BenM (Friday, 2 March 2007 8:02:30 PM) made the following point:
"Religious or ethnic intolerance is not confined to Muslim societies-the predominantly Catholic Philippines has long been characterized by distrust of and conflict with Muslims, and the separation of Pakistan and India involved Hindu and Muslim atrocities in equally large scale measure". He also pointed out that "in places such as the Northern Philippines, ... numerous instances of family disownment and job discrimination against Muslim converts and Muslims have emerged particularly since 9/11".

I hear all of that but I am not here to defend either Catholic intolerance or Hindu intolerance. My main point would be that just about every Muslim-dominated country on this globe practices some form of religious intolerance towards non-Muslim minorities within the boundaries of that country. There is often discrimination against the smaller sects of Islam within those countries as well.

Only last week an Egyptian court sentenced a blogger to four years' prison for insulting Islam and the president, Hosni Mubarak. Most of the sentence was handed out for the crime of "insulting Islam". The blogger's main crime was that he wrote the following - "Muslims revealed their true ugly face and appeared to all the world that they are full of brutality, barbarism and inhumanity," after a Christian church was attacked by Muslim rioters in Alexandria in 2005. The blogger - Abdel Kareem Nabil Soliman - is described by his fellow writers as a "vocal secularist".

And what about Iran? A 2003 report by the FIDH (Fédération Internationale des ligues des Droits de l'Homme) describes Iran as a "clerical oligarchy" in which "the State itself is conceived as an institution and instrument of the divine will". Their report notes the "the alarming situation of religious minorities in Iran, who are victims of discrimination on a daily basis both in law and in practice". The report particularly notes the plight of members of the Bahá'í faith who "are not even granted the theoretical right to perform their religion and are subject to systematic discrimination on the basis of their religious beliefs".

Betty,

Irfan has scored more centuries here than Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting, he may have even got a double century once or twice.

Politicians should take note, what issues are the most popular?
Irfan knows.

All what is the difference between the Bible and other fiction with lead characters? Specifically in the real world what is the difference?

Even childrens books could be quoted as having an epistemological value. Prove the Cat in the Hat does not exist. That Dr Zeuss was not inspired by the cat in the hat. Prove the cat in the hat is not god. Faith requires god is possible therefore it is possible for the cat in the hat to be god. Anything could be god, I could be god , you could be god, or god is not a god at least to the honest faithful everything has to be possible. Of course what we are talking about the prejudicial faithful , those that believe in the bible and discount that even god could be nothing other than what they choose god to be.

Star Trek was an illustration the difference between Atheists , antitheists , agnostics and theists. The two former are rational based and the two later are superstition based.

BenM great posts. Unfortunately speaking of personal experience does not hold much water with a number of posters. Generally muslims are seen as inherently violent and as one huge group of united people all waiting to take over the world and subject us to Sharia law. It will not matter even if you can state that you grew up in a predominantly muslim country and have personal experience of people who practice Islam. Fundamentalists could only wish that the world's muslim community was as united as perceived by some and are ready to force us all to embrace Islam.

Hamas, Hilaly and any other fundamentalist is the only face of Islam that fits in with the present popular perception. Any disagreement and you will be directed to addresses of violent Islamic web-sites. It matters not a jot that within the Muslim faith there are ethnic, racial and historical differences, and disagreements.

Just a reminder to some of you who are so eager to post the addresses of some of these web sites. The Terrorism Act 2005 actually gives ASIO the power to investigate you and hold you for 2 weeks without any charge and without notifying anyone of your arrest, just because you could be getting some information in order to commit a terrorist act. Or you could be recruiting. Your public life could just be a front. That's the level of hysteria that we are allowing in this Nation. It's a bit like car accidents, so many of us smug because we think it couldn't happen to us.

To anyone who is genuinely interested and concerned why Islamic terrorists are targetting us, start reading a bit wider (books, not web sites). European and Middle East History are good places to start.
Knowing about the Diggers at ANZAC cove will not be enough I'm afraid.

Yvonne are you really trying to suggest that somehow the Terrorism Act 2005 and the powers that it gives ASIO are worse than what goes on for minorities (and women) in Egypt, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc, etc, etc?? Oh, and by the way the short name of the legislation is actually the Anti-Terrorism Act 2005.

You also state that "Hamas, Hilaly and any other fundamentalist is [sic] the only face of Islam that fits in with the present popular perception". Are we supposed to ignore the actions of Islamic regimes in countries such as the Sudan just because they don't fit in with the notion of the "nice Muslim" that you attest to. And by the way I do know people who are practising Muslims - and some are very pleasant, helpful people. And some are decidedly unpleasant. But virtually every Islamic-majority nation on this globe is ruled by governments which have the most appalling human rights records. And their clergy generally gives full support to this state of affairs.

Lastly you suggest that we start reading a bit wider in order to understand why Islamic terrorists are targeting us. That's a good point but a reading of European history will tell you that the Islamic invasion of the 8th Century happened a long, long time BEFORE the Crusades.

Yvonne, some of us are well acquainted with Islamic and Middle Eastern history. Yes, we all know that religion is not always the sole cause of international conflict. There are numerous reasons why countries and civilisations go to war.

However, we can all agree that religion intensifies conflict. Religion is the petrol that gets thrown on the smouldering fire of cross-cultural discontent. Not only that, religion sometimes makes it impossible to conclude a conflict. Religion maintains, a cycle of violence that is trans-generational.

Therefore, the outcomes of American interference in Israel and Iraq will be positively worse than it needs to be because of the influence of Evangelical Christianity on American foreign policy AND the delusion of Fundamentalist Islam that has unfortunately gone global.

It is an obvious fact that if there were no Christians in the USA, and no Jews and Muslims in Levant/Middle East then harmony would be far more easier to obtain. There would be less chest-beating tribalism with which to deal with.

Finally, in the context of what I’ve just written I would like to draw the distinction between Islam and Muslims. Muslims on the whole just want to get on with their lives and fit in with everyone else without being bossed around.

However, the religious phenonomen of Islam begats Islamism. And Islamism really is totalitarian, wants to ’rule the world’, and detests diversity. It is Islamism (represented by Hilali and co.) that I find repulsive and feel morally bound to oppose.