear F.H.
I would never dispute those things you mentioned about some kind of 'religous/church' connection. You know full well that what masses of people do, hinges as much on the social climate of the day, and there are similarities between Cronulla/Shock Jocks and Rwanda/Radio stations. The only difference was we didn't zoom up to Lakemba and slaughter all the Muslims.

But those events have nothing to do with what I'm speaking of.
I'm going to the absolute root/core/central foundation of your religion, and I'm showing that it curses me and every Christian and Jew by name. To make a comparison to counter this, you would have to demonstrate where Jesus did a similar thing, or his Apostles also did it based on the clear understanding of what Jesus meant.

Lets take an example.

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household ...Mat 10:34

Now.. in the light of Jesus own actions, and his willingness to suffer for your sin and mine, his lack of violence, lack of retaliation, etc..and his rebuke of Peter who tried to defend him with a sword... it all adds up to a conclusion that Jesus was speaking of violence done TO peaceful Christians by others. He 'brought' a sword by proclaiming the Gospel which divided families and communities.

I urge you to look to Him.. as Savior F.H. it was in 'someones' interests to describe Him as merely a 'prophet' and to warn people against adding 'partners' to God. But the truth- His words and deeds remain.

>>You owe BOAZ an apology. His post wasn't a blatant lie. 2004 estimates 2 million Muslims in London.<<

>>Thanx Aqvar. Pericles, delete the word 'young' and it seems to hold fairly well. Source:Daniel Pipes.<<

No apology, I'm afraid, because the numbers you are using are in error. If you rely for your information on an American neo-conservative who makes a living from propagating anti-Muslim sentiments, you must expect to get rubbish. He spouts propaganda, nothing more, nothing less. His efforts as a statistician are, therefore, as reliable as you would expect from any rabble-rouser.

The current edition of The Economist places the total British Muslim population at 1.6 million.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8629539

Whom do you believe? I know which source gets my vote.

Statistically, less than half of Britain's immigrant population lives in London, so I suspect that Pipes' "2 million Muslims in London" would be an exaggeration by at least a factor of three.

And let me remind you again of your assertion, Boaz:

>>The current polling suggests 50% of UK muslim youth want to live under Sharia Law. That probably represents over a million people<<

Do your sums again, Boaz, and you will understand why I consider this statement to be incontinent and inflammatory.

So, do I get an apology? Or just another batch of Boaz bluster?

To Boaz David and to all the other Religious Fundamentalists ,

All this "good" work crushing different Religions and killing each other; and all in the Cause of making sure of a seat on the
the bus to Heaven, to live in peace for Eternity??

Fat chance .

IF God exists, he's not that stupid.

I suggest His drafting gate may well produce a fair few very unwelcome surprises .

Or maybe He will simply cancel everyone's various membership cards , give another sigh , and let us all in .

Sleep well, Kartiya.

BOAZ_David gave a wonderful piece of valuable information about the intention of the "scholars" of Islam to kill anyone who questions or criticises etc their founder.
He recommends reading http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec1.htm
and the following webpage.
You might find historical parallels on a webpage you can find with a search engine submit/subtexts.htm
Also someone suggested reading http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/quran.htm and
http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/quran.htm
Might I also suggest that large parts of the Hebrew Scriptures are no help to civilised behaviour. Read the first seven books, and ask yourself if the Deity portrayed there is anything like Jesus seeking the lost sheep, blessing the children, and teaching the people.
Why do the Christian Churches keep pretending that the Jesus religion is a continuation of the YHWA (Yahweh) faith, with its killings of animals and calls to attack other peoples?
Meanwhile, look to see if other scriptures are a continuation of the worst teachings in those older scriptures.

Pericles, You have your own axe to grind and so too does "The Economist", it isn't BOAZ only. And you are completely in error of your understanding of Daniel Pipes. He isn't anti-Islam, he like my self, and many others are anti-militant Islam. Daniel Pipes defends the religion of Islam but, does not want the government of Islam. Too bad you apologist don't understand the difference. Perhaps you will. One day too late.

From your Economist.
A new survey for Policy Exchange, a think-tank, finds young British Muslims value symbols of their Muslim identity—the veil, for example, and sharia law—more than older ones and say they have less in common with non-Muslims than their parents do.

Hmmm. 2 million or 1.6 million. It seems you win on the math providing your source is absolutely correct and there is no margin for error. However you loose in the context of the point BOAZ was trying to make. Even your Economist backs him up.

I read 2 differing reports of Hindu population in Britain. One gave a number of 366,000, the other, 800,000. Makes one wonder about the veracity of your 400,000 difference.

In a report on BBC it is said that the UK is now the number one country for Muslim Immigration in the world. I wonder how many Muslim illegals have made it their unofficial home?

Boaz,

It’s a different point all together and I think you are mis-interpreting or looking at one part. Here is a sample of what the Quran says about Jesus (pbuh)

"We bestowed favor upon him, and we made him an example for the Children of Israel." "Behold! God said: 'O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to myself."' "Behold! The angels said: 'O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Jesus Christ, the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and the hereafter and of (the company of) those Nearest to God."'

There is no difference between Muslims and early Christians faith (the pre-Trinity Christians). Or today’s Christians who believe in Jesus but reject the Trinity.

The references you quoted are Islam’s position on the Trinity which in essence is no different to what’s in the Bible or the Torah. Its not secret and we make no apologies that islam rejects any theology that create images of a God or relate sons or the likes to him.

The same goes for the jewish faith: Islam follows the Mosaic law and Moses is another glorified prophet in Islam. The Quran criticise 'some' of the Jews who do not follow the Mosaic law or Moses spiritual teachings.

As for living together, Christians and Jews lived together in majority Muslim countries for the last 14 centuries. I would refer you to the work of an arab Christian historian like Dr Milad Hanna.

I hope I was able to clarify,

Peace,

T

All religions lack self-criticism. It is one of their primary features.

Once you start looking at: virgin births, people coming back from the dead, burning bushes telling you what God thinks, God giving you special dispensation for sex with slaves at the precise moment your wife catches you rooting one your maids, etc the whole thing seems a bit absurd.

Lack of self-criticism is mandatory in the faithful - that is what faith is for - belief without reason - because if you have good reason to believe something faith is unnecessary.

Rob... we have umpteen zillion theologically liberal academics criticizing those things every day. Evangelicals do not reject the virgin birth or resurection, or healings etc.. specially me, who has experienced the divine touch and an instantaneous healing.

Among Evangelicals, we even have Philo here, who does not share what I would describe as 'orthodox' views about Christ. No offense to him.

F.H. Living together is no problem as long as Muslims are a small minority. When they are a majority, such verses as I showed will form the basis of 'hit squads' and rabble who invade Christians businesses, extract 'Jizya' from them, burn their churches and generally mock them. You, coming from Egypt should especially know this, if you don't then I'll provide you with abundant real world examples including a young Copt from Knox city who suggested he would like to burn every mosque in Australia.

Just like the communist manifesto, it all comes back to fundamentals.

The problem with the Islamic position is not the 'nice things' the Quran says about Jesus, even they are an insult to the Son of God. You say its no secret that Islam rejects the idea of 'partners' with God etc.. well shock horror, so do we. But you used a Red Herring there.. 'trinity'.. don't even think about that in relation to this discussion please. Its purely about ONE thing.
-Christians say Christ is Son of God.
-Quran and Hadith/MOhammed curses them for this specific core belief.

Communism is political "Religion is the opiate of the masses"
Islam is Political "May Allah destroy them" (Christians and Jews)

"Our Lord, has commanded us to fight you until you worship Allah or pay the Jizya" (ref previously supplied)

I suggest Mohammed HAD to reduce Jesus to the level of Prophet, to boost his own status as 'Last Prophet' this is basic psychology and unfortunately neglects the reality of Christs life, and His atoning death for our sin; but most of all His resurrection.

To be a muslim, "a way of life", is to submit to the koran. Most muslims play the charade, pray for a new car, whatever, but when the hard questions have to be answered there won't be an uscarved head in the place.
moderate muslims? islam doesn't provide for degrees. You are or you die. Too much time and nonsense. muslims need to seperate themselves and put some efort into organisng their medieval theocracies instead of generating violent psychO-sexual death cults.
religions always have at least one foot in perversity. Glad we have those fat kids down at the mall to protect us.

>>Pericles, You have your own axe to grind and so too does "The Economist"<<

Aquarius, neither I nor The Economist makes our daily bread from spruiking anti-Muslim propaganda. I might also suggest that their fact-checking department is somewhat more rigorous than that of Mr Pipes, possibly for the same reason.

>>Daniel Pipes defends the religion of Islam...<<

... in much the same way that Shakespeare describes Mark Anthony defending the actions of Julius Caesar.

"I come not to bury Islam, but to praise it...", and we know how that speech ends, don't we?

In order to preserve some market value in the battle for podium dollars you need to adopt at least a superficially neutral stance on one aspect of your position. You then earn your appearance fees by bagging every other feature.

Boaz, if he had ever managed to get around to reading Oswald Mosley's autobiography, would have been able to show how it can be done. You say "I've nothing against the Jewish faith" out of one corner of your mouth, while stirring up hatred against Jews from the other.

>>Hmmm. 2 million or 1.6 million. It seems you win on the math providing your source is absolutely correct and there is no margin for error.<<

Don't be ridiculous. Your own "2 million" referred to Muslims in London. 1.6 million is The Economist's total for the whole of Britain.

And how you can still pretend that I "loose [sic] in the context of the point BOAZ was trying to make" is beyond reason. Just to remind you:

>>The current polling suggests 50% of UK muslim youth want to live under Sharia Law. That probably represents over a million people<<

Note: he calculates a million to be 50% of Muslim youth, not the total Muslim population. I lose? C'mon!

You then try a retrofit justification:

>>read 2 differing reports of Hindu population in Britain. One gave a number of 366,000, the other, 800,000<<

Of course you did. One lot was counted by Daniel Pipes.

Pericles, Your bias and presumptions are as blatant as is BOAZ David's religious belief. You may suggest till your blue in the face but, suggesting don't make factual.
A little heads up here for your future argument. That 1.6 mill you want recognized is from UK 2001 census. This being 2007 means some increase in population in Muslim religion. Right. You and The Economist chose old material to reference as fact.
Considering that Muslims having large families and that the UK is the number one destination for migrant Muslims from around the world. The 2 million is very realistic.
The differing Hindu population counts I gave were from the BBC reports on UK demographics. Not justification.
If you google BBC news, Muslim. All the recent articles or news reports will show. Many, as I have found question Muslim community integration vis a vis British values. Many offer community polls. The info I gave in post (aqvarivs, Tuesday, 6 February 2007 5:43:03 AM) is from both non-Muslim and Muslim polling.
The polls combined concluded that,"in sum, more than half of British Muslims want Islamic law and 5% endorse violence to achieve that end. These results demonstrate that Britain's potential terrorists live in a highly nurturing community."
Now you may quibble about numbers as you will but, there is no doubt that the militants are out and about and have chosen a side anathema to established governance. Democracy, human rights, liberal justice, feminism, and free speech. Little things like that.
Now, don't you think Muslims not in favour of loosing these rights ought to speak out.

Boaz,

Now you are turning it a Jesus debate so I will disengage on the basis that 2000 years later we are still here: Islam, Christianity and Judaism. We are all one of the same fabric and we need to learn from and about each other and co-exist.

I will only correct an incorrect statement about Islam that you made:

"I suggest Mohammed HAD to reduce Jesus to the level of Prophet, to elevate his own status"

That is not correct, Jesus position is a prophet even in the bible.
in fact Jesus miracles in the Quran exceeds the ones mentioned in the bible by 3. The "son of God" status is 4th century philosophy and you should know better. As for the 'status' statement, well, the Quran mentions Jesus 33 times while Mohamed (pbut) was mentioned only 4 times. Anyway, its amazing you "self proclaimed experts on Islam" studied very little.

Peace,

T

F.H.

We do not expect you to understand the Trinity, The One true God, based on your distorted Qur'anic view of God (Allah) according to a disturbed self-proclaimed prophet.

According to scriptures, God is a personal God that reveals Himself to anyone who earnestly seeks Him; like you repeat in your daily prayers to Allah: “show us the right way”.

Jesus is The Way, The Only Way. In Him you will find eternal peace and an assurance of a place in His heaven. Mohammad, a mere man, cannot do that for you.

Jesus was prophesised hundreds of years before He became a man and was born from Mary.

Jesus is the alpha and the omega – the beginning and the end and everything in between, The Word of God. (not the word from God).

Interestingly enough the Qur’an mention of Jesus is “The Spirit of God” and the one that never sinned. That clue alone should make the comparison to Mohammed very faint indeed.

We don’t mind if you continue to believe the words of a merchant who foamed at the mouth and rolled on the ground in anger and rage every time he heard noises and voices interpreted as alleged “revelations’ from a spirit called Allah. What we strongly object is that you impose your nonsense on the rest of humanity.

Islam is NOT the solution to the world problems. Islam is the main cause of all world miseries.

By their fruit you will know them. And we have seen enough.

Keep your religion to yourself and continue to kill each other as you have done since the beginning. But leave the rest of the sane world to prosper and evolve so we can continue to offer you asylum and assistance when you need it.

Australia has been too good to you, please return the favour by living by our rules or take your religion and find another place where you can apply your own

Coach! Wow, a believer. Who wrote the book Coach?

Have you seen "Cheers"? You are in it mate.

Could I suggest a podium in the Domain?

"What we strongly object is that you impose your nonsense on the rest of humanity."

"By their fruit you will know them. And we have seen enough."

"Keep your religion to yourself "

"But leave the rest of the sane world to prosper and evolve "

So many good points from coach, what a shame that he does not see how well they fit all religious extremists.

R0bert

Boaz & Coach,

Robert's comment is good enough for me.
The only 'mob' on these forums bagging others faith and 'imposing' their religion as the way is your 'fellowship of the ring'.

Myself and few others merely respond and explain your misrepresentation of our faith. You should be content with your religious practice and don't spend your life bagging others.

Perhaps you should repeat your quote to yourself everyday in front of the mirror.

Have a peaceful life,

T

F.H.,

"You-should-be-content-with-your-religious-practice-and-don't-spend- your-life-bagging-others."

Not so fast - The reason we are engaged in defending the freedom of religion is because Islam is in the business of reducing all religions, faiths, non-religions, all non-believers (in Islam) to their "jaheliah" - dark-ages Arabic way.

Sorry –Not interested.

We (forget the ignorant morons) are merely acting in self-defence. Islam is the offensive force, the enemy of mankind.

The Qur'an - as you very well know - specifically and repeatedly mentions Jews and Christians as enemy number one of your god Allah.

You (Mohammad followers) have made it your business to go after every creature on earth, by believing the words of your so called prophet as dictated from Allah your god. (unprovable and highly unprobable)

You truly believe that your god Allah is on your side and that killing, dying, or (second best) converting people by force is part of being a good Muslim.

No one in Islam has yet done anything to curb the violence caused by your "religion of peace". Except for the clichés: terrorism is not Islamic, 9/11 was not the work of muslims, etc…

To us silence means consent. All muslims are agreeing and condoning the actions of their heroes killers brothers and sisters in Jihad.

So don’t pretend that you are innocent of all Islamic attacks, persecutions, terror, rape, worldwide propagation, political infiltration, etc,… the innocent blood of women and children is on your hands too.

Don’t expect us to keep giving you the other cheek when we know that Islam will never rest until the whole world is under their authority. (check above recording of Hizb alTahrir.)

It is Allah-given command to do all you can as a good muslim to achieve global domination. To not agree with this is un-Islamic, Harram, and worth to be killed in Allah's name as all kuffar non-believers.

That is why we cannot let you practice your deceitful religion when our very life and freedoms are at stake.

By defending Islam and not seeking to reform it - you are part of the global Islamic terrorist network.

'Couch potato'

Your ignorance of Islam is your problem.
Your last comment was yellow and personal and proves you got no intellectual capability to run a dialogue. Islamic reforms is done by muslim thinkers and scholars. Not by Islam bashers or ex-Muslims.

As for 'those who don't accept others', here is a simple proof:

Yourself, Boaz and the other esteemed members of the 'fellowship
of the ring' have hundreds if not thousands of postings bagging islam rather than expressing what's good or logical about your faith and beliefs. Almost nobody else on OLO have this attitude.

In your scripture, don't you claim that all non-believers in Jesus (and non-baptised) will go to hell? Or you don't understand your own faith as well?

Have a peaceful life,

T

Wow coach, what is your religion that must preach such fear, mistrust and hate? Clearly it's not Christianity.

Well Donnie, There's all kinds of Christianity just like there is all kinds of Islam. Independent of faith is the individuals perspective and whether or not their "faith" is of healing or of hatred.
Militant Islam isn't just killing non-believers. It is actually murdering many more Muslims. Of course it's not their fault. Western society and Allah made them do it. Just like God made Jim Jones and David Koresh do it or Heaven's Gate, the name of a UFO religion co-led by Marshall Applewhite and Bonnie Nettles.

The cult's end coincided with the appearance of Comet Hale-Bopp in 1997. Applewhite convinced 38 followers to commit suicide so that their souls could take a ride on a spaceship that they believed was hiding behind the comet.

God works in mysterious ways.

Dear F.H. and others on the "dark side"

mate.. I have proclaimed Christ many many times...and you know it.

But.. on the 'bagging' bit.. you cannot get much more 'bagging' than for your holy book to 'bag' Christians and Jews and calling Allahs curse on us, and to destroy us BY NAME.. I mean..seriously, unless ur on massive doses of prozac or other 'sedatives' no one could not 'get' just how serious this is.

In Victoria it is illegal..outright "Religious vilification"

If it was some peripheral belief of Christians, perhaps we might not be so concerned but this is the absolute HEART and SOUL of being a follower of Christ.. 'Who' is Christ Jesus ? He is according to the first verse of Marks Gospel "the Son of God" so.. the Quran is 'cursing us' for this, and invoking Allah's destruction for this...BY NAME.. mate.

