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!)