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.