Here is an issue close to the topic..from some Muslim claiming good knowledge of his faith.(berating slackers who don't want to kill apostates)

[read fatha bari (explanation of bukhari) and you will get a proper explanation of the hadith. the prophet muhammad pbuh, his companions, their students, the 4 imams and their students and the scholars of today agree that any person who opstates from islam should be killed there are proof from the hadith. it is a minority of ignorant people who defy the command of the prophet]

Note his authorities ?

1/ The Prophet
2/ His Companions
3/ The 4 Imams
4/ Scholars of today.

So.....'what' are the Muslim academics Abe has in mind going to say ?

Your holy book curses me, but mine blesses you "As the Father sent me, so I send you" "If you love only those who love you, what is your reward" Jesus wants me to love you, your holy book wants to destroy me for following the One who wants me to love you :) -go figure.

aquarius, I wasn't aware that simply pointing out errors in another's post constitutes "bias and presumptions". If something is wrong - and in this case the error was created by Boaz shooting from the hip in a typical anti-Islam rant - then it is only fair to point it out.

I added the "liar" bit because it was patently obvious that he had declined to check his facts.

And you are getting close to the same wilful disregard of the truth, aren't you?'

>>That 1.6 mill you want recognized is from UK 2001 census. This being 2007 means some increase in population in Muslim religion... considering that Muslims having large families and that the UK is the number one destination for migrant Muslims from around the world. The 2 million is very realistic<<

The 1.6 million figure (whose source, I should like to point out, I made absolutely clear, together with the appropriate URL) is for Britain. The 2 million that Boaz claims (without substantiation, note) is in the category of "Muslim youth".

Why don't you get out your calculator. Start with 1.6 million Muslims in 2001. Add as many as you can justify (through births per 1000 per annum, estimated immigration etc) and see how close you get to two million "youths".

It might be a good idea to check first with Boaz exactly how he defines "youths", but I doubt very much that he even gave it a millisecond's thought. A quick grab of a statistic, a quick double twist and half pike and you have another deliberately shocking number with which to instil fear into the gullible.

He does it time and time again. But this is the first time he has had anyone leap to his defence.

Just lucky it was you, I guess.

Dear Fellow Human. You asked, "don't you claim that all non-believers in Jesus (and non-baptised) will go to hell?...."

While christianity does (in a Nutshell) say that all non-believers will go to hell, the difference is that the final decision is not up to us. You and God make that decision.

The bible says that the wages of sin is death but the free gift of God is Life. If you choose to reject God, reject the fact that he designed us to be in relationship with him and reject Jesus Christ as the one who died instead of us so that we might have that relationship with God, then God will honour that choice and not force you to spend eternity with him when you don't want to. Hell is basically eternal separation from God. It's your choice.

As a Christian my job is to simply share the message with you and then let God do the work in your heart. With some Religions the followers of that religion believe they have a divine right to kill anyone who strays from that religion or opposes it in any way.

By the way, it's interesting that most people don't have a problem with companies like Coke or McDonalds putting their message on TV or radio or in the paper or even subliminaly in movies. After all they are not forcing you. You still have a choice. In fact we are willing to allow almost anyone to bombard us with their particular message. I am sometimes amazed at what we will tolorate on our TV screens.

However, when Christians present their message they are deemed to be forcing it down our throats. Why is that? Isn't the final choice still ours to make? What is it about the Christian message that makes us not even want to hear it? Is it that threatrening? Is it that convicting.

Well said Proverbs

Pericles, I always appreciate your attempt to restore statistical balance and truth to the debate, specially when 'speaking from the hip'... to be honest I think I made a miscalculation there on the one million.. I hesitate to admit this, because there is a certain poster who delights in accumulating lists of my 'sins' .. something I prefer to avoid, I like to debate issues rather than debating style. I was not lying, but clearly I had some error in coming to the conclusion about the number of youth. That said, please don't allow that to sway you from the central point, which was not so much the numbers, but the proportions.

Aqvarvis did a good job in deconstructing the various demographic positions.. please don't waste any more space on that.. focus on the issue at hand. "Muslim Academics" etc.

Feel free to subject my last post to the same detailed scrutiny, I would value your research on the matter. So ?

F.H. you sound embattled mate... you are clinging there to things which appeal to sentimentality rather than solid debate.
We can always agree to disagree, but here, we seek to advance a discussion about important issues. You standard defense about 'You don't understand Islam' is not carrying much weight. I will always respond with 'Islam came from'.....? and you know how it goes from there.
Peace 2 u also.

isn't it night to have freedom to criticize others, and points of religion without being banned or kicked off the forum.. UNlike Sydney Islamic forum.

PROVERBS [and Boaz,] you talk about Christian messages.
What are your views on the one hundred and fifty thousand Iraqui Muslim civilians killed after a born again Christian Commander makes a decision to go to war?

Where does he get his inspiration from?

To be Christian is to be "Christ Like" - no more, no less .

Kartiya Jim, Saddam wqas a criminal of the worst kind. Being sentenced to death by his own people kind of backs this up.
The Christians, as you put it, started trying to make good of the Iraqi situation a good few years ago. The reason Iraq is such a shambles today is thanks to Muslims who are hell bent on destroying their own people and nation (all in the name of god, of course). The fact that you and others blame Bush and the USA everytime suicide bombers mutilate more of their own plays into their hands.

Boazy: "Your holy book curses me, but mine blesses you "As the Father sent me, so I send you" "If you love only those who love you, what is your reward" Jesus wants me to love you, your holy book wants to destroy me for following the One who wants me to love you :) -go figure."

OK. Boazy's book is nicer in some parts than Fellow Human's is. However, they're both ultimately books of stories, written by people.

As usual, Pericles is on the money. Boaz repeatedly posts very suspect - often outright dishonest - stats in this forum in order to draw attention to his odious ideas. When confronted with them, he typically deploys some weaselly rationalisation about how he was misinformed rather than dishonest - and then after a short blissful silence comes back and spouts similar bulldust in another thread.

I seem to read an awful lot of hateful crap in this forum by Christian nutters bagging Islam and/or Muslims, but what I read from Muslim authors and commentators tends to be reasonable and conciliatory. It seems to me that the Christian nutters succeed far better in making Christianity even less attractive to us non-Christians than they do in discrediting Islam.

C J Morgan,
Thanks for steadying old Boazy up.

And yes ,Muslim academics must be more vocal in their oposition to violence anywhere .

Jim

Bush went to war as President of the USA not as a Christian. It's the Muslims who refer to this as a Religious war.

If you really want to understand a religion look at its founder and it's holy book.

A lot of bad things done in the name of Christ have no similarity to what Jesus said or did, or to what is written in the Bible.

A lot of bad things done in the name of Islam reflect the teachings and actions or Mohammed as well as what is written in the Koran, the Hadith and other Islamic Holy books

That is why we we don't hear Muslim academics speaking up because the terrorists are following what was taught by Mohammed and their own holy writings. I would also suggest that a number of these academics agree with the terrorist approach but do not want to show their hand.

Boaz,

I am glad that many other posters can see what you are up to.
Just practice what you believe and be happy and be a 'christ like' as Jim correctly called it. I am sure he wouldn't appreciate deceitful behaviour.

proverbs,

"That is why we we don't hear Muslim academics speaking up"
Muslims scholars and academics (See a sample below) have been speaking against violence for the last 2 decades at least.
My first comment to Abe is that they don't have media space but you can just google it or keep repeating rhetoric comments.

http://www.rayhawk.com/classics/matusa/islam.html
http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm

Peace,

T

F.H. I'm 'up' to exposing some of the dark side of the 'Islamic force'...

If you asked 100 people in the street "Did you know that the Quran CURSES Christians and Jews because of their core beliefs" ? I think you might get some who would 'guess' it 'yes' but most would not have a clue.

So.... that, for the record is what I'm up to. For Kartiya and CJ and Pericles (the gang of 3, but where Kartiya is the most noticably sincere of the 3, Pericles second and CJ. runnning way behind on that score)

"Christ like". Thats just a re-run of the 'your a bad Christian' attack that Marylin Shepherd used to heap on us. The facts are that Jesus was both harsh and gentle. He was harshEST on those who have been given ample evidence of His divinity and Messiahship.

Luke 10:13
Woe to you, Chorazin! woe to you, Bethsaida! for if the works of power which have taken place in you had taken place in Tyre and Sidon, they had long ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

So lets not become debating bottom feeders and resort to guilt trips to silence our 'enemies'.

I do need slowing down at times, granted, but I've yet to be criticized on my sourcing and factuality on Islam apart from our resident apologist F.H. who is more than a little determined to avoid at all costs facing up to the content of his Quran and Prophet.

QUESTION: What is the topic ?
ANSWER: "Muslim academics must speak up"
QUESTION: "Speak up about what"?
ANSWER: "Ability to self criticize"

Where to I fit in this ? Simple, I'm raising important issues which require 'self criticism'.
Where are you gang of 3 fitting in ? Ad hominems against me.

Muslim leaders will never self-criticize publicly or even privately because of they have always suffered from paranoia and extreme insecurity.

The whole concept of Islam is but a house of cards. They follow religiously the words (and threats) of a deranged man from Mecca who walk up from a trance and started to dream up a political and social revolution.

Take for example the Al-Aqsa mosque in the news again. As soon as some Israelis scratched a bit of dirt around it hey presto hands up and curse the invaders.

Never mind that the mosque is the result of a dream “mirage” that their dear prophet had and that he was transported (out of body) to Jerusalem and ascended (like Jesus of course) to heaven to visit with the real prophet… pure fantasy.

The mosque is an abomination and a curse to the Jews and the Christians alike, Islam has no legitimate reason to be in Jerusalem.

But we won’t go and flatten their mosque - as Muslims surely would have. We let them live their dreams and their supremacist beliefs to their own peril.

Who would Muslims listen to? Their Academics only repeat the same lies of the Qur’an over and over or they will be shut up.

Thanks for those two references Fellow human. I intent to look at them more closely.

I have a friend who has lived in a Muslim Country in Central Asia for 15 years and she tells me that there are many school of Musliom thought that teach peace and tolerance. Her comment is that the Koran is so contradictory that the peacefull Muslims and the terrorists bothe use it to justify their position. I am not dispiuting that. The problem is it is not allways easy to detirmine what side any particular Muslim academuic or cleric is taking.

There are those who hold to the terrorist view point but do not want to show that side of themselves to the west. Then there are the peacefull muslims who take the view that we must not critisise our fellow Muslims.

I would like to see more muslims in Western countries organising peace rallies and protesting against the violence by radical Muslims as giving a bad name to Islam. That alone will do so much to curb a lot of the anti muslim thought. If Muslims are serious about showing a posative image then lets see the same degree of passion in protest of violence and suicide bombers etc as we see in protest of cartoons.

Proverbs,

I agree with your comments there is always room to do more.
Thank you for your comments.

Boaz,

I am not doing the 'merry go round round round' again enjoy it with coachy junior in your lap:)

When you are ready to show some intellectual grunt and add real value let me know.

Peace,
T

Interesting defence Boaz.

>>Where are you gang of 3 fitting in ? Ad hominems against me<<

I suspect I need to plead guilty, but with mitigation.

The concept of ad hominem is "playing the man not the ball", is it not?

Clearly, this is not acceptable. But the line becomes a little harder to identify is when man and ball are deliberately conflated, making it tough for the opponent to address the ball without taking out the man at the same time.

This is an example of what I find challenging (no need to identify the writer of course):

>>Reflect on this reality from his 'example' and you might gain an insight about why I am adamant that Islam came from a Murderer, Torturer,Cruel,Megalomaniacal, sexually predatorial and politically opportunistic evil man<<

My difficulty with you, and I confess it, is that whenever you start one of your hate-speech rants about the evils of Islam, I find it difficult to state what I feel without infringing the ad hominem rules, since you identify so strongly with your position that they appear inseparable.

Try as I might, I cannot determine an impersonal stance when faced with your "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer" rabble-rousing, and your insistence that whatever passages you select from ancient texts are the only ones that are relevant.

It has escaped your notice on any number of occasions that - in exactly the same way that Christian fanatics have cut a bloody swathe through history at various times in the past - the current disturbances are also the work of fanatics.

It is the fact that they differ from you only in the particular brand of fanaticism that drives your crusade against them.

I am not prepared to examine ancient texts with you to judge which has the more bloody phraseology, or even whether one or the other has a more credible provenance.

But I will continue to take issue with you, personally, when you deliberately use your own, idiosyncratic interpretation of someone else's holy book to justify your immoderate outpourings against its adherents.

Hi Pericles...
One point first.. I don't think I've said the passages I quote are the 'only' ones relevant, but I am saying they are urgently relevant.
Why ? because they are so different from the 'sugar coated candy' selection which are usually promoted on Islamic web sites.
"Islam is a religion of Peace" is the mantra. But I say to you, it is not, and the reason it is not, can be clearly shown from the development of the earliest history including the founder. I can show this from his own words.

All of my claims about Mohammed and Islam can be supported by their own scriptures and traditions.

When a government (Indonesia) says 'You cannot have a permit to build a Church' Christians worship where they can..IN THE STREET.. and while this might be called 'provocative' to some, it sure brings out the real hate in serious Muslims as shown here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJRcKcjJM9w&mode=related&search=

Note the encounter between the Muslim bloke and one of the Christians.. the hand grasp..followed by the attempted king hit.
Dare I say it.. fully in the spirit of Mohammed and his companions.

I've often said 'Islam is incompatable with Australia' and I've justified this by saying "The bigger the community, the larger the percentage of violent radicals"...right ?
Contrast this with the Christian community. Using Abu Izzadden as our focus point. He publically berates the Home Minister Ried.. and humiliates him, the government and the wider community.

Muslims en masse hold up signs 'Kill those who insult the prophet' in London.. and how many "Radical Christians" attacked them ? hunted them down ? etc.. NONE.

F.H. See this please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIgFug6Rr3g&mode=related&search=

So, while our community is HUGE it is not true to say 'The bigger the Christian community, the greater percentage of 'violent radicals'.

But this IS true of the Muslim community. The Muslim community is not all tarred with the terrorist or violent brush, but its fringes are.
Ask Tom Zrieka.. "I'll carve off your head, you don't represent me" said a death threat from one supporter of the 'moderate' sheikh Hillali.

Abraham Bentar rohadi.. (the man in the video in my previous post) former Muslim.

http://www.impalapublications.com/blog/index.php?/archives/553-Abraham-Bentar-Rohadi,-by-James-OFee.html

Rohadi, who is 55 and from West Java, was charged with blasphemy after telling clients that Jesus had appeared to him in a dream and healed him of a stroke.

It was Rohadi's brother-in-law who reported him to the authorities, accusing him initially of trying to convert people to Christianity by force and blaspheming the Prophet Mohammed. Later, when Rohadi was visiting a relative in Tasikmalaya, West Java, 'hundreds of Muslims' stormed the house and attacked Rohadi. He was nearly dead by the time police got him to hospital.

....and so fullfilled are the words of our Lord.

Mat 10: 34

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'

MUSLIM LEADERS.. ACADEMICS.. speak up.. speak to Indonesia.. ask them to re-think his treatment.

Boaz, you still lack self-awareness:

>>I don't think I've said the passages I quote are the 'only' ones relevant, but I am saying they are urgently relevant. Why ? because they are so different from the 'sugar coated candy' selection which are usually promoted on Islamic web sites.<<

How is this different from "sugar-coated" Christian web sites? Would you be comfortable if I continually sniped at these using, say, descriptions of the Jerusalem massacre of 1099?

"The Crusaders savagely murdered the Jewish and Moslem inhabitants of Jerusalem. The dimensions of the massacre were so horrific that 'rivers of blood' flowed through the streets and even covered the horses hooves. William of Tyre described the victorious Crusaders 'dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which bought terror to all who met them'. The Jewish community was locked in the central synagogue and burnt alive. The few thousand survivors, out of a population of 40,000, were sold as slaves at the city gates. When they finished murdering thousands of innocent people the Crusaders gathered at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to give thanks."

(From the Bar-Ilan University website, by the way, not a particularly pro-Muslim institution)

"By their deeds shall ye know them" applies to terrorists of any persuasion, ancient or modern.

Fighting a war of words, as you are Boaz, is only of value where facts are in dispute. We know that your religion disagrees with Islam, so there is absolutely no value in filling page after page of bilious reference to a fifteen-century-old text.

You are also belittling the value of freedom of thought and expression. On the one hand you complain bitterly that "a government (Indonesia) says 'You cannot have a permit to build a Church'", which is clearly an unenlightened approach. But you then advocate that Islam becomes "Australianised" (or "Christianised", to be more precise), which is equally a form of oppression.

What nature of country would you prefer to live in? One that dictates what you may think, or one that allows you to come to your own conclusions?

Dear Pericles..

If you wish to snipe away about the Crusades.. feel free to do so mate. But I'd prefer you limited your criticism to the 'apples with apples' approach, of the founder and those closest to him in both cases.

My response will be my standard one.."Can you connect such things to Christ and the Apostles by example or teaching".... clearly no.

Such is not the case in Islam.

My references to Islam are as follows:
1/ Founder Mohammed.
2/ Quran
3/ Hadith
4/ Sunna (which includes the 2 above plus biographies which are based on the first 2 plus supplmentary information gleaned from witnesses)

I focus on the personal behavior of Mohammed, as reported in those direct documents, to promote a contrast with that of Christ and the Apostles.

You know as well as I do, that if you look around the world, the degree of violence emanating from the Islamic states and followers is endemic and massive. Not so in Christian states or among Christians generally. The explanation for this is in the sources, and foundations.

You may argue (as Muslims would) that Iraq is a classic 'crusade'..but the evidence points to the contrary. No one is taxing the Muslims if they don't embrace Christ, nor is anyone telling them they have 3 choices:

1/ Embrace Christ
2/ Pay a tax
3/ Fight and die or be exiled.

But refer this please:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html scroll to 4294 and read closely.

Note the last deceptive paragraph.

I don't call on Muslims to become 'Christianized' I call on them (as for you) to repent and believe in the Gospel and come to Christ as Saviour and Lord. i.e. Become 'Christians'.

Boaz, you should understand that I place equal weight on the veracity, accuracy, relevance and value of all religious and quasi-religious texts. So referring me to "The Book of Jihad" means as much to me as the Book of Hosea (I'm working from memory here, so forgive me if that was inaccurate) or Paul's Epistle to Philemon.

