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,