Camo said: "Islam has no clergy class? What are the Ayotollahs, Mullahs, Muftis and Imams? ... If they don't have the official title of clergy, then they are even more powerful, as there is no legitimate means of opposing them, or of getting rid of them"

camo, have you done any research on exactly how many Muslims (as in people who tick the box "Muslim" on their census forms) in Australia go to the mosque? And how frequently they go? And how much they listen to imams?

How many lukewarm Anglicans agree with the Jensens on female ordination? How many lukewarm Catholics agree with Pell on embryonic stemcell research? I'm not sure. I haven't done the research.

Without proper research and repeated polling, how can we jump to conclusions about any faith-group?

Cont'd

Betty:
Maybe you can find another sarcastic post and misreport, misconstrue, mistranslate and misunderstand it.

There is plenty of debate going on, though you have yet to put forth any constructive arguments.
Your paranoia regarding censorship is unfounded - yes posts have been cut, but the abusive free for all that would result from allowing all posts, regardless of them being defamatory or disgusting, would not be in any way constructive. I say this as a person with a very strong attitude toward free speech - the only comments which are removed are the blatantly offensive ones. If you phrase your argument in a proper manner and with arguments to back it up, then it will not be removed.

It is also hypocritical to first slam the forum for cutting posts, then slamming them for not cutting posts - supposedly, seeking the "$" It would appear they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

The idea of an intelligent debate on these issues, is to look at the arguments put forth, and decide which have merit, which are merely rantings, and respond to each as they warrant.

I can see little merit in any of yours. If you want to join an abusive slanging match that allows all posts, regardless of content, then I'm sure you can find plenty on the internet.

If you'd like intelligent debate, then pick up your game.

I'm still posting on this thread because I enjoy analysing the various articles, and I have seen nothing from Irfan which I would regard as extremist or nasty, while I have seen in your posts a catalogue of errors and attempts at much more extreme dialogue.

So I say again - aside from the one sarcastic Jesus, Mary and Joseph post, which you have blatantly misinterpreted, is there anything else you can provide to back up your argument?

David Boaz, your post needs a minor correction .

Firstly, the Koran is thought to have been written during the 7th century. However, there is no practical reason why the Koran did not undergo a slow evolution that lasted well into the 8th century.

Secondly, the Hadith were not constructed ‘700-ish’. They were constructed during the 9th century - about 200 years after the Prophet‘s death. What’s more, these Hadith were taken from oral traditions and are therefore ‘hand-me-down’ stories stretching over generations. Imam Bukhari (died 870)is thought to have discovered about 600,000 oral traditions during his travels around the Middle East. Of these 600,000 he selected a mere 7,000 as being authentic. This means that 593,000 were fabricated lies or unverifiable. One wondered why he even bothered to create his Sahih at all!

David, you may have been thinking of Islam’s main biography written by Ibn Ishaq. This was composed about 120 years after the Prophet’s death - although I should add that the original copy has never been found. Ibn Ishaq’s work is cited second-hand.

So, where does all this dodgy Koranic history leave us? Well, it destroys the fundamentalist idea of Islam being beyond doubt. When the historical sources (nearly all Muslim) are assessed we simply cannot know with any certainty the true origins of the Koran.
Yet, from the viewpoint of objective certainty many Muslims will argue the merits of their Holy Book. The likes of Sheik Hilali will make his sordid pronouncements as if they are iron clad and inspired by God. Of course this is misleading and grossly deceitful - but thousands of gullible and brainwashed (from birth) Muslims will lap it up. They will actually believe that womens’ dress contributes in some way to rape.

And Irfan is defending this nonsense…..

(Note: The Torah, The Old Testament, and The New Testament are all just as unreliable as the Koran. I don’t want to be too one-sided here.)

David scared the hell out of me with his last post. His little list reminded me so much about what can be found on the Christian Zionists web page. They are much, much, MUCH scarier than all the Muslim terrorists and fundamentalists put together in one training camp.

That's the only faith based group of people that scares me. They are the only ones who are rejoicing about what is happening in the Middle East. They have a Rapture Index. The higher the conflict, the higher the index, the closer we are to Armageddon. And that's very good. Did I mention George Bush's new found Christian faith and the military arsenal at his disposal? I don't even want to go there before I start believing conspiracy theories. But then, why are some conservative Christian groups in the USA concerned??

What about Jerusalem?? What does the faith based state of Israel have to do with the discussion on Islam??

Yvonne, I note that you haven't mentioned my reference to the Barbary War (which was raised in Boaz David's last post), nor have you answered the question posed in my post of Saturday, 3 March 2007 9:25:40 PM - the first paragraph contains it. Could this be because you might find it very difficult to tar and feather me as a "Christian-Zionist" who believes in the Rapture?

Also, as a former high school history teacher I find it absolutely laughable for you to keep rattling on about history as if you were the only one who understands it. Give us a break ... of course the Second World War was "not about the Jews" as you put it so clumsily.

As for using Tariq Ali and Avi Shlaim as one's sole points of reference, I prefer my reading to come from all over the political spectrum. Salman Rushdie used to be a Muslim too but check out what he has to say about his former faith. And ditto for Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Might I suggest that you also acquaint youself with the writings of Maryam Namazie who has the courage to rail against both American imperialism and the appalling treatment of women in fundamentalist Iran. You could check out a speech that she gave at a March 8, 2002 conference entitled 'Islam, Secularism and Women in the Middle East' in London. One URL for this is: http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=115

Dear Yvonne.. do you think_before_writing?

No offense but... claiming my post was more_scary than "all the muslim fundamentalists put together" is outright silly at best, and quite irresponsible. Scary is Quran_chapter 9:30 have a read.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.030

I gave you a historical backbone for understanding the MiddleEast, not creating a Zionist master race or greater Zion/Israel nation.

Failure to comprehend the Genesis record is failure in the most basic idea driving the Middle East conflict. Do you by any chance think its just about a bit of lost Arab land ?

If so, then I have to challenge such shallow naivity forthwith.
Genesis is not only the 'book of beginnings' it also records the beginning of the Arab Jew conflict, and if you doubt me, read Gen 12-end and then ask a Muslim/Arab 'who' Abraham nearly sacrificed.

You might think this has little relevance ? Up to you, but when you see which promises regarding the land were made in Genesis, and to 'WHOM' they were made, you might begin to appreciate the matter and its modern relevance.

Jerusalem has EVERYthing to do with the settlement of the Middle East.
You have the Orthodox Jews and Zionists on the one hand and the "Islamic Waqf" mob on the other (Hamas, Hezbollah)
My list should have included that also.. see this please.
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html
scroll to "Part III Strategies and Methods" Article 11.

TR thanx for that extra info on the various documents. I hasten to add though, on your reliability claim, its much much stronger than you suggest.
I've looked at key hadith which have been passed down though various diverse chains of narrators (different narrators, locations etc) and have been astounded at the accuracy. So, I must caution against writing off the New Testament/Biblical traditions so lightly. Clearly Ancient memory and methods of preserving oral tradition was wayyyyy better than ours. Remember, Jesus taught many truths via 'parables' which are even easier to remember than discourses.

I have little doubt the Quran is very well preserved, I just find its contents abhorrent and far from holy. see Surah 23:5-6, 33:50, 9:30