The problem you have in coming to a balanced assessment of the problems created by religion is that you rely upon one set of texts, and one set of texts only, the New Testament, without any question as to how the content of those texts were sifted and collated, by whom, and to what purpose.

You see, a questioning observer from Alpha Centauri might properly ask how come there is only one narrative here, and how come none of it is from sources contemporary with the main subject?

You glibly ask "Can you connect such things to Christ and the Apostles by example or teaching" when you know full well that the records that you use as reference support only your side of the story.

I would, I confess, be a lot less sceptical if there were one - just one - contemporary record that supports all those sugary feelgood stories about water into wine, lepers healed, stormy waters calmed.

From what I have read, even the most ardent believers have difficulty handling this without resorting to artifice.

"there is not a lot of evidence to go on here. For one thing, the biblical gospels refer to only a few people who are mentioned in extra-biblical sources, though we have more to go on when it comes to geography. Moreover, secular historians writing within a century of Jesus's death show only the tiniest interest in Jesus. This shouldn't be surprising, of course, because from the perspective of Roman historian writing at this time, Jesus was an insignificant blip on the screen." [Mark Roberts "Are the Gospels Reliable"]

Why, if there was this guy wandering around raising people from the dead, and then raising himself from the dead, didn't anyone notice at the time?

Pericles,
Ouch,now that hurts .

Kartiya :) to quote one prominent politician who's name escapes me.. (American I think).."He didn't lay a glove on me" (Pericles)

*sigh*.... Pericles.. Cronulla.. now what relevance does that have to the idea of say the day of Pentecost..or Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead ? PLENTY.. Cronulla was a big event.. it hit the news, but within a month had pretty much faded from prominence. Everyone went home, got back to their lives..and so on.

There is ample evidence internally and externally, including the disputed passage (and the undisputed one)in Josephus, to testify to the reality of Christ. Keep looking... you'll get there.

"BOAZ relies on just one narrative, (NT) and that simply supports his view" really ? ur most welcome to bring Hosea and any other book in the Old Testament to bear on such discussions. Hosea is a good example. God told him "GO...MARRY A HOOKER" in blunt language. But the context clearly shows that this was a symbolic gesture, for specific circumstances, not something to be generalized.

That sword has another edge.. I'm only comparing source documents with source documents and the Islamic ones simply don't see the same problems I do about Islam or its portrayal of God. The fact that the hadith shows Mohammed carving peoples hands and feet off, and poking hot irons in their eyes.. tells you what ? that they don't see such behavior as a problem!

So, the criticism is of their moral/ethical base, as contained in their own traditions which they use as basis for ISLAMIC LAW TODAY.
The hadith are grouped in terms of their legal implications for the Islamic state.

Muslim book 30 is "The book pertaining to the excellent qualities of the Prophet and his companions"
Book 18 "The book pertaining to Judicial decisions"

Our legal system is based on only ONE Old/New testament idea "Do for others as you would have them do for you"

The Church (not the entire society) has this:

"abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." (Acts 15:20)

Pericles
True, Jesus was a minor character and not really worth writing about during his lifetime.

The gospels were written by people who knew Jesus. Also true.

However, Assuming the writers of the New Testament did exaggerate events or even made up a fictitious character called Jesus, then why are there no reports from that era refuting his existence.

When Christianity grew historians started writing about Jesus. Some writers despised the Christians and had nothing to gain be perpetuating a lie.

Jesus died between 29AD and 36AD. Josephus wrote about Jesus in 93AD, 56 years after his death. Other mentions of Jesus came 80 to 100 years after his death (Pliny the Younger c.111-117 AD and Tacitus Roman Annals c.115-117 C.E.). It would have been very easy for any of those writers to find local records and individuals to verify what they wrote. Just because those sources are not around 2000 years later doesn’t mean they didn’t exist at the time.

It is hard to imagine that people from various backgrounds which included supporters and opponents, would collaborate to make false statements about stuff that happened 50 to 90 years ago and there not be on single document renouncing those reports?.

Try making up a story about a guy who lived 50 to 100 years ago, who supposedly travelled the country performing miracles, raising the dead and healing the sick. Who was killed by the local authorities who confirmed his death, supervised his burial and put a 24-hour armed guard on the grave. Despite this he was reported to have risen from the dead three days later and was seen by thousands over a six-week period. Now try presenting that as fact and posting it on Wikipedia. How long would it take before we saw all sorts of documents and first hand reports from people in the area saying it never happened and the person never existed?

Evidence that Jesus existed may be questionable but the fact that not one writer in those first couple of centuries challenged the existence of Jesus strongly suggests to me that he did exist

It is probably on YouTube, Boaz.

>>to quote one prominent politician who's name escapes me.. (American I think).."He didn't lay a glove on me"<<

In fact, it was the infamous Dan Rather interview with George Bush Senior, when Dan became a little pushy. The full quote, for your edification, was:

"The bastard didn't lay a glove on me"

C-Span actually sold copies of the interview tape, it was so infamous.

However, the issue then was whether Bush Senior was involved in "Iran Contra", and Rather went a little over the top in his questioning technique. So it was more the manner in which the questions were asked, than their actual content, that turned it into a cause celèbre.

>>.. Cronulla.. now what relevance does that have to the idea of say the day of Pentecost..or Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead ? PLENTY.. Cronulla was a big event.. it hit the news, but within a month had pretty much faded from prominence<<

Are you trying to pass off a few thugs scrapping at the seaside with someone bringing a dead body back to life?

You will find plenty of detail on, say, the mods and rockers fighting on Brighton beach in 1964, an entirely comparable event that has already lasted forty-plus years. If on the same day it had been reported that a bloke in Liverpool had cured an officer's batman's leprosy by proxy, simply by saying to a soldier "Go; let it be done for you according to your faith", that too would have stood the test of time, I suspect.

As proverbs points out, "Evidence that Jesus existed may be questionable but the fact that not one writer in those first couple of centuries challenged the existence of Jesus strongly suggests to me that he did exist"

That is saying that the strongest evidence for his existence is the lack of evidence.

Conspiracy theorists use that argument, regularly, and for the same reason.

"That is saying that the strongest evidence for his existence is the lack of evidence.

Conspiracy theorists use that argument, regularly, and for the same reason."

Pericles.
If that is your interpretation of what I said then you missed my point.

Many people assume that because there is only a handfull of references to the existence of Jesus then it is questionable that he existed.

My point is that even though there are only a few references to the existence of jesus there are some factors that need to be considered, which would suggest that this is not just another conspiricy theory.

1. Written reports about Jesus, come from a variety of sources by a whole range of people, including:
Friends
(since when do we dismiss historical documents because they were written by supporters of a person?)

Enemies
(these people have nothing to gain by perpetuating a lie so why not deny his existence)

Government officials

Historians and casual observers.

2. All of these people acknowledge the existence of Jesus.

3. There is no documentation from that period to dispute those reports.

If someone 2000 years from now came across a variety of Sources outlineing any one of the many conspiricy theories around today then they would also probably find other sources that refute those theories.

That is simply not the case here

I believe there is strong evidence to indicate that the Jesus Christians follow was a real person who was a dynamic teacher who not only had a positive impact on those around him but continued to bring about positive change to Billions of others for thousands of years. I doubt that any of todays conspiricy theories would survive and multiply in this way.

Drifting...DRIFTING I say.... yes.. last time I checked this thread was about "Muslim Clerics must speak up" .. Pericles.. you are turning it into "Christian Apologetics 101".

I've often criticized Muslims over such Quranic verses as Chapter 33:50 where among a list of categories of women who Mohammed is authorized to marry, is included this statement.

SHAKIR: O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you

-your wives
-those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war.
-the daughters of your paternal uncles and Aunts (condensed)
-a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her-- specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; (NOTE, Mohammed practiced/approved temporary/pleasure marriage which could be one night)

We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.]

Ooooooh Yes.. Allah is INDEED forgiving.. and MERCIFUL.. esPECially to the prophet.. in fact far more so than the 'earthling' believers.

COMMENT:
Now..bear in mind, this is the 'Divine word of Allah for all time'
according to Muslims.

But..does anyone see it ? "any believing woman" ? If we were talking about money here, it would be a 'licence to print money'...

I'd be less picky if it did not relate to the most primal and basest of human passions.. The use of divine saction for promiscuity in the name of 'revealed truth' is too much like David Koresh and his self authorization to have sexual contact with young girls at Waco.

I'll claim a high degree of confidence that David Koresh did NOT extend the privilege of abundant young girl playthings to his 'ordinary' followers.. no way..that was strictly for him alone.

If Koresh was criticized it is legitimate. If mohammed is criticized, Muslims claim "Perverse minds see perverse things". So.. to see licentiousness in Mohammeds actions, is 'perverse' ? Somehow I just don't see that.
MUSLIM ACADEMICS...SPEAK UP !

Discussing the existence of Jesus has nothing to do with subject heading, "Muslim academics must speak up." They were asked to prove that violence is not the very essence of Islam -- this they cannot do, without denying aya after aya of the Koran, and section after section of the Hadith and the Sharia Law.
The non-Muslims need to read these ayas (verses):-

7:4 (or 3):- How many cities have we destroyed! ...
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/007.qmt.html#007.004

8:12:- ... I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.012

8:38 (or 40):- Make war on them until strife shall be at an end, and the religion be all of it Allah's.

8:55 (or 57):- Lo! the worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful who <b>will not believe.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.055

Go to the public library, and read the Koran, Dewey 297.1225.

John.. important as those verses are from the Quran, each of them will inevitably be argued by Muslims as 'defensive' in character.

I always point (as you appear to have done) to the hadith to gain insight into how Mohammed himself and his companions understood and interpreted and applied those Quranic verses.

Bukhari Vol 4 Book 53 Number 386
[Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master."]

The same sentiments are echo'd in Muslim book 1 Number 31, 32, 33.

It could not be more clear... if Tennis this would be "Game Set Match"..if chess "Checkmate" if footy "Full time siren"

GOAL: "Allahs religion rules"
METHOD: "Violent invasion or the threat thereof"
INDUCEMENT: "Luxury, Reward, Mastery over slaves"

The only thing left to do is begin to restructure our society, police and armed forces along lines which reflect an awareness of this challenge. Churches also need to wake up and smell the soon coming jihadists breathing down their spiritual necks.

John

Thank you for correcting me. I must admit that I got sucked into discussing the existence of Jesus because Pericles responded to quotes from the Koran and Hadith by saying that we cannot trust any religious books and that there is no real evidence that Jesus existed.

I often find that people on these forums use the "attack is the best form of defence" approach when they don’t have a leg to stand on. Rather than directly address the issue at hand and the arguments presented, they respond with "yeh, well what about the Christians"

Personally there are three religious beliefs that I find ridiculous.

They are:

1. Mahomet was given a whole code of life by the Angel Gabriel.
2. God came down to earth as his son Jesus Christ.
3. God in person gave Moses a set of laws.

I don't see any of this worth arguing about.

What I do see is this:

1. All three have a similar philosophy of life.
2. All three have produced some marvelous thinkers and humanitarians.
3. All three have produced fanatics who seem to have distorted the teachings of their founders.
4. The fundamental basis of all these beliefs is commendable.

Dear Celeste...(Logic) I want to pick you up on one point of your list.

Point 3 of your second list.

[3. All three have produced fanatics who seem to have distorted the teachings of their founders.]

This is where (no offense) you are totally misguided. We can disagree on the other points, re Moses, and the Incarnation, as they are matters of faith. But that point 3 of yours is one of misrepresentation of verifiable fact.

Radical Muslims are simply Quranic/Hadithic Muslims. I can prove this to you easily. Note..I said 'prove' not hint or suggest.

Surah 9:29
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Notwithstanding an earlier verse which refers to the infidels breaking their oaths and restricting Muslims to 'fight in Allahs way' and 'not to transgress'... The important question is to see how the whole concept of 'fighting' for Allah is actually interpreted by Mohammed and his companions. After all, no one knew these verses better than they right ?

HADITH MUSLIM BOOK 1 number 30, 31, and 32.
It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that he heard the Messenger of Allah say: I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord)

Each of those hadiths has a DIFFERENT narrator. The same idea is included in Bukhari where the context is about countries Omar is planning to INVADE. (after already expanding and invading many tribes and regions)

So, the idea of aggressive jihad/struggle/war/invasion is not 'conjecture' it is established and undeniable fact as being true Islam. It is clearly not a distortion of the 'founder's ideas..it is an implementation of them based on his repeated example.

That is the pot calling the kettle black, proverbs.

>>I often find that people on these forums use the "attack is the best form of defence" approach when they don’t have a leg to stand on<<

The majority of this thread has been an all-out attack on Islam, and on Muslims by association. I simply pointed out that the basis for all these attacks is flimsy, in that it relies upon interpretations of ancient manuscripts, predominantly by people with a strong vested interest in the "accuracy" of their own particular, idiosyncratic interpretation.

As I said in my earlier mail, I personally cannot place any faith in a document that has so many omissions and lacunae. In most cases, a document or book or letter unearthed by archaeologists will be carefully placed in context of all other contemporary fragments, and a judgement made on i) the bias or predisposition or purpose of the author and ii) the chronology and authorship of similar - and conflicting - documents.

I questioned whether the Gospels are an accurate account of the life of a man who appears nowhere else in history to have performed the deeds ascribed to him.

This is your argument. See if you can spot the flaws:

>>Written reports about Jesus, come from a variety of sources by a whole range of people, including:
Friends
(since when do we dismiss historical documents because they were written by supporters of a person?)
Enemies
(these people have nothing to gain by perpetuating a lie so why not deny his existence)
Government officials
Historians and casual observers.
2. All of these people acknowledge the existence of Jesus.
3. There is no documentation from that period to dispute those reports.<<

Which of these is a) contemporary and b) describes the acts and deeds that he is presumed to have performed?

Incidentally, are you able to give references for each? That would certainly help me understand your points.

To say that this argument is not relevant to a thread excoriating a religion for the content of its scriptures is simply perverse.

This is not a thread about the authenticity of a particular religion or it’s Scriptures and I am willing to acknowledge that I got caught up in that argument. It is a thread about why Muslim academics do not speak out against those who are supposedly misrepresenting Islam by committing acts of terror in the name of Islam.

Some have suggested that it is due to an inability to engage in self criticism. Others have pointed out that Islamic texts advocate violence and Muslim Academics cannot speak out against something the believe to be true.

Whether you or I believe in Islam or Christianity or any other religion is irrelevant. The question is, what do the academics believe? If they believe that Islam truly does condemn violence, then why are they not speaking out with the same level of passion as when someone draws a cartoon that is less than flattering toward their religion.

Having said that, here are a few references. If we want to discuss this side issue further then maybe we should start a new thread

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus A Roman Government official who was very anti Christian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger Not sure where this guys stood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus From what I can determine Josephus was a supporter. It wasn’t until the 17th Century that people began to raise questions about his impartiality.

It is likely that each of these guys used local documents and records of the time. When we are looking back over 2000 years then I would consider 50 years to be reasonably contemporary.

As for documentation about the Acts of Jesus, I do not have any (other than the gospels) nor did I claim to have any.

See also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

proverbs, I respectfully disagree.

>>This is not a thread about the authenticity of a particular religion or it’s Scriptures<<

It most certainly is, but my point was the dearth of evidence supporting the activities of Jesus in his lifetime, not the "authenticity" of any particular religion. To me, it is a very dangerous act to base an entire mission of hatred on vague and ancient documents.

Let's quickly review a few posts.

>>I'm most focused on your point about 'How Modern muslims interpret' the Quran << (Boaz)

>>Just because Mohammad borrowed some Biblical stories does not qualify Him as a Jewish prophet, nor does it make the Qur’an a divine revelation<< (coach)

>>The Word of God is Jesus – any contradiction to the Bible is therefore a false prescription that can only lead humanity astray<< (coach)

>>I doubt I would be part of the 'problem' as you put it, if I didn't find such things as this in the Quran... So, we have convincing evidence from A) Quran B) Hadith that we are the scum of the earth who Allah must destroy << (Boaz)

>>The absence of any such rebuttal would then support the contentions of a number posters above who source the problems back to the Koran itself.>> (Bigmal)

And so on, and on, and on.

The entire anti-Islam campaign here is based upon interpretations of its scriptures, just as every pro-Christian here justifies their position by reference to their own. How can it not be about the scriptures?

Incidentally, your references are a) all derived from Wikipedia and b) dreadfully thin. In fact, I would myself use them as strong evidence of my own point, that contemporary support for the gospel stories upon which Christianity is based - loaves and fishes, raising the dead etc. - is non-existent.

You may start another thread on this topic if you wish, but you won't be able to get past the fact that the only people who believe there is adequate evidence of Jesus' activities are those who have to believe in order to justify their blind faith

BOAZ_David

I don't know why you confuse me with a Celeste. My name is Peter.

Another correspondent thought I was female, I know not why. I believe you said you are sometimes around Flinders St station. If so I will look you up.

Actually, there is another argument that I didn't make, proverbs, that is very much along the lines of your "they didn't deny his existence, therefore he must have existed" train of thought.

Not that I am offering an opinion either way, as I said before, on whether or not there was this guy called Jesus, just that the deeds that are attributed to him may have been invented later in order to command some kind of following.

My new argument goes like this, thanks to Philo who forced me to check a KJV quote from Luke on another thread.

According to Luke, this guy Jesus was seriously famous.

e.g. Luke 4.14 "Jesus returned [to Galilee] in the power of the spirit, and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about" and Luke 4.37 "the fame of him went out into every place of the country round about" and Luke 5.15 "so much the more went there a fame abroad of him, and great multitudes came together to hear..."

In amongst all this were the tales of the miracles - lepers, the guy with palsy, the guy with "a spirit of an unclean devil" and so on.

So we have all the makings of seriously newsworthy events - headline stuff too, not just A Current Affair material. Not only the miracles, the crowds, the kerfuffle, but all the authority figures that he went around upsetting too, surely they would have mounted some form of public defence...

Surely, someone would have been sufficiently impressed to record the events? And others sufficiently motivated to retain those records for future reference?

But what do we have?

Silence.

No contemporary sources.

At all.

None.

Now I am sure that to you, this is the clearest evidence possible that the stories are true, 'cos hey, who in their right mind would concoct such stuff?

But to me, it is one big hole, through which a truck may safely be driven.

Proverbs,

“It is a thread about why Muslim academics do not speak out against those who are supposedly misrepresenting Islam by committing acts of terror in the name of Islam.
The question is, what do the academics believe?”

http://www.islamfortoday.com/murad04.htm
http://www.rayhawk.com/classics/matusa/islam.html

My top comment still stands: its media and audience choice, you can google zillions of statements by muslim academics if you ‘chose’ to.
All muslims know that Islam and its academics is against violence.
I acknowledge your problem when your source of learning of Islam is the Media and Boaz David.

Boaz,

A challenge from another type: a proof that the Bible prophecy is about Mohammed pbuh:
http://www.jamaat.net/muhinbible/muhinbible.html
30 years outstanding article and none of your 'truth seeker'mob dared to comment. Any thoughts? :-)

Peace,

T

Fellow_Human: Please- mohamad mentioned in the Christian Bible - what a load of utter and total garbage! mohamad "stole" the Bible as have many other false (dare I say pagan) prophets. Your religion F_H is a death loving anti democrat cult. Regards, numbat

FH,

Your desperate attempt to prove Islam by conveniently using the Bible for reference is hypocritical and fraudulent to say the least. If you want to use the Bible use it in its entirety – not just half a verse here and there.

Deedat and his supporters have tried it for decades and failed. But it seems you are still using his deceptive theories in your da’wa efforts of converting the world to your cult.

The Qur’an and the Bible are two different documents. The Bible is historically and archeologically reliable – the Qur’an is not (unsubstantial words of one Arab man).

All the claims made – starting by your alleged prophet down to today’s Islamic scholars – that the Qur’an is the direct word of (God) are simply not plausible – view the many mistakes, bogus biblical accounts, and flagrant doctrinal differences with the real God as revealed in the Bible.

Islamic scholars dismiss the Bible out of prejudice and fear. They know that it reveals The Truth but prefer to smear it with: “it has been altered” thus discouraging Muslims to read it.

Allah the God of Islam resembles the God of the Bible, and that causes a lot of confusion for the casual observer. The test is in the differences and not the similarities.

Mohammed could not have met the real God (YHWH) in his so called revelations through a spirit. Allah is simply a mistaken identity, a pretend god. But Mohammad continued with his deception by refusing to acknowledge the real God worshipped by Jews and Christians.

What Mohammad lacked theologically he compensated with the sword.

The last “prophet” was Jesus – God-The-Son Himself. No further revelation was needed after He fulfilled the law and ALL the prophets before Him.

Your failure to understand the full nature of the Triune God puts you in a very disadvantaged position to argue your case. You see God with Qur’anic eyes and not as revealed by the prophets through the centuries before Mohammad.

The Bible clearly warns about false prophets coming after Jesus. So why would it endorse Mohammad?

FH,

Are you clutching at the last straw?
It's obvious Ahmed Deedat cunningly twisted words to suit his argument and setup strawmen for what they are worth. He came across as just another dishonest Muslim academic. Certainly he was no intellect (as there is NO such thing as a Muslim intellect).

Here's one direct response to Deedat's dishonesty:
http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Gilchrist/muhammad.html

The Jews and Christians have their religions and so Muhammad wanted to also establish a religion for the Arabs, the arch-enemy of Jews. There were untold personal benefits for Muhammad to so do.

So he started telling people he met Angel Gabriel and then the hoax grew and took on a life of it's own... Today this hoax has a respectable name - Islam.

It is laughable Muslims' claim that Muhammad's illiteracy is proof Allah must had put words in his mouth. I am sure Muhammad, illerate he might be, must'd been a very communicative person. You won't expect someone who could successfully command an army to be any less than being cunning, manipulative and communicative (and violent, too).

Too much is at stake for you to ever concede that Muslims are believing in a hoax- Your Arab culture, wishes of your father, forefathers and dignity of fellow Muslims. Is this not why Muslims will steadfastly clutching their straws?

Dear F.H. I'm glad ur hanging in here.. please spend some time on Muslim village and tell them they can also come here and defend their faith among critics who cannot be banned :) and surprise surprise they will also not banned from here for defending Islam. But I've been banned from that forum twice.

AHMED DEEDAT.. I rarely waste my time on him, as his arguments are so poverty stricken as pointed out above by another poster.

THE ONLY thing of value in Deedats theories is that in trying to show Mohammad was the fulfillment of "one like Moses" he also admits to Jesus divine origin :) I don't know if he was on medication that day and it was a slippup...but his testimony of the Divine origin of Jesus (Not having an earthly father) is the very demolition of his enture argument. He just does not see it.

I want to see Muslim academics disprove my own connection between Surah 9:29 and Hadith Bhukari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/053.sbt.html#004.053.386

Further supporting evidence is found in Hadith Muslim book 1 numbers 31, 32, and 33.

Convincing in my view.

Just out of curiosity, how do you explain the clear understanding in Mohammads mind as per the hadith about how he understood his Quran ?

(Let me guess "Anything in the Hadith which contradicts the Quran is not acceptable" :

Boaz, you noted:

>>... Muslim village ... I've been banned from that forum twice<<

If your posts there are as objectionable as those you post here, then you should expect to be muzzled occasionally.

OLO is not dedicated to a particular topic, so you can expect a little leeway here.

However, if I posted to a "Christian Village Forum", continually telling them that they are barbaric child molesters and murderers, I'd expect to be sidelined too.

Unlike you, I believe that all - that is, 100% - of the acts of violence that occur in the name of religion are perpetrated by fanatics.

To me, this simply means that we should find a way to eliminate activities that create religious fanatics.

Waging war on a religion is not such a way. In fact, it has the opposite effect, as we have seen in Iraq.

Marching up and down carrying inflammatory placards is also going to make it easier, rather than more difficult, for these fanatics to recruit and inflame even more of their kind.

Constantly writing hate-mail to Islam, in the form of persistent denigration of their leader, their beliefs and their actions, is yet another way to ensure that the cycle of hatred continues to heat up, until it explodes in violence and bloodshed.

At which point, I have no doubt, you will declare victory.

"I told you so", Boaz will say, "Didn't I warn you it would end in violence and bloodshed?"

I'd like to introduce you to a concept that would appear to be completely alien to you.

Tolerance.

John Gray, a British philosopher, wrote recently:

"In any imagineable society we will have to put up with many things we reject as false or bad. When society is as plural as it is today, nearly everyone will find much in it that is distasteful and even hateful. In these circumstances, tolerance is needed more than ever.”

Learn to tolerate, not exaggerate, differences.

I know it is against your religion to do so, but please try anyway.

Have a great day.

Dear Pericles.
my understanding of tolerance is that it is more related to real world behavior and attitude. In that context I'm probably more tolerant than many.

But...THIS.. is a debate and opinion forum. As Irfy said "If you can't stand the heat in the Abrahamic Kitchen, then get out of it"

In this context we can discuss and promote or dispute ideas. There is probably no better place to do so, because Irf calling me an armchair nazi has pretty much zero effect on me, but the possibility of a visit at night from some muslim brothers does tend to focus the mind, thats where it crosses from 'debate' world to real close to home world.

I find you are still grinding that 'hate' axe.. when will you stop ?
When will you see that exposing, and discussing ideas is not hate, it's advancing dialogue and opening minds. That such debate contributes to ill feeling in the mind of those less mature is unquestionable. But the simple solution for the mature is to grasp the nettle and actually debate 'the issue'.

The example you may wish to persue in this regard is the hadith I referred to in the previous post. Can you dispute that Mohammed clearly understood and applied the Quranic teaching on 'fight them till Allah's religion rules' sentiments in aggressive and violent terms ?

If you can find information which disproves this conclusion then you have contibuted to the debate rather than simply blamed me for world poverty, global warming and the lousy sleep you had the other night.... and the such like. (you know what I mean)

If shining the light of truth on people and cherished ideas is contributing to violence, then I suggest it tells you more about the ideas and the people than the shiner of the light.

If however, the shiner uses the torch in a mocking, childish and deliberately insulting way (as opposed to stating the facts) for the purposes of personal ego gratification, then you may have a point.

Boaz, it is simple.

>>I find you are still grinding that 'hate' axe.. when will you stop ?<<

The millisecond after you stop your constant stream of hate-speak against Islam, I will stop pointing it out to you.

>>When will you see that exposing, and discussing ideas is not hate, it's advancing dialogue and opening minds<<

If you were indeed "exposing, and discussing ideas" I would have absolutely no problem at all in engaging with them. Instead, all that you present is a procession of uncontexted sound-bites that portray a religion to which you are opposed as primitive, vicious and depraved.

You are playing exactly the same game as every other rabble-rouser in history, picking minor factoids and blowing them up into a world conspiracy.

>>tolerance is... more related to real world behavior and attitude. In that context I'm probably more tolerant than many<<

Only in your own opinion, Boaz.

Tolerance in this context is the ability to live with people with whom you disagree, without taking every opportunity to i) denigrate their way of life, noisily and objectionably and ii) try to convince them that your way of life is infinitely superior.

The former is rude, the latter is tiresome. Together, they are the hallmark of an intolerant - and very smug - person.

>>If shining the light of truth on people and cherished ideas is contributing to violence, then I suggest it tells you more about the ideas and the people than the shiner of the light<<

Wrong. The simple fact that you believe you are "shining the light of truth" tells us everything we need to know about your smugness and your intolerance.

Also, since your "shining the light of truth" is nothing more than a one-sided rant against someone else's belief system, it is certain to generate antagonism, which, if carefully fostered, can be turned to fanaticism.

Yet you still deny that you are a rabble-rouser.

Pericles: "I know it is against your religion to do so..."

Your above sweeping statement tells me you didn't know what you're talking about. So spare us your smug presumptuousness on tolerance.

Firstly, the concept of peace (as Islam pretends to espouse) is not even a virtue. It is merely a desirable outcome with a selfish undertone.

Tolerance is more of a virtue. But even so, tolerance in itself needs not be a desirable quality. One can be tolerant of evil doers and that does not make tolerance a good thing. Above all tolerance is almost always a 'two-way street' with a tint of selfishness on both sides.

If you must rely on definitions and quotes provided by some famous narrators, then by all means gather more of those and then come and dispute what I have just said.

Pericles - if I may intrude here - as an outsider to the Abrahamic debate - you fail to appreciate the historical aggressive nature of Islam.

Unless you humble yourself and start reading their texts you will always play the arbitrator game blindfolded.

As Christians (and Jews) we are mentioned by name in their Qur'an and all other Islamic holy books. Islam has made it their business to eliminate us with their god Allah’s blessings naturally.

Islam is not your common god-worship incense-burning gong-sounding humming and chanting religion … it is a forceful political movement with the sole purpose to subdue the free world to their delusional ideologies.

Terror is but one of their tools to attain that goal. Jihad is the divine duty of every good Muslim.

So we are not attacking Islam for sport, but unveiling its true colours to the indifferent, ignorant Australian majority

Thanks for your contribution GZTan.

>>Firstly, the concept of peace (as Islam pretends to espouse) is not even a virtue. It is merely a desirable outcome with a selfish undertone<<

I'd like to point out that I was talking about tolerance, not "peace". Nevertheless, your comment is patent nonsense. Of course peace is a virtue, no matter who espouses it.

>>But even so, tolerance in itself needs not be a desirable quality<<

This may be your opinion, but it is not mine.

I am aware that the Bible is itself equivocal on this point. Jesus told people that "to him that strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also", which is pretty tolerant. But he also said "He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, he shall betray me... But woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed. It were better for him, if that man had not been born", which goes to the opposite extreme.

So I guess Christians can take their pick - or "make it up as they go along", as Boaz likes to say.

But my point was a little more specific. Hatred and intolerance has a habit of begetting hatred and intolerance. That has nothing to do with being a "desirable quality", simply a fact of human nature.

coach protests

>>... we are not attacking Islam for sport but unveiling its true colours<<

It never occurred to me that it might be sport, but there is no way that what you are doing will unveil anything but your own blind prejudices.

It also tells me that any chance of tolerance from coach and his bunch of co-haters is out of the question.

The question remains. What are you going to do, guys, when you achieve your aim of total, outright religious war? I can only assume that this is your divinely-inspired objective, because you are certainly going in the right direction to achieve it. Keep up with the hate-speak, and you will create more and fanatics with a reason to hate you in return.

Pericles difficulty is that he is committed to the culticultural/new age ethos that all cultures & religions are of equal value.

He sincerely believes that in defending Islam in this thread - he is defending the ideals of objectivity & tolerance .

However multicultural has sold him a pup - there are creeds out there which have some very dark currents and among them is Islam.

This does not mean that you should mistreat individual Moslems.
And it doesn’t mean that any criticism of Islam is a criticism of individual Moslem(s).

Rather it says that at its foundations, traditional Islam has precepts that are very alien/incompatible to modern western society .

One of Bin Laden's core arguments against moderate Moslems was/is that they are not applying all of Islam’s precepts, they are picking and choosing according to the time/fashion & he ( & others) sought to push them back into line.And if you look at the history of modern Iran ( well illustrated in "Reading Lolita in Tehran" written by an Iranian academic) you'll see how quickly & easily, moderates morphed into fundamenatlists -when it suited them.

Historically there has been a strong tendency for Islam to be moderate & accommodating during the initial stages Of entry to a country but to become more rigid/ authoritarian when it gains a dominant position . A point that makes many non-Muslims question the veracity of Muslims who claim to be moderates.

If Perciles cared to venture to such places as Southern Sudan
He’d find this traditional Islam - and its not a new or an isolated instance - what was Muammar al-Gaddafi’s initial comments re southern Sudan? -This had been going on for hundreds of years, what’s the fuss.

Or Pericles may like to try something closer too home like the Christian enclaves in Indonesia or Pakistan & see how they are faring .

Or investigate what happens when someone who converts from Islam to Christianity in Morocco or Saudi Arabia.

Pericles
I’m interested in getting past this “Boaz_does_hate_posts” to something deeper about your own position.

As I’ve reminded you a few times, this thread is about Muslim academics speaking up and their apparent inability to indulge in self criticism. I’ve enunciated various aspects of Islam which are eminently worthy of criticism and you describe them as decontextualized ‘soundbites’ and ‘rabble rousing’.

If an atheist criticized Christians for ‘narrow minded exclusionist bigotry’ and used John 3:16 as their justification.. would you call that an “isolated, decontextualized sound bite, , designed to incite hatred against Christians”. If you did, I would have to disagree. (that it is out of context) Because John 3:16 is as follows:

“For God so loved the world that He sent his only Son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life”

Now..this is a definitive statement of Christianity.. absolutely core and central. It IS exclusionary “Whoever believes” i.e...those outside of Christ WILL perish. It is ‘bigoted’ and ‘narrow minded’ if you wish to take it that way.....but the point is, we, as Christians cannot and will not retreat from its meaning.....because it is central. We can bear the criticism and take it. No sugar coating.

If I was railing against seemingly obscure verses or sentences from Mien Kampf and my diatribes were against National Socialism, would you be calling me a hate inspiring rabble rouser against well meaning and misrepresented Nazi’s? -I would like to know your answer and your reasons for it.<-IMPORTANT.

Both National Socialism and Islam aim for a STATE, and if I may ‘graze’ among the Date Palms of Khaibar again for a moment, the outcome of that horrendous battle, besides the slow torture and decapitation of a Jewish Chief and the theft and in my view rape of his 17 yr old wife by a 60 yr old Mohammad, was that ALL PROPERTY was taken for the Islamic state(including many women and children as slaves), and the remaining people were taxed at 50% of their gross income. -This set the pattern for the Jizya Tax on Christians and Jews.

Pericles,

>>… what you are doing will unveil anything but your own blind prejudices.<<

Maybe that is the impression you and some others may deduce from watching this from “the indifferent, ignorant Australian majority” stand. But one thing is comforting to (us) is that the world post 9/11 has had a chance to take the scales out of their eyes and understand – perhaps the first time – the true motivation behind the Islamic display of hatred against the west.

>>It also tells me that any chance of tolerance from coach and his bunch of co-haters is out of the question.<<

You seem to be fixated on the word “tolerance”. It was explained to you that it has a very lose meaning depending on how you want to view it. E.g. if you know something is wrong and you speak up about it, you are by definition intolerant to that something. The key word here is “wrong”.

As Christians we know for fact that Islam is wrong and we speak up about it. If that makes us intolerant – so be it. But we can’t stay quiet and let Muslims “perish” in their delusions. Also we can’t let “them” establish their Islamic State by stealth without at least warning the indifferent, ignorant Australian majority.

Now how does that make us “haters”?

>>… when you achieve your aim of total, outright religious war? I can only assume that this is your divinely-inspired objective…<<

Definitely not our nor God’s aim – the Islamic war has been raging for the last 14 centuries since the conception of Islam. Non-war times - "Peace" – are just interludes.

The kingdom of God is NOT of an earthly nature. It is a Spiritual phenomenon. But it seems that Allah the god of Islam has different views.

Truth reveals ignorance and explains prejudice – and that can be confronting to some. If they chose to hate us “more” that is their way of dealing with truth. Our hope and prayer is that people would at least research our claims and perhaps discover true life in the process.

Pericles,

I'm almost embarrassed to add to the many posts addressed to you, that show how 'intolerant' we are. Hope this is the last one.

You are confusing tolerance with love. Turning the other cheek must be seen in the context of love. Love leads to tolerance, but the converse may not be true. It is possible for a tolerance to be completely void of love, mechanical and self-serving.

Example: Knowing that matters could be far worse, it is easy to tolerate your neighbour tossing his rubbish over the fence, when he's more than six feet tall and have connection with the local gang. So be satisfied with a false peace of mind.

My point is- tolerance itself is neutral. It is the subject of tolerance that determines whether it is right or wrong. There is hardly such thing as being tolerant for the sake of tolerance.

Also, Jesus was merely expressing a tragedy of Judah (who was hell bound). It is clear to me that was not about hatred, not an incitement to attack Judah. I haven't a clue how you can relate that to intolerance, other than thinking u don't understand the subject matter.

I mentioned peace only as a precursor, because just like tolerance, peace is often mis-used.

Peace is a noun, a state of mind, an outcome. It is least of all an act of virtue.

Peace can be the outcome of a complete surrender to your foe.
A peace deal can be reached to evenly divide a corrupt spoil.
A peace of mind may be- knowing things could be worse with your 6-feet tall neighbour.

Are these virtues?

If you understand some things are human nature, then you must also acccept there are all sorts in the world, including those who hate the West for what it stands for, irregardless. Tolerance or the lack of it, may not even be an issue.

Dear Boaz ,
One thing particularly strikes me is the pervasive fear in your posts.
Like George Bush and John Howard with their overreaction to September 11 you seem not to be able to envisage an easy Peace with Muslims.
If you and your poster friends are so concerned about Muslim Ideals then you should spend more time in constructive dialogue with Moderate Muslim academics. I think the Lord would consider the effort well worth while and you may feel more secure about the future.
We must also insist that isolated minority or majority [in the case of West Papua ] Christian and other religious groups are not targetted by Islamic Extremists or for that matter Christian Zealots .
I am not saying we don't need to monitor or react to world events in relation to Australia - I am saying irrational fear based on "what If" is a dangerous emotion in any religious or political discourse .

I think we may be getting somewhere here.

In order of posting:

>>Pericles difficulty is that he is committed to the culticultural/new age ethos that all cultures & religions are of equal value. He sincerely believes that in defending Islam in this thread - he is defending the ideals of objectivity & tolerance<<

There is one fundamental flaw here Horus. I am not defending Islam. I am merely taking to task those who attack it in an intemperate and incontinent manner.

And I notice that you choose to lump together "cultures & religions", as being one and the same thing. That IS interesting.

>>this thread is about Muslim academics speaking up and their apparent inability to indulge in self criticism<<

Boaz, you know full well that this thread is simply an opportunity for you and your fellow-travellers to indulge in Islam-bashing. The whole thing comes into the "when did you stop beating your wife" category - as far as you are concerned the verdict is already in, you are just taking some free hits.

>>If I was railing against seemingly obscure verses or sentences from Mien Kampf and my diatribes were against National Socialism, would you be calling me a hate inspiring rabble rouser against well meaning and misrepresented Nazi’s?<<

There you go again, equating Muslims with Nazis. You really don't get it, do you?

>>Both National Socialism and Islam aim for a STATE<<

Breathtaking stuff. You only use this device so that you can switch at will between beating Islam-the-religion and Islam-the-political-agenda.

This is blatantly and transparently dishonest, since you consistently use your own religion as a stick with which to beat Islam.

If you genuinely choose to view Islam as a political process, then you should advocate political action as the means with which to exert control over those activities that you believe are excessive.

Mixing the two - like equating cultures with religions - is simply a fraudulent debating device.

But briefly back to Horus - yes, I believe all religions (as distinct from cultures) to have equal value.

And all of that value is negative.

How can Muslim academics, as part of self-criticism, not take a critical look at Quran itself?

I quote from:
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1109

"As every Muslim knows, it is an essential Islamic belief that Allah's absolute and perfect knowledge is second to none..."

"This emphasis on the perfect knowledge of Allah was hardly surprising..."

"However, there is an obvious lack of consistency in the Quranic claims... One can only conclude from such contradictions that the Quran was authored by human(s) whose own thoughts were reflected in those Quranic verses. "

"There is no shortage of evidence to prove the Quran was a man made erroneous and ambiguous book.... In his work 'Who Authored the Quran' Abul Kasem rightly says: "Making Allah the author of the Quran, I think, is the prime lie perpetrated on mankind for more than a millennium". A few ambitious and opportunistic persons, in the name of Allah gathered together under the tutelage of Muhammad to construct the Qur'an by adapting, amending and outright plagiarizing other scriptures and heresy of the time."

Strongly recommended for Muslims:
http://www.faithfreedom.org

A self-criticism without critically assessing the source of an ideology is at best useless hypocrisy.

But there is too much at stake for Muslims to ever concede they are believing in a hoax- Arab culture, expectation of fathers and fore-fathers, dignity of fellow Muslims.

Little wonder the Muslim academics are silent....sssshhh

And the silence cries out loudly in desperation.

But wait, there's more.

GZTan also has five cents worth on the topic of tolerance.

>>You are confusing tolerance with love. Turning the other cheek must be seen in the context of love. Love leads to tolerance, but the converse may not be true. It is possible for a tolerance to be completely void of love, mechanical and self-serving<<

I'm not entirely sure how that fits with the contradictory positions reportedly taken by Jesus.

Was "turn the other cheek" love, while "It were better for him, if that man had not been born" the Christian concept of tolerance?

Is that what you mean by "mechanical and self-serving?"

But you are in danger of over-intellectualizing. Reality is far simpler.

Your position is that Islam is evil, and therefore cannot be tolerated. My position is that terrorism is evil, and cannot be tolerated. The point where we intersect is where you, Boaz and co. conflate the two into "Muslims are de facto terrorists and therefore cannot be tolerated."

My version of tolerance lies in the ability to accept that others can live their lives differently, and accept that they have a right to do so. It obviously does not stretch to condoning evil, that isn't tolerance, that's stupidity.

coach sums it up best.

>>As Christians we know for fact that Islam is wrong and we speak up about it. If that makes us intolerant – so be it. But we can’t stay quiet and let Muslims “perish” in their delusions.<<

Ah, but you can, coach. That's the trick here, to accept that others have the right to make their own "mistakes" (as you perceive them), and not to fret about it all the time. It simply isn't any of your business.

>>Also we can’t let “them” establish their Islamic State by stealth without at least warning the indifferent, ignorant Australian majority<<

OK, but as I said earlier, this is a political objective, and should be addressed politically.

Using the weapon of an antithetical religion to fight a political, battle (how we are governed) is simply deceitful.

Pericles..

Correctly interpreted writing goes something like this.
Who said it ?
To whom ?
Why ?
When ?
Where ?
Then there is the issue of cultural nuances, allegory, hyperbole, parable etc.. being able to recognize the particular type of writing under scrutiny.

All of which I personally apply to Islamic documents.

Now."Turn the other Cheek" is somewhere between literal and symbolic.
In principle.. it is interpreted by the apostles as follows:
Romans 12:18 "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men"

In the case of the sermon on the mount, you should also take into consideration Jesus method of speaking. Example "If your eye sins, gouge it out" Literal ? clearly not. "If you foot sins, cut it off" Literal ? again.. no.

Mohamed "If a man changes his deen (from Islam to apostacy), kill him" literal ? well don't believe me, believe the Islamic scholars who for centuries have said 'yes'.

A final note on

[The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.]

This is a profound passage, and I mean profound.

Jesus is showing us the interface between eternity and time, and the soverienty of God, yet the free will of man.
Its not intolerance or anything silly like that. Jesus is saying that while God knows Judas will betray Him, Judas is still responsible.
Knowing..and causing are different. But I challenge anyone to explain this particular issue to everyones complete satisfaction. I don't think they can.
They will end up with Paul in Romans 9:19

"Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'"

Some of us in this forum are actually asking that question..with a resentful frown. 3 guess's who the leader of the pack is ?

Pericles,
I am not in agreement with your (artificial) separation of culture & religion.They are very much interconnected -particularly Islamic religion/culture.

WHERE ISLAM RULES it dictates what forms art can take ( eg human figure depictions are out -have a peek at the public squares in Saudi Arabia)what you eat- how it is killed/prepared,how you dress, who you marry etc etc ( & its very much enforced ).

When dealing with Islam you are not dealing with your standard Western derived religion ( or even most Eastern religions like Buddhism or Hinduism)In Islam there is no separation of state & ”church”.There is no concept of render to Caesar what is Caesar & to God what is Gods, everything is under/beholding to God.

But lets look at things from your perspective ( ie lets think entirely INSIDE the Eurocentic SQUARE)for a moment.Do you perceive any “political" problems with/arising from/related to Islam?

( I’ll bet we would never have had this argument with your name sake, -he would have told the Persians where to go - and quick smart at that!)

Pericles,

It was quite clear to me from the start you don't see the wood for the trees.

Worse, you do not even come across to being a tolerant person, yet presumptuously lecture others about tolerance, consciously or otherwise, putting yourself on a pedestal of high moral.

I do loathe hypocrisy!

Your questioning me whether I implied "turn the other cheek" is love..etc... You are way off the mark. Indications are that your misunderstanding of my arguments is nearly complete, which speaks volume about your intellect. Even your remark unintentionally admitted this likelihood: "... danger of over-intellectualizing..."

Listen up! There is never a problem with intellectualizing. What is also needed is an ability make the right judgement and that's intelligence and wisdom.

Please if you will, carefully re-read all recent posts addressed to you, appreciate their point of views with an 'open-mind', then answer my next question:

--> What do you understand by being open-minded?

Until you have done so, I am convinced a debate on tolerance with you is a waste of time, ( other than possibly being educational for everybody else).

Pericles: You are hardly worth debating with, which is a pity. You apparently do not read newspapers and you have never read the murderous, lying, convoluted koran.
To believers re Judas. Judas had unspeakable self torture which ended in suicide so the words of Christ Jesus were fulfilled. BUT Judas will be resurrected to eternal life. It was for-ordained what he did yes he could have immediately repented to Christ Jesus he didn't though he was remorseful enough to take his life. He, Pericles, irfan and ALL on this forum and the entire human race will be resurrected and all will WILLINGLY acknowledge Christ Jesus - That's the GOOD NEWS Christ Jesus is the Saviour of all mankind. Regards, numbat

Pericles,

You say that Islam should not be "my business".

Like I mentioned before Islam is directly targeting all non-Muslims but specifically Christians and Jews. Islam has made it their business to eliminate or convert us all by force if need be. If not become second class citizens when they declare Australia an Islamic State.

Secondly, as Christians we are called, no make that commanded to reach out to the lost and tell them "in love" the good news of their salvation in Christ Jesus. We are to be the salt and the light to this world.

We cannot simply live and let die...

Thirdly, Islam is a one-package multi-threat, the political, social, cultural, religious, legal,… is all intermingled, it is inseparable and unchangeable.

Why a threat you may ask – because it is contrary to all other universal values – but more so, Islam wants “others” to change our ways to accommodate its people and not the other way around. (I guess you knew that too).

So the six-foot tall neighbour dumping his garbage on your front lawn, is now asking you to learn to enjoy the smell and get used to it – or he (and his friends) will make sure you changed your mind.

This parable is what Islam sadly is. It changes the landscape of a country until it is sufficiently established and can reign over all people in “peace”.

So unless you are not part of this planet, I cannot reconcile how you could so naively play the devil’s advocate (punt intended) or simply remain neutral in such alarming circumstances?

Finally, when someone threatens to convert you and your children, gazump your political system, abrogate your laws, change your social habits forever, etc… – you don’t walk away – you react

Christianity was once a threat to others - attacks on other religions, the Crusades, the Inquisition, Auto de fes, colonial attitudes, really awful but it reformed and became a tolerant faith and a supporter of the downtrodden, even a supporter of other faiths.

Perhaps Islam will and even is already going through the same reforms. Let's lend support reform Muslims as much as we can.

LOGIC...no, not at all.. Christianity did not reform... people who professed it, simply came back closer to its ROOTS :)
Christianity as a faith, has never been any threat to anyone except on the area of confronting them with the reality of Christ Jesus as Messiah, and proclaiming 'repentance and forgiveness' in His name.
'Proclaiming, persuading, presenting... not 'fighting'.

CHRISTIAN ROOTS. (Mark 7:7ff)

Calling the Twelve to him, he sent them out two by two and gave them authority over evil[b] spirits.
8These were his instructions: "Take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. 9Wear sandals but not an extra tunic. 10Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town. 11And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them."
12They went out and preached that people should repent. 13They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them.

MUSLIM ROOTS.

Hadith Muslim Book 001, Number 0031:
It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that he heard the Messenger of Allah say: I have been commanded to FIGHT against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord)

COMMENT: do I really need to make one ? These 2 contrasting expressions of faith foundations are self evidently as different as the East is from the West. One is peaceful, offering a choice, the other is violent giving no choice.

JESUS "As the Father has sent me, so I send you" in the same attitude, manner, mode.
Simple living, Sincere faith, Love.. to serve, not to be served, to wash the feet of followers, not lord it over them or killing them if they insult you.

(Irrelevant quote: All work and no play makes one the wealthiest man in the cemetery. )

Boaz,

Sounds like you are always gambling on naive audience.
Islam got only one Holybook. Many of the hadith you are referring to was inplanted by honest missionaries like yourself. Hadith was collected 2-3 centuries after the prophet's death and in fact against his will (as you well know).

The problem with your theory re christianity is not Jesus teachings but the biblical open authority to popes and men of religion to decide what the faith is. Hence you get popes like Urban and blood atonement and crap like that.

Perhaps you should explain if your faith is so peaceful and lovy dovy, how come a 94% christian majority country like Rwanda, slaughtered 800,000 non christian 'infidels' just a decade ago.

Keep up the BS.

Coach / GZ Tan and other esteemed members of the 'fellowship of the ring':

Apologies if my posting re Deedat put salt on the wound but I was giving Boaz an experience of what it feels like to attack someone else faith. Hope you can forgive the little misapp.

Peace,

T

Well this is heating up nicely, isn't it?

Boaz first.

You continue to spin the story that while the Bible is metaphor, the Koran is literal.

You must be aware that there are many Christian groups who insist that the Bible should be read literally too.

“Not only CAN we take the Bible literally, but we MUST take the Bible literally... Many today will read a verse or passage of Scripture, and then will give their own definitions to the words, phrases, or paragraphs. But, this is not what God intended... We should take the Bible literally because the Lord Jesus Christ also took the Bible literally... As an example, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in Luke 4, Jesus answered and quoted the Old Testament. It is clear from the context that He took the Bible literally”

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-literal.html

So it would appear that you are simply being selective in your use of evidence. Again.

Horus.

You assume that because I noticed that you lumped together “cultures & religions”, that I myself believe they should be separate.

Not so. I was merely expressing surprise that a Christian apologist should consider them one and the same.

GZTan

Thanks for the intemperate serve, complete with an exhortation to “listen up”, in which I am labelled hypocritical, intolerant, lecturing, presumptuous and putting myself on a pedestal.

Insults certainly avoid the need to address what I said.

Poor form, GZ.

Numbat

I didn't understand a word of your “argument”.

So nothing new there.

Coach

Once again you have the last word.

>>...when someone threatens to convert you and your children, gazump your political system, abrogate your laws, change your social habits forever, etc… – you don’t walk away – you react<<

Yep. When that happens, or even looks like happening, I'll be there at the barricades.

In the meantime, I hold to my opinion that you are inventing the enemy and his intentions simply for your own aggrandizement, and that of your religion.

Pericles,

Why omit from that impressive list my not-too-subtle suggestion of a lack in open-mindedness, etc... ?

You wrote (paraphrased): "...the need to address WHAT I SAID."
I sense an arrogance here.... I suppose this implies you couldn't be bothered addressing the question I put to you. So g'bye and g'luck!

ps. I did incorrectly spelt Judas' name (as Judah)... so much for my Biblical knowledge.
.

GZTan,

>>Why omit from that impressive list my not-too-subtle suggestion of a lack in open-mindedness, etc... ?<<

Lack of space, firstly, but also because it didn't make an awful lot of sense.

You asked

>>--> What do you understand by being open-minded?<<

Leaving aside the crude innuendo of my understanding being somehow different from others, being open-minded involves being able - and willing - to see more than one aspect of a situation or issue.

In your last post, you observed

>>Your questioning me whether I implied "turn the other cheek" is love..etc... You are way off the mark. Indications are that your misunderstanding of my arguments is nearly complete, which speaks volume about your intellect. Even your remark unintentionally admitted this likelihood: "... danger of over-intellectualizing..."<<

GZ, that is pure bluster. You stated a position, I questioned it, and all you respond with is insults and bluster.

To reiterate, no-one, including myself, is suggesting that tolerance involves turning a blind eye to evil or wrongdoing of any kind. To suggest that in order to be tolerant, you have to tolerate absolutely anything, is pure nonsense.

But exercising tolerance in our daily lives by finding a way to live with the beliefs and customs of others is, in fact, a sign of an advanced civilization.

The examples I gave were, I still believe, relevant.

The ability to metaphorically turn the other cheek is a form of tolerance. It isn't a perfect example, I will grant, but it fits.

The other example showed intolerance, in the form of an explicit threat that if you disagreed with Jesus, and informed on him to the authorities, you would be punished - you'd "wish you hadn't been born".

Sounds more like an episode of the Sopranos.

Pericles,

No quite !

'ABILITY' is an intellectual issue.
'TO SEE' is not about open-mindedness. It's only perception.
'WILLING TO SEE' is not being open-minded, because no outcome is implied. (What's the point of seeing everything that there is to see, if perception does not change a thing?)

My definition of being open-minded, in an idealist sense is:

--> A willingness to see and change, without prejudice.

I'm not saying to be open-minded one must change. Rather, it's about a preparedness to change. Whether one actually changes (or is able to change) is something else.

'without prejudice' is vital in open-mindedness. To see something in isolation, in its own merit, without any preconceived idea is definitely a part of being open-minded, in its purest sense.

In reality, no one is completely without prejudice because we all leverage upon our previous learnings, which is something else- an intellectual issue, quite separate from being open-minded.

Your preconceived opinion of others affects your ability to see things from others' viewpoint. This is definitely not being open-minded.

The saying goes: "love conquers all". "turn the other cheek", if not viewed in the context of love, is purely mechanical, nothing to do with tolerance at all. Tolerance (a loveless one) is when one's cheek is first hit and not retaliate FOR A (self-serving) REASON.

I read a sense of inevitability in Judas betrayal of Jesus. But no, bearing the consequence of one's deed has nothing to do with tolerance.

Assuming Judas understood his fate ahead, and so he begged God to 'change the course of history' such that someone else were to be the traitor.... God refused, insisting that it had to be him, then I would say God/Jesus is intolerant, unfair and unloving. But it wasn't like that.

You may say it's unfair someone had to go to hell for his deeds. I have no answer except- All attempts by BD and Coach to preach heaven to FH come to nothing. Do you think it's God's intolerance that FH is so stubborn? FH certainly does not believe there's anything to worry about.

F.H. first.

Mate.. say what you will, you and I both know that a substantial amount of Islamic law and practice is based on....wait for it.. the Hadith.. yes, exactly. Muslim and Bukhari, Abu Daud etc. are considered 'Authentic' hadith right ? Hence their use by muslim scholars as a basis for law. So, I must reject the BS claim and also such terminology in a debate about issues.

The situation in Rwanda ? Simple.
The Tutsi rebels were picking off Hutu Politicians and leaders one by one over time. So, the Hutu reacted in a rather 'clean sweep' way.
That was a political act not a religious one. As for them being 'Christian' ? good grief.. you would need to know the heart condition of each person involved, and what they say about their relationship with God. AGAIN..you are ascribing an Islamic concept of 'community' to Christianity which is invalid. People are born Muslims, they are only born AGAIN into Christ.

PERICLES my my.. if you read further in that article you would find this:

["First, just because you take the Bible literally does not mean that there are not figures of speech. An example of a figure of speech would be that if someone said "it is raining cats and dogs outside,"]

"If your hand sins CUT IT OFF"..... how many times have I said.. this allows you TWO sins. Clearly not literal.

You are guilty of the same debating crime you charge me with "selectivity".

So, in understanding a document, it comes back to the same basics of understanding ANY document.

I am selective in an appropriate way.. choosing definative statements where the interpretation is corroborated by representative members of that faith itself. Why argue with 'me' ?

"Kill those who insult the prophet".
Assassination of Ka'b bin Al Ashraf. (Hadith)

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec1.htm (TODAY)

"Fighting to Establish Islamic state."

Hadith Muslim book 1 number 30,31,32

http://www.qss.org/archives/aqeedah/ch12.html (TODAY)
SCROLL to para/line 103.

Boaz,

Although I never swear I feel I can swear you are a goldfish: Why do you keep repeating the same rhetoric over and over again? Which part of 'hadith-is-not-compulsory-in-Islam' you don't understand?
Can you become a Muslim while rejecting the whole hadith? the answer is a simple 'yes'.
Hadith is collected few centuries after the prophet's death and 99% of muslims use 5% of the hadith. Is this simple, plain, enough?

So, Rwanda, Crusades, Nazi Germany, anything 'christian' for the last 2000 years have a 'political interpretation'...Sounds like good double standards to me.. Isn't GWB 'inspired by God and on a mission from God'?

Enjoy a sunny weekend on the beach and keep away from white sheets with holes, dungeons, secret tower meetings and stuff like that..

GZTan,

All I am asking your fellow mob is get us mossies out of your system.
Your 'brother' Boaz spends his life on Muslim forums aggrevating young muslims and cannot see he is part of the problem.

Do you see a Muslim on this forum or any other forum mocking Jesus or your faith? The answer is a simple no. So enjoy your beliefs and share them with others without 'infringing' someone else beliefs.
I thought this would be a basic 'Australian value'.

Pericles,

I am enjoying your logic and persistence. You stumbled on the CTMA (Christian Taliban movement of Australia). Good luck and if Boaz offers you a lunch I would suggest a food taster!

Peace,

F.H. "staw men"

1/ "Hadith is not compulsory" mate..I never said it was 'compulsory' I said much Islamic law is based on it INCLUDING "Death to apostates".

2/ GWB and 'Mission from God'... In Islamic terms, GWB is DEFINITELY in Allahs mission... he is seeking to establish justice, freedom and peace. Bush is better though than the Muslims, because he does not even mention they should convert to Christianity, or pay some tax if they don't want to, or be exiled to live like the Bedoins. (as Mohammed offered to people of the book) He does not go there in the specific name of "Christianity" but of justice and peace.

Speaking of hadith, you know as well as I do, that when Sheikhs and Imams discuss the Quran, and doctine, and Islamic law, they include referene to Hadith tradition. I could list many MANY EXAMPLES.. so don't try my patience :)

IMPORTANT POINT. While you might feel there is no need to 'criticize' other faiths, I disagree. As long as I read in the Quran and backed up by the hadith that Mohammed said and believed:...

"I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger"

-I will expose and raise awareness of this religious idea, because it is in our national security interests to do so. 11 men in Sydney and 13 in Melbourne underline this reality.

PROCLAIM ? yes..I will here:

The Word of Life 1John 1:1-2

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.
AMEN

Boaz,

This is the most twisted logic I have ever heard.
So you agree that the questionable hadith you are referring to is only used by radical imams and that most muslims are not even aware of it. Yet you are happy to keep banging muslim youth on forums with this material (which is mainly promoted by radical islamists) just to confirm to them that they are hated and not welcomed! And you claim this is in Australia's national interest??

Well, I can only pray that no one responsible for national interest in this country find logic in your twisted thinking.

Have a happy life and keep the BS going,

T

FH,

If you mention logic then I say you don't know the first thing about logic, and/or you're living in complete denial.

Point is - There will ALWAYS be a Muslim minority whom you labelled as radical, extremists and pretended that they are just rotten apples, to be ignored.

ALWAYS there will be... Why ?

Because the source of the ideology causes it - the QURAN.

This will never change !!

A few percentage of Muslims are potential terrorists does not sound like much. But this means thousands of them, in a non-Islamic country like Australia !!

Also, you implied that Mossies are tolerant because they don't attack Jesus and mock others faith in OLO.
Fact is, Mossies strength is not one of intellect, therefore they don't speak up much in OLO. Perhaps the gene pool of Muslims academics is too small here.

But many mossies do frequently hurl all sort of abuses unfettered, like in this open forum:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/

One can tell they are quite illogical and stupid.

I couldn't find any Muslim intellect there either.

I don't believe I agree with you, GZTan.

>>[Tolerance is a] willingness to see and change, without prejudice.<<

You may have absolutely no intention of changing your opinions, ideas, customs, religion or eating habits, but still be tolerant of those of others.

There need be no "outcome", simply an understanding that there is no single right answer, and there is absolutely no point in pretending that there is.

You can also be 100% prejudiced on a particular matter, and still be tolerant of others - in fact it is at these times when tolerance becomes particularly important.

Boaz, you are stretching the English language beyond its normal limits.

>>"An example of a figure of speech would be that if someone said "it is raining cats and dogs outside,"
"If your hand sins CUT IT OFF"..... Clearly not literal.<<

Raining cats and dogs is, I freely allow, a metaphor. No pet animals have, to my knowledge, ever tumbled from the sky in significant numbers.

I fail to see however what is instantly metaphorical about an admonition to sever a limb, which is a believable, if gory, physical act.

If you say it is, though, I'll allow it.

But surely you can then afford the same generosity of spirit to ancient texts from other religions, which were also written in another age and for a different audience?

No?

Why not?

And you owe me a new keyboard.

Unfortunately I had a mouthful of coffee when I read this sentence:

>>In Islamic terms, GWB is DEFINITELY in Allahs mission... he is seeking to establish justice, freedom and peace<<

Maybe this is what you see. But I suspect that many of the would-be beneficiaries of this incredible selflessness would prefer to describe it as "imposing an alien way of life".

That is not a judgement call, by the way, on whether that way of life is particularly Christian in its makeup; just that it is being imposed, and is alien.

Pericles,

Talking about tolerance is a noble attitude on your part.

But regretfully, your most recent post suggests a muddled understanding on tolerance in the first place.
And you are even confusing open-mindedness with tolerance.

Tolerance is like : 'putting up with something you don't like'. It is not about willingness to see or change.

Consider these:

(1) If X is not bothered with Y's eating habits, then X is neither tolerant nor intolerant towards Y.
(2) Tolerance means: X is bothered with Y's annoying eating habits, but puts up with it.

John Gray (paraphrased): "...we will have to PUT UP with many things...."

Why put up ? There is almost always A REASON, like avoiding confrontation and conflict, etc...

If there is no reason involved then it may not tolerance per se.

Think about this:
(1) You are not tolerating Islam as such. It is irrelevant, as you are not even bothered with Islam (or any religion)
(2) Attacking those who criticize Islam, is in fact a manifestation of your intolerance.
(3) Whilst there may be reasons to tolerate Islam, there are also reasons not to tolerate it.

Some of us believe the reasons not to tolerate Islam are greatly compelling.

Pericles we are on the verge of a breakthrough I feel.

You said:
[But surely you can then afford the same generosity of spirit to ancient texts from other religions, which were also written in another age and for a different audience?]

YES..quite... I'm more than prepared to adopt this approach, but let's not leave it at simply agreeing, but actually test it.

MY ASSERTION: "Islam is based on the idea of military aggression to establish the rule of Allah"

This is 'True, or False'

Now..the evidence.

I don't wish to be a burden, but this will require some research by both of us.
I'm looking around for as much information as I can find on how to interpret Hadith Muslim book 1 numbers 29-32
I include 29 here, because it kind of sets the scene possibly for the subsequent 3.. this is to be more than generous, as 29 relates to apostate Muslims.

The facts.

1/ After mohammed died, many Arabs decided to turn away from Islam.
2/ Seeing this, the Caliph, Abu Bakar decided to teach them a lesson, and beat the living hell out of them.. literally.

Now.."CONTEXT"- I'll defer to the actual HEADING in the hadith... here it is.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/001.smt.html
(scroll to 29)

Chapter 9: COMMAND FOR FIGHTING AGAINST THE PEOPLE SO LONG AS THEY DO NOT PROFESS THAT THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH AND MUHAMMAD IS HIS MESSENGER

There then follows a number of hadith, on which the above heading/conclusion is based. This is not 'my' interpretation, it is that of the compilers and publishers of the hadith.

So, the issue of symbolic language, imagery, non literalness is entirely moot.. these are historical events being presented to convey a particular and specific idea, being that of justifying fighting against those unbelievers 'until' they believe in Allah and his messenger. In fact the whole 6 hadiths from 29 to 35 all say the same thing, with slight variations of words.

INVITATION. Iinvite you to find any alternative explanation for this, and to present it here for our benefit.

GZ Tan,

Don’t’ worry we know your views that that ‘logic’ and ‘intellects’ are those who see your faith.

The Quran like other Holy books is contextual, how majority of Muslims interpret it including ‘reasons of revelations’ is an obvious peaceful religion for all of us. How Sheikh Fayez and Boaz David interpret it is their problem.

“Attacking those who criticize Islam, is in fact a manifestation of your intolerance”

FH: another twisted logic, you want to be hear all day with painting all muslims with a paint brush and accusing the peaceful majority of intolerance, and you claim to be following the tolerant one!

“Whilst there may be reasons to tolerate Islam, there are also reasons not to tolerate it”.

FH: the argument is valid for all religions including yours. Hitler was quoting from the Bible in his April 1922 speech. I guess one critic might say why don’t you ‘delete’ all the OT from the Bible if it can be misused as it had been throughout the centuries.

“Some of us believe the reasons not to tolerate Islam are greatly compelling”

FH: in French philosophy there was an old saying ‘If I you can’t take it all don’t leave it all’.
I can’t see why you don’t apply the same logic to Islam? Maybe you should start thinking for a week of what is good about it so you can come to a fair assessment.

All the links you send me seems to be just obsessed with Islam.

Boaz,

The early caliphate war ‘fact’ was about tax evasion (Muslims tri bes who stopped paying the state taxes and the capaign targeted othefr Muslims. SO it wasn't about religion.

But I guess if you are lying to yourself, why not Pericles too?
Do you see why you are part of the problem?

Peace,

GZ, when in doubt, consult the OED.

"Tolerance: The action or practice of tolerating; toleration; the disposition to be patient with or indulgent to the opinions or practices of others; freedom from bigotry or undue severity in judging the conduct of others; forbearance; catholicity of spirit."

It is a bit of a stretch to argue that disagreeing with someone is automatically intolerant, as you seem to:

>>Attacking those who criticize Islam, is in fact a manifestation of your intolerance<<

It's also Grey's favourite argument, so I guess it must be taught at the Christian apologetics school.

I'm also a little puzzled about this one:

>>You are not tolerating Islam as such. It is irrelevant, as you are not even bothered with Islam (or any religion)<<

Since when was this about me being intolerant?

>>Whilst there may be reasons to tolerate Islam, there are also reasons not to tolerate it. Some of us believe the reasons not to tolerate Islam are greatly compelling.<<

Exactly. This is precisely why it is important that you don't simply let your hatred of it show, instead you exercise tolerance - "freedom from bigotry or undue severity in judging the conduct of others".

Boaz, Boaz, what are we to do with you?

>>MY ASSERTION: "Islam is based on the idea of military aggression to establish the rule of Allah"
This is 'True, or False' <<

That this is your assertion, is undoubtedly true.

However, since you use different standards of “proof” in deciding what in ancient scriptures is literal and what is metaphorical when comparing and contrasting the two religions, it has to be said that your methodology is suspect, and your conclusions therefore tainted.

It is also unrealistic to take the words of fanatics and extremists as “proof”, given that they are in a very significant minority.

As I have said to you many times before, by insisting that the actions of a tiny minority are typical of the mindset of the majority, you are being inflammatory.

Pericles,

My explanation is simple, yet faithful to the meaning of being tolerant.
I go even further, by repeating- there is (almost) always a 'reason' behind tolerance.

No, disagreeing with someone is not necessary being intolerant.

But disagreeing without a willingness to change, to accept (to put up with) possibility that others views may be equally valid, this amounts to 'bigotry, judging the conduct of others'. This is being intolerant and closed-minded.

I merely wrote "...MANIFESTATION of...intolerance" as a hint you were't even aware of your own intolerance. ( Like I mentioned before, you don't come across as being a tolerant person.)

I can be very intolerant too, especially towards Islam, which I regard the scourge of humanity. (I've absolutely no quarrel with other religions.)

>> You are not tolerating Islam as such....<<

That was merely to further explain meaning of being toterance - If something (eg. Islam) does not bother you, then the word 'tolerance' really does not apply. One can only claim to be tolerant (or intolerant) to something (Islam) , if that something (Islam) is annoying, is a bother.

I believe Islam does not bother you at all. So there is NO NEED of you to exercise tolerance towards it. However you EXPECT others to tolerate Islam. I'd be interested to listen to someone who actually exercises tolerance towards Islam to tell why he/she takes that position.

Which leads me to the REASON behind tolerance next...

>>...This is precisely WHY IT IS IMPORTANT that.... you exercise tolerance <<

What you said amounts to: "The more reasons there are not to tolerate, the more one should exercise tolerance"

Don't you see a quandary in your logic?

Let me extrapolate: "Evil is most untolerable (due to reasons blah blah...), therefore all the more we should exercise the greatest tolerance towards evil"... Is this right?

It's a matter of SOUND JUDGEMENT based on WISDOM that some conclude that - Reasons not to tolerate Islam far out strip reasons to tolerate it.

There is (almost) no such thing as - be tolerant for the sake of tolerance. Do you not agree?

Pericles.. that was outright evasion of response mate.. seriously...

I went to considerable efforts to outline the case clearly, and without undue selection or emphasis..and I showed you from the Islamic documents, with the heading actually 'BEING' the conclusion, because it is also their assertion.. I simply echoed it yet you respond with 'tainted conclusions' ?

Ducking and weaving may evade some blows, but eventually one will land right on the nose, and this one of mine did, yet you are in denial. I'm beginning to think you have a close relative or friend who means much to you and who has embraced Islam, and this in turn taints YOUR conclusions to the point where you deny outright headline fact when it stares you in the face.

You also wrongly again suggest that I am asserting that the mindset of a few is the mindset of the majority and I've not said this. I've said the fundamentals of the FAITH, which are adhered to by a minority, are in fact also driving the majority by virtue of loud and aggresive minorities. I also contend that when pushed, the wider community will retreat to these fundamentals as most faiths do.

None of this claims "the Muslim community" as a whole and at all times holds these dogmas close to their day to day hearts. Yet..again and spuriously, you suggest I'm saying this very thing.

Pericles.. people are actually reading this interaction mate..and if I was you I'd be more careful about how I deal with the subject matter for your own reputations sake.

F.H. "Tax Evasion" ? :) c'mon mate.. I can read.. they became APOSTATE, hence their desire NOT to pay tax to one they no longer regarded as their political head.. Read the hadith..Muslim book 1, 29

"those amongst the Arabs who wanted to become apostates became apostates."

The word APOSTATE is ISLAMS word.. NOT mine. I report..you decide, but do so on the basis of the facts not what you 'wish' was the case.

You did what, Boaz?

>>I went to considerable efforts to outline the case clearly, and without undue selection or emphasis..and I showed you from the Islamic documents, with the heading actually 'BEING' the conclusion, because it is also their assertion.. I simply echoed it yet you respond with 'tainted conclusions' ?<<

I sometimes wonder whether you actually read my posts before replying. You certainly give no indication that you actually understand them.

But perhaps that is because I am being obscure or overly complex. Let me try to make it simpler for you.

On the one hand, you insist that every one of the quotations that you choose from Islamic sources must be read literally.

At the same time, you insist that any quotation from the Bible needs to be interpreted as metaphor.

This is inconsistent. And because your methodology is tainted, so are your "conclusions".

There's no point saying that it "is not 'my' interpretation, it is that of the compilers and publishers of the hadith", when the whole basis of your argument - literal vs metaphorical - is open to significant question.

Some of your fellow-Christians like to take the Bible literally, as I pointed out. You disagree with them, as do I. But you fail to extend the same level of understanding to your religious enemies, don't you?

With all the supporting evidence (e.g. Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer), I am forced to the conclusion that this is not the naive logic of an unworldly observer, but the deliberate act of someone whose entire objective is to generate and nurture venom in others, against a religion that is not his own.

Boaz,

One last attempt:

Fear founds hate and hate lays the ground work to violence.
My point is: what you think of Islam is none of my business but twisting and manipulating knowledge to promote fear is the problem.

The likes of Islamist fundi clerics use the very same techniques: The likes of Hilali or abu Bakr Basheer liken the west and Christianity to the crusades. Promoting fear, hate and violence becomes a normal result.

By acting like them you are being no different and hence my view that you are part of the problem. As much as I believe Islamist clerics should be held to account if a naïve follower falls into their traps, I believe your fellow mob should be held to account as well. Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, atheism are all here to stay and no religion replaced the other or ever will. All we can do is to learn to live together and promote harmony.
Please act responsibly.

Hope the penny dropped,

Peace,

PERICLES... now ur worrying me.. you seem to be devoid of fundamental grasp of literary works ?

1/ I have NEVER said "any" Bible text should be interpreted metaphorically. I've shown SOME which have to be, and OTHERS which are quite straight forward and literal.

2/ Your ducking and weaving on the hadith heading/conclusion makes me wonder if your first language is English after all ?

It is simply not feasable to take a given conclusion/heading/statement/declaration in an Islamic document which by all the rules of basic communication have a clear and unmistakable message and THEN... to wander off on some avoidance pathway as you did.

Islamic law is based on the Hadith ..probably MORE than the Quran, which has very little by way of 'legal' content. (my source is
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/I_Transp/IO8_MuslimLaw.html under the heading 'Roots of Law'.)

Now..perhaps you should read THAT document and then do some serious re-thinking about this whole issue. It is abundantly clear that I am speaking with the same voice and the Islamic academics re the Hadith, yet you and F.H. seem to have formed some "club of mutual ignorance" based on heavens knows what ?

If you want to know about your cars power steering, you goto the manaul and read under the heading POWER STEERING.. if you want to know about the Islamic attitude to
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/
that page, and you will see (if ur eyes are open) that all the hadith are GROUPED according to the particular legal area of actual Islamic Custom they are supporting.

Call it whatever you like, but don't call it metaphorical. That would be obstinate refusal to recognize truth.

F_H and others you ask us to be nice to islamics, trust islamics, bend over backwards to placate islamics. Pray tell us what other so-called religion allows/commands its adherents to lie to those seen as their enemies? - It is called 'taqiyya' as well 'hudna' is commanded this is a temporary truce (though enemies are not told that the truce is only temporary) to allow moslems to gather strength so they can once more attack. Of course these same writings show "the faithful?" that the enemies are pigs (Jews) and monkeys (Christians).
What Church in Australia attacks moslems? What Church attacks democracy? What Church attacks the Australian way of life? What Church wants to inaugurate the chopping off of hands and feet have public hangings and stonings? What Church stones a female who has been gang raped as a adulteress? What Church advocates the despicable (DIS) honour killings? Well no decent Church at all but moslems do and all of the above occurs in islamic nations continually and you ask us to believe that moslems in Oz are any different further more you demand that we trust you. We see daily the mindless, barbaric bloody atrocities happening constantly in islamic nations and you wonder why we do not trust you - as I see it you are either fools or liars. Try just once to read and see the news through normal decent Christian eyes. Regards, numbat

Okay, let's take a closer look.

>>I have NEVER said "any" Bible text should be interpreted metaphorically. I've shown SOME which have to be, and OTHERS which are quite straight forward and literal.<<

If you would be so kind as to point me to a post in which you argue that a relevant (i.e. instructional, advisory, admonitory) part of the Bible should be taken literally, I would be grateful, as I cannot recall any.

However, it is also significant that you didn't go on to say "... and I have done the same for the Qu'ran".

Nevertheless, to be fair, I might have simply overlooked it. So if you have in fact posted somewhere that "of course, I am not taking this quotation from the Qu'ran literally", I'd appreciate a reference to that also.

Otherwise, my observations stand.

Not only do they stand, but they will have highlighted yet another area where you are being economical - if not downright miserly - with the truth.

The point is not whether you are, in your own lights, "right" about one particular translation or another, Boaz. Simply that your selection criteria appear to be "does this place Islam in a bad light?". If it does, you print it, if it doesn't you don't.

Or am I wrong there too?

Perhaps while you are grubbing around for examples of the first two, you can direct me to examples of the third - where you select quotations that show Islam to be compassionate, caring and responsible.

That's just three little examples, Boaz, and you have over three thousand posts to find them.

But I'm not sure you can do it.

I'm betting one out of three, tops.

Pericles, I’ve already prepared this response, so I cannot yet address your points in that last post.
in Summary, I address real and literal aspects of the Quran/Hadith because they totally counter any hint of good. Surah 23:5-6 “Literal” one of a number of commands regarding the ‘believers’. Hadith Muslim book 1 number 30 “statement_of_fact”

F.H. (and your supportive (paid?) assistant, Pericles)

You seem to be at variance with the Islam that most of the world knows mate. With all due respect, you either take me and the rest of your reading audience for fools, or without fingers which enable us to use a keyboard and type the words “hadith in Islamic Jurisprudence” into Dr Google.
It returns significant results which without question support my contentions rather than yours.

FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION.

Your claim “99% of Muslims don’t believe the hadith” REALLY ? Well... we all heard it here first.

I suggest you and Pericles both read for one simple example this site.
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/I_Transp/IO8_MuslimLaw.html

Where it is clearly stated that the Hadith are divided into the following categories.

1/ Sahih.. (reliable) and are considered NOT to be at variance with the Quran.

Main criterion of authenticity: Accuracy of "chain of tradition," Isnad" ("certification").

Narrators were evaluated for their trustworthiness.

Afterwards the hadiths were judged according to their content (e.g., whether they conformed to the Qur'an, or were logically plausible.
Hadith traditions were classified as
- sound (sahih)
- good (hasan)
- weak (daif)

From the INTRODUCTION to Hadith Muslim.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/smtintro.html

[Each report in his collection was checked for compatibility with the Qur'an, and the veracity of the chain of reporters had to be painstakingly established. Muslim's collection is recognized by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world to be one of the most authentic collections of the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh).]

F.H. exactly HOW much of the Muslim world accept these ? From the above “the Overwhelming Majority” Perhaps, just perhaps THAT is why I use/refer to them ? err..which planet Islam are you on mate ?

The major excuses for radicalism are Iraq, Afghanistan and Chechnya. Not my writing.

Boaz,

Are you so used to twisting words:

You said 'FH claims 99% of Muslims don't believe the hadith'

Thats not what I said. Re-read my post: I said '99% of Muslims don't know or use 95% of the hadith'.

Anyway, seems you have a 'fundi' position and you are determined to be part of the problem.

There is something very wrong with a bunch of people pouring venom against others yet claim to be the followers of a tolerant religion.

Something isn't adding up.

Boaz, this is a credibility issue.

Just three examples, please.

One of your posts in which you argue that a relevant (i.e. instructional, advisory, admonitory) part of the Bible should be taken literally.

One of your posts in which you argue that a relevant (i.e. instructional, advisory, admonitory) part of the Qu'ran should be taken metaphorically.

One of your posts where you select quotations that show Islam to be compassionate, caring and responsible.

Otherwise, your constant protestations that you are not a rabble-rouser, but simply a concerned soul outlining some historical issues about Islam, dissolves into the hot air that it is.

Incidentally, you have stooped to a new low - no mean feat - with your note to FH -

"F.H. (and your supportive (paid?) assistant, Pericles)"

Paid assistant, Boaz?

Your paranoia clearly has no bounds, along with your lack of courtesy.

F.H.

You said:
[Can you become a Muslim while rejecting the whole hadith? the answer is a simple 'yes'.
Hadith is collected few centuries after the prophet's death and 99% of muslims use 5% of the hadith. Is this simple, plain, enough?]

REJECTING= not believing.
If you believed it, you would not reject it because it purports to be the words of your prophet.

Imams who feed the masses do believe them, so focus on them here is entirely valid.

Tolerant Religion ? The Gospel is not about 'Tolerance'... I don't recall claiming it is. The Gospel is about Salvation, repentance and faith. The idea of 'tolerance' simply does not enter the equation.
It is about love, and love speaks truth. Truth sets people free. Denial keeps them in an intellectual/spiritual prison.

Pericles. "Paid assistant".. tongue in cheek, I'm suggesting that the degree of obstinate denial of clear fact on your part requires some explanation, -a jibe.

CREDIBILITY ? yes..absolutely, and no, I'm not going to respond to your attempt to hijack an important thread and make it about 'me'.

Its about facts, and the correct understanding of them, in relation to the topic which is 'Muslim Academics must speak up' and self criticism is the key. 24 Muslims on trial in Sydney and Melbourne urgently requires us to understand what might be their mindset, where it COMES from, and what measures are needed to combat it.

Remember, they are only the ones against whom the AFP feel they have sufficient evidence to convict. Do you really think there are not many others out there, where the evidence is not yet sufficient?

I've highlighted valid points where criticism is due, and that is what I seek to open up. Any religion which whips a raped woman 90 times for simply meeting with a man not her husband, deserves the utmost scrutiny.

I don't think so Boaz.

>>CREDIBILITY ? yes..absolutely, and no, I'm not going to respond to your attempt to hijack an important thread and make it about 'me'.<<

Your habit is to make wild assertions and then fail to back them up with facts. What I did was to ask you to justify yourself - if that is "hijacking the thread" then I apologize to the other posters. But it riles me when you continually get away with this glib and fundamentally unpleasant Islam-bashing.

>>Its about facts, and the correct understanding of them, in relation to the topic which is 'Muslim Academics must speak up' and self criticism is the key<<

As I observed before, you are simply using the topic to get in as many free kicks against Islam that you can.

But you refuse to apply the standards that you so pompously call for, to your own unpleasant offerings. That is the reason your credibility is an issue.

It is this constant barrage of hypocrisy that keeps me trying to rein in your excesses, Boaz.

And here is an example of exactly what I mean.

>>24 Muslims on trial in Sydney and Melbourne urgently requires us to understand what might be their mindset, where it COMES from, and what measures are needed to combat it<<

But first we need to establish guilt, yes?

Or is the fact that i) they are on trial and ii) Muslims, sufficient for you to make whatever inferences you like about their crimes, and motivations? I know that you would have us believe that every Muslim is by definition a potential murderer and rapist, but that doesn't give you licence to stretch reality.

>>Remember, they are only the ones against whom the AFP feel they have sufficient evidence to convict. Do you really think there are not many others out there, where the evidence is not yet sufficient?<<

You simply cannot see that this pernicious, fact-free sentence is pure rabble-rousing, can you?

Try saying it out loud, and thump the table at the same time for emphasis.

No facts. Just rabble-rousing.

Boaz,

If you watched BBC world and the Doha debates maybe you would understand a little more about Muslims and Islam. Islam have 5 pillars of faith and Hadith is not one of them. Hadith is taken with caution and maybe 5-7% only of hadith is in circulation. This 5% or so are the tolerant merciful hadith which is consistent with the Qu’ran. Your ‘version’ of the prophet is self inflicted created by questionable hadith that is used by mainly two groups: Islamist radical Imams and envious missionaries.

It does not matter who promotes the radical material you are as responsible as a radical Imam and what went into the mind of this 24 youth. You spend most of your time either on this forum or addressing Muslim youth promoting this material. It doesn’t matter what your intentions are the result could be one of the following:

1. For a Muslim audience: Muslim youth feel alienated by feeling wrongfully portrayed as a non peaceful religion OR a young angry nut case sees your posts and say ‘wow, so I can do that?’ and he goes and does it whatever that is (ie. the 24 youth is a good example)

2. For a non-Muslim audience: they will either believe what you are promoting and go and discriminate in a way / shape or form against a muslim (by denying them a job opportunity or by treating them rudely). Or they will live in fear and hate of Muslims and be scared everytime they see a Muslim on a train or a bus.

Which exactly of the above scenarios is useful to the society and its harmony?
How many other ‘step by step’ ways do you need before the penny drops and you accept that your attitude is part of the problem?
There is an old greek proverb: ‘On a deaf man’s door, you can knock forever’.

Peace,

T

FH,

‘On a deaf man’s door, you can knock forever’

Jesus said repeatedly: “listen if you have ears”

You are still living in denial of the true source of the problem being the erroneous teachings of your false religion.

Now it's BD's fault that young Muslims blow themselves up in the name of their god Allah after drowning themselves with Qur’anic recitations – believing that they will go straight to an Islamic paradise.

What are you doing as a good Muslim to try stop that carnage of young souls being manipulated by the teachings of your books?

By denying the death and resurrection of Jesus, Islam has shot itself out of religious contest with the true Abrahamic religions.

Mohammad's obvious attempts at abrogating Jesus with himself (as the greatest and last prophet) have brought shame and redicule on Islam for eternity.

The Qur'an cannot be taken seriously when the greatest historical event in humanity - such as the life and death of the Messiah Jesus - is been downgraded to a mere prophetic account...

Questions: What happened to the Injil - that mysterious book that the Qur'an alleged was given to Jesus?

Why is the name Jesus replaced by 'Isa' in the Qur'an? What does Isa mean? Are we talking about the same person here?

What does the word 'Massih' mean to you?

Coach,

Now that OLO have 'free nut bags', I can save the $2 I spend in the nut shop everyday.

Tesbah ala kheir..

Peace,

T

FH,

Sabah el foll wel yasmin - how about answering the questions instead of playing with your nuts?

Dear_Pericles
anyone reading this thread would laugh when they came across this in your post:

"Your habit is to make wild_assertions and then fail to back them up with_facts."

I've supported all my contentions with abundant facts, unless you describe the foundation documents of Quran and hadith as 'non factual'.

It IS my 'habit' to PROVIDE the underlying basis for any attack or assertion I make regarding Islam.
My major beef with you is that you see them but ignore them. You claim they are taken out of context, but when I clearly demonstrate the context, you try to twist this thread into a BoazCredibility thing.

Had I NOT provided sufficient evidence, you could rightfully claim I lack cred, but this is not the case.

I'll repeat my assertion:

"Islam is an aggressive religion, with violence and aggression tracable back through history from now, to Mohammed himself."

I supported this with quotations from the Quran (primary source) and then, supplied Hadith which further strengthen and explain the way Mohammad understood the Quran, yet you then have the audacity to say I'm making WILD assertions ?

But Pericles, claiming I would have you believe 'every' Muslim is a potential bomber murderer rapist etc.. is about as "wild" as they come. Welcome to Pericles Wild Kingdom. (your welcome to SHOW me where I've said such)

Then you say I am being selective. YES.. I am.. I'm selecting the most relevant portions of Islams foundation documents to make a point. To do otherwise would be irresponsible.

F.H. I feel for you, I really do. You desperately want your own faith to stand along side Christianity and have an equal footing in Australia. As I've said, my 'rants' are not against you personally.
But Islam is misunderstood..by Muslims and non muslims. Note the topic ? You may dislike Islam being challenged, but that is the nature of debate.
You could always approach the ICV and request they drop their action against CTF... it might help a lot. My posts are a reaction to what they did. As long as they persist.. so will I.

" 'Arab culture tends to promote a rather severe deference to authority which discourages initiative among subordinates. It promotes conformity with group norms over innovation and independent thinking. It also tends to promote a fierce loyalty to the group, which encourages individuals to shield friends and relatives from shame and reinforces the emphasis on conformity.' "

Familialism, higher vertical deference, patrimonialism and insider-good/outsider-bad are very much oriental values; e.g., traditional China. All are hard to maintain,or, beome issues if these are maintained, when confronted with globalisation, unless one lives one's life essentially behind closed doors in a non-Muslim country.

However, historically, when Islam was expnding into Africa and Spain, the Empire was quite liberal, inclusive and powered by Greek leagacies and had much more open attitudes towards knowledge discovery than then Christian knowledge-suppressed West.

Now, high vertical deference is reinforced by the maintenance of authority, and, familialism is reinforced within the family. Circles.
Muslim adademics need to advise on how to break these circles, but,that means taking-on clerics and entrenched traditionalism. It might be the answer, but, it is a tall order. Could the West do away with the Office of Vicar of Christ in six months?

Mutualism might be the answer: Common goals away from monotheistic conflict. [naive?]

Islam needs to place State above religion [not necessarily values] and the West needs to be modest and not see its "manifest destiny" to dominate the world. There is plenty of hunger and disease out there, common problems, to confront, together; before, we use the religions against each other, as combat bats.

Your vocation is in training politicians to avoid answering questions that they dislike, Boaz.

The point at issue is not that you trot out a whole load of quotations from scriptures, and interpretations of scriptures, to support your notion that "Islam is an aggressive religion, with violence and aggression tracable back through history from now, to Mohammed himself."

You do this with monotonous, even relentless, regularity.

The point is that you are a) highly selective in the quotations that you put forward as evidence and b) completely oblivious to the fact that this creates disharmony. This is why I see you as a mindless rabble-rouser.

Rabble-rousers obviously do not present both sides of a discussion, only one. And in doing so, they consciously select anecdotes with emotional triggers that are designed to inflame their audience.

Unfortunately this describes you perfectly.

This particular deflection of yours ("anyone reading this thread would laugh when they came across this in your post") is to divert attention from your inability to answer three questions I posed a few days ago. Let me refresh your memory.

We were discussing your choice in determining whether a scriptural quotation was literal or metaphorical. I pointed out that you invariably select "literal" for the gorier parts of the Qu'ran, while labelling the more unpleasant parts of the Bible as "obviously metaphor"

You denied this, so I merely asked you to point out one example from your posts that would support such a denial.

"Just three examples, please.

One of your posts in which you argue that a relevant (i.e. instructional, advisory, admonitory) part of the Bible should be taken literally.

One of your posts in which you argue that a relevant (i.e. instructional, advisory, admonitory) part of the Qu'ran should be taken metaphorically.

One of your posts where you select quotations that show Islam to be compassionate, caring and responsible.

Otherwise, your constant protestations that you are not a rabble-rouser, but simply a concerned soul outlining some historical issues about Islam, dissolves into the hot air that it is."

Oliver and pericles (my paid assistant:):)

Great to see level headed smart comments on this forum.

Boaz,

“You could always approach the ICV and request they drop their action against CTF... it might help a lot. My posts are a reaction to what they did. As long as they persist.. so will I.”

I have no problem with the debate but the way you debate. Here is a simple example:

The link below is a famous lecture by Ahmed deedat, the strongest Muslim critic of Christian theology in establishing that the biblical prophecies were about Mohammed pbuh. Compare his kind, logical language and his closing statement of ‘kind invitation to dialogue’ to yours and the CTF ‘style’ vile venomous approach to discussion.
http://www.jamaat.net/muhinbible/muhinbible.html

Yet on the other hand, you keep blabbering about love, tolerance, fair go...all the things that you do not practice yourself..:)

Coach,

Spirituality and religious beliefs are very personal matters. Those who keep sparking debates against other beliefs means that they are not convinced with their own positions (simple psychological fact). One day you will find a faith that makes sense to you. You will know that when you stop challenging other religions on public forums.

Peace,

Pericles_said:

[a) highly selective in the quotations that you put forward as evidence and
b) completely oblivious to the fact that this creates_disharmony. This is why I see you as a mindless rabble-rouser.]

[Rabble-rousers obviously do not present both sides of a discussion, only one. And in doing so, they consciously select anecdotes with emotional triggers that are designed to inflame their audience.]

Ok.. lets deal with that.

If I point out that the foundation of National Socialism is "MeinKampf" and that national Socialism is 'evil' ? Can this inherrent evil be redeemed by the very good social and economic activities of the National Socialists ?

Of course not,- Just because the Beetle gave the average German 'wheels' where they couldn't afford other cars, does not the National Socialists a nice party make. (inflamed audience is irrelevant)

Just as with Pablo Escobar, we don't give a 'balanced' view of his activities by pointing out:
a) He was a drug lord, a brutal merciless killer who surrounded himself with underage girls.
b) but he did some great things for the underprivileged people of Medayin..he:
-Built hospitals
-Schools
-Churches.
-Soccer pitches

So.. suggesting I am only taking 'ONE' side of the picture is not good argument. The "foundation" is the key.

I am DEFinitely being selective, because I am selecting the most relevant bits to prove a point. Evidence has a habit of being 'selective' Pericles....you of all people should know this.

F.H. you are right mate.. I do come across quite beligerantly.. no offense to you personally intended. But like at Kickboxing the other night, you have to roll with the punches :) and I have a screaming black eye to prove it. (good coversation piece I might add..when this one heals I might crash the other one into the fridge)

This is not usually the place for warm fuzzies :) its the place to kill or be killed, take no prisoners (in argument) but in person, I'm quite warm. I should start a thread 'Warm and loving' :)
Do you see Irf,Pericles,CJ Morgan,West 'warm' to_me ? ..I rest my case.

Boaz,

Glad you can see my point or parts of it finally...all the good things come to those who wait!

And 'no' I wasn't offended by ur comment. You of all people should know that after 3,189 postings all attacking Islam. I am surprised at how patient I can be sometimes :). Hope u recover from ur kick boxing, I am on holidays next week for a month so be good.

Peace,

FH,

I can easily throw your lines back to you:
Spirituality and religious beliefs are very personal matters. Those who keep sparking debates against other beliefs means that they are not convinced with their own positions (simple psychological fact). One day you will find a faith that makes sense to you. You will know that when you stop challenging other religions on public forums.

Except let me remind you that it is Islam that selectively and passionately attacks Jews and Christians in their books and sermon teachings – for reasons of insecurity of course.

If Islam had divine support it would not have to resort to personal threats and terrorism. We Christians leave the judging to our God Jehovah.

As for me, my faith in Jesus Christ the Son of God is strong and unshakable. I have 100% assurance of salvation; when my time on earth is done I will be united with The One true God The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit for eternity. What about you? Who is your personal saviour? Where are you planing to spend eternity?

You don’t answer my questions because you don't have answers do you?

The fact is your "faith" doesn't have the answers to life and death - it's all superstition and false hopes in a capricious god that keeps changing his mind.

Allah is not God - otherwise he would have made it clear to Mohammad that salvation is in His Son “alone” and not in a religion and/or laws.

Can keeping the laws of your religion save you?

All the biblical prophets attest to Jesus as The Messiah The Son of God. Therefore Mohammad cannot be a prophet and cannot have any association with The Word.

Have a good holiday and may Jesus prove real to you.

coach, I assume this remark was aimed at our friend Boaz?

>>Those who keep sparking debates against other beliefs means that they are not convinced with their own positions (simple psychological fact)<<

Thought so.

>>So.. suggesting I am only taking 'ONE' side of the picture is not good argument.<<

Boaz, don't forget that the position here is "is Boaz a rabble-rouser?"

Of course you take one side of an argument and push it - that's what forums are for. But you inevitably take it one stage further.

I still urge you to go and buy a copy of Mosley's "My Life", and observe how a highly intelligent, highly articulate man can convince himself that a particular view of life - fascism in his case - is the natural and most productive condition in which humankind can live.

He did not spend his time promulgating a balanced view either. He chose not to laud the achievements of the UK's Jewish population to balance his support of an anti-Semitic organization. In fact - and here the parallels get creepy - he went out of his way to paint the picture that he was not against Jews per se, even stating "[I] have not at any time been an anti-semite"

But do you entertain any doubts that Mosley was a rabble-rouser? Do you think that maybe he was not, after all, anti-Semitic?

Presenting interminably, and with vigour and self-certainty, that something is evil, Boaz, leaves you wide open to the charge of rabble-rousing.

As does the selection inflammatory material in support of your cause, choosing only the most unflattering extracts.

It is what rabble-rousers do.

Mosley did it. You are doing it.

And like Mosley, you are in complete and absolute denial that what you are doing is in any way harmful.

"We had a programme... which we were convinced could save the country in condition of crisis that might at any time deteriorate into national disaster. It seemed to me an absolute duty to give our people the opportunity to understand it and support it" Sir Oswald Mosley, My Life

Sounds familiar.

Coach,

Spirituality is really simple to me/us:

We believe we are one of the same, Muslims are no different than Christians of the 3rd/ 4th century and our position on Jesus is a biblical one. The Qu’ran as you may have read clearly stipulates that Muslims must believe in the Torah and the Bible.

Post 4th century theology (ie Trinity, divinity, original sin, etc..) is your right to believe in it if it makes sense to you. History taught us that religious debates about Jesus have never been resolved by discussions or by war: there are still growing Muslims, Christians, catholics, atheists, hindus, bhuddists, etc. What is important is to look for what we have in common with each other as groups and promote harmony. That’s what will make this country an even greater one.

PS: I never sparked a debate about religion, I only respond when my faith is mis-interpreted or mis-represented. I don’t try and preach my faith and you won’t find a single inconsistent posting on these forums. This is contrary to what you and boaz who have thousands of comments attacking a faith that is not yours. Btw, my intervention and correction happens with Muslims a lot more as i have no problem interrupting an Imam if he is quoting some of Boaz' 'dodgy' hadith. I had a famous encounter in a mosque in brisbane once.

Please forgive me if any of my previous comments offended you,

Peace,

FH,

Sorry that won't do it.

Islam does not have the same understanding of the person and mission of Jesus.

The "debate" as you put it is not about a difference of opinion about Jesus but the centrality of Jesus in Christianity and The Bible.

See FH, without Jesus dying on the cross for your sins and mine - the whole Bible reverts back to the Old Testament… stuck in the law.

After Jesus, the law becomes redundant. Moses job is over replaced by the redeeming saving power and grace of Jesus.

Original sin is the reason for the bible - not a 4th century post-resurrection after thought.

Without “original sin” Jesus' mission to earth is obsolete.

So don't tell me/us that Islam believes in the Bible and the Torah when crucial tenets are intentionally neglected to give way to a different set of beliefs.

Sorry but the more I read the Qur'an the more alien and anti-biblical your religion appears to be (compared to the real deal).

I will not accept your insinuations that your religion is somehow similar to Christianity. It is not and will never be. The Qur’an teaches that Jesus never died on a cross… how stupid is that?

Allah is a non-committed god – he cannot save you, couldn't save your prophet or even save suicide bombers. It is all a lie, a fictional fabrication from Mohammad.

How could the whole world accept the fact that Jesus died on a cross and your religion denies it?

Are you still willing to push for “similarities”?

It is time for you to accept Jesus as your personal saviour. Make your peace with the real God that loves you and died for you.

It is time you examine the reasons why you are defending the lies – because I sense that deep down you must know that Islam does not really add up to anything.

I am praying for you and all my other Muslim friends who haven't yet chosen the truth and the life.

Fellow Human -You say:
“my intervention and correction happens with Muslims a lot more as i have no problem interrupting an Imam if he is quoting some … 'dodgy' hadith. I had a famous encounter in a mosque in brisbane once“.

Please tell us when you spoke up against the “dodgy" hadith.
What was the outcome-did the Imam change his tune-or did you ultimately agree to disagree?

Coach,

You said "I am praying for you and all my other Muslim friends who haven't yet chosen the truth and the life"
I am sure many muslims are praying for you too and many bhuddists are praying for both us:):)
Let's agree to disagree and park it there.

Horus,

Where I grew up it was a must for scholars to quote references and source. When quoting from the Qu'ran is easy because most of the audience would know or memorised parts of it, but with the hadith the discipline is the imam should quote the source and refernce, etc..
I was actually surprised that in the case of the Brisbane (an indian pakistani) one he was just quoting 'losely right left and centre' without referring to the source so I had to intervene quickly. He was taken by surprise and apologetic and he said he will correct it in his next Friday speech but I was there on a surfing holiday so honoring his promise to me is between him and God.

One thing he said that worried me is that in his culture imams do not have to quote the source or contextualise which I find scary.

On another occasion, I was asked to leave the mosque, but that is another story altogether.

Fellow Human,
Re: "On another occasion, I was asked to leave the mosque, but that is another story altogether"

Can you tell us about this incident also.
It all relates to the subject- Moslem academics speaking out -and its enlightening to listen to

Hi Horus,

Sounds you find these matters entertaining!
I had many encounters and the one I was asked to leave when I went into the mosque wearing the surfing gear (ie knee short and sleeveless shirt). I was approached by someone who introduced himself as the imam and said I can't pray when I am dressed in this attire according to the sunnah.

I smiled and asked him to refer me to the hadith or reference. He got worried when i quoted him a genuine hadith that men can pray as long as they have covered between the belly button and knee (he didn't know that). He wasn't also aware that hair and beard are not sunnah related as I quoted him references where our prophet (pbuh) kept his hair at shoulder length.

He couldn't comment and asked me to leave. I didn't leave highlighting that nobody have the right to order a muslim out of a mosque (in our faith we believe a Mosque is a house of God so visitors are guests of God sort of speak). He stared at me with disbelief, mumbled and left angrily.

I had enough religious encounters with imams and missionaries to write a book. Hey, maybe its a good idea but noone will buy it.

Enjoy the weekend,

Peace

Hello Fellow Human,
I congratulate you on your independence at the Mosques and measured persistance with the postings.
Perhaps you could write an e-book . I am sure there would be plenty of budding Muslims ,Christians , Jews ,Budhists and the always curious Athieostics that would appreciate your experiences .

I hope you don't fall into their trap, Fellow Human.

Your courage, in confronting the bigotry that some religious leaders show in imposing their own personal standards under the guise of their faith, is commendable.

But please do not expect any similar responses from the anti-Islam brigade here. They will undoubtedly gloat over your ability to confront what they see as evil, but it will be on their terms, not yours.

You and I can see that they would have a far healthier view of the universe if they used the same questioning process on their own faith, and particularly the manner in which it is administered. But I can assure you (I suspect I have been around the traps a little longer; if I went into a church in board shorts I would be asked to leave on entirely non-religious grounds...) that they jealously guard their narrow-mindedness.

Keep fighting on the solid ground of logic and compassion. Keep the personal anecdotes to a minimum - remember, you don't have to justify yourself to anyone.

Especially those who clearly see you as the enemy.

Fellow Human
It been nice hearing your experiences.
I can assure you from my perspective there was no “trap” just genuine interest.

Peace!

Pericles
I don’t know who this THEY group is that has so ruffled your feathers… .
( that’s the danger of trying to play the Buck Cluck of OLO-you may get your feathers ruffled!)
But my advice is to forgive & forget -the old scars will heal…
And it seems to me that you yourself might be lacking a little compassion & understanding re this mysterious they group.
The world is not all black or white.
Have nice day

Hi Pericles,

Many muslims I know go through these experiences and soon these kind of scholars will find out that they have either to innovate and address the logic and the times we live in or face extinction. The thing is many of them are used to the 'one way lecturing' quoting 11th and 12th century interpretations rather than debate and discussion but I follow many of the new scholars and I can see the light.

There was times when Islamic scholars interpretation and teachings lead to Islamic enlightment and innovation in architecture, finance, health, medical, science, legal and social systems. Its a duty of todays' scholars to innovate and re-interpret for the 21 century and come up with how to restore our positive contribution to humanity in today's language and parameters. Its as important for average muslims to do what I do: stand up for the old obsolete and encourage the new and innovative.

I don't worry much about the anti-muslim 'fellowship of the ring' they always existed since Islam appeared on the earth.

Hi Horus,

Thanks for your comment and I know the world is not black and white.
When I started on these forums I realised its hard to be an Australian muslim but I found out that its is harder to be a non-muslim in australia because of the self inflcited fear non-muslims live in.

I admire what you did and that you asked me direct questions. I wish many non-muslims will do what you did: ie asking and talking to Muslims rather than wrapping themselves in fear, anger and hate. I can only promise you thruthful answers to the best of my knowledge and how I practice. That is the only way we can build a better society and live in harmony.

My favourite quote:
'The only way to conquer imaginary enemies is to reach out and turn them into good friends'

Peace

Dear Fellow Human ,

Rest Assured that there are, at this point in our history, very FEW Australians that are "wrapping themselves in fear ,anger and hate "over anything.

However I suspect you may be alluding to the odd one or two that live in these pages .

Most of us would much rather go to the footy and cheer for the underdog or go for a surf, than go to war over Religion .

This is a happier way of life .

FH,

I am not least surprised that your anecdotes impressed a few people.

But in fact, all that you had done was challenging others (including imams) to turn to the 'true' Islam.

As you stated time and again, you are here (in OLO) to correct misconception, misrepresentation about Islam.

And you are always presenting Islam as a moderate religion.

Therefore in blunt terms, you are here with a single-minded purpose: To present a DECEPTION, and to do it in friendly manners.

A deception that covers Islamic enlightment and innovation in architecture, finance, health, medical, science, legal and social systems....Hmmm...

But don't pretend for a moment non-muslims have not asked you direct questions. There are lots, just that you were incapable of answering them.

I present an excerpt from my earlier post:

<< The Jews and Christians have their religions and so Muhammad wanted to also establish a religion for the Arabs, the arch-enemy of Jews. There were untold personal benefits for Muhammad to so do.
So he started telling people he met Angel Gabriel and then the hoax grew and took on a life of it's own... Today this hoax has a respectable name - Islam.
It is laughable Muslims' claim that Muhammad's illiteracy is proof Allah must had put words in his mouth. I am sure Muhammad, illerate he might be, must'd been a very communicative person. You won't expect someone who could successfully command an army to be any less than being cunning, manipulative and communicative (and violent, too) >>

And now my direct question to you:

What is your proof that Muhammad's Islam is not a hoax?

(For teachings not based on the truth are futile)

THIS_IS_CLASSIC :)

Amazing 'balanced' remarks from our resident political thought policeman PERICLES..

F.H. says:
"I had many encounters and the one I was asked to leave when I went into the mosque wearing the surfing gear. I was approached by someone who introduced himself as the imam and said I can't pray when I am dressed in this attire etc."

then.....

"I smiled and asked him to refer me to the hadith or reference. He got worried when i quoted him a genuine hadith"

PERICLES Addressing F.H.
"Your courage, in confronting the bigotry that some religious leaders show in imposing their own personal standards under the guise of their faith, is commendable"

PERICLES Addressing BOAZ

"Presenting interminably, and with vigour and self-certainty, that something is evil, Boaz, leaves you wide open to the charge of rabble-rousing.
As does the selection inflammatory material in support of your cause, choosing only the most unflattering extracts.
It is what rabble-rousers do.
Mosley did it. You are doing it"

AAAhh..the sweet savour of 'exposure'
F.H. on the grounds of our thought policemans views I have to inform you that u r a REBEL mate :) a "rabble rouser"..HOW DARE you challenge established beliefs with a reference to their sources..hmmmmm Ok..its off to the inquisitory cell block 4 you me boy :) (In Damascus of course)

Ok.. seriously though.. how come you can refer to 'Authentic' Hadith in defense of your slack, ocker attire... and I cannot when referring to the understanding of Mohammed of his Quran ? I showed you and Pericles a while back.. AUTHentic.. Bukhari and Muslim.. I gave you the confirming introduction... etc.. yet..I'm a 'Moselyite Rabble Rouser' and you are a courageous ambassador of truth :)

I'm smelling just a tinnnnny bit of bias here ^_-

Oh..I've found my unofficial bodyguard now. He is a Samoan, built like a battleship but with twice the impact :)
See you at the Islmamic Conference in Melb over easter.

Pericles.. people come to our fellowship in F.H.s 'uniform' sometimes, no biggy.

That, Boaz, is the longest bow drawn so far, and you are fooling no-one.

>>F.H. on the grounds of our thought policemans views I have to inform you that u r a REBEL mate :)<<

Something has spooked you into a very defensive posture, and typically you are taking the only way out you know. First distort the views of others, then attack them as if those views belonged to them, rather than are the product of your own, somewhat pedestrian, imagination.

There is, let me be the first to break it to you, a world of difference between a gentle challenge to one of your own faith...

>>I smiled and asked him to refer me to the hadith<<

... and your habit of perpetual denigration of a faith that is not your own.

>>I'm smelling just a tinnnnny bit of bias here ^_-<<

Tinny or not, I will confess to a bias for honest evaluation, and a bias against blind fear of the "other" that manifests itself in rabble-rousing.

I'm also somewhat amused by your imagining me as "thought police". My mission here is to try in my own small way to blunt your attempts to distort, bend and magnify other views as "bad", in contrast to your own, which are apparently "good".

This is your modus operandi on most matters religious and cultural. If pointing it out here is acting as "thought police", then you have a very strange view of even that normally well-understood concept.

You mention Mosley again. Any thoughts yet on any of his quotes that I have posted? Did they ring bells, and that is why you are ignoring them?

Have a great day.