Betty: changing tack again I see.

I was asking you to back up the fact that you had said "What a nasty (check spelling, OK) little minded man you are"

The source of that statement was: "Dear me Irfan, let's generalise shall we. Talk about venom. A virgin, a carpenter and a messiah, nasty people. Only if you don't agree with their religion and beliefs Irfan which you don't."

You also said: " it's religious intolerance. Amply displayed by Irfan's own venom poured out against Mary, Jesus and Joseph"

You've yet to back away from that statement, which was based on a sarcastic post. How was this venom?

Yet later, when this was pointed out it became what exactly? 'Faux acceptance?' I see. So it's 'faux acceptance' when your normal acceptance became inconvenient.

I asked you to provide another example of this 'venom' as you still stuck to your guns that Irfan is somehow attacking other religions.

It is this 'venom' that I would like to see some kind of example of - some kind of substantiation. I've yet to see any.

Now you are saying "If you read Irfan's original item and my posts you may actually discern that we are making the same point."

No, actually. I think you've changed point somewhere along the way to claiming that the issue is easily mistranslated, when you realised that the basis of your argument was flawed.

Cont'd.

I've been asking you to back up the claim that Irfan is a nasty little minded man - using a post other than the one that was clearly sarcastic as a basis.

As for me mentioning that on a personal note I was aware it was difficult to get moderates to speak up... I note you contemptuusly dismiss it as irrelevant, but quite frankly I think the issue of moderates V extremists is a key part of this debate.

If you disagree, kindly give reasons. And as you advise, let's try to keep them straight huh?

I'll concede - the post you mentioned was directed at R0bert - touche. I'll concede that you may have meant sustainability in terms of $. Touche again - though you do seem to have changed from assuming the site is politically motivated, to motivated by sustainable profits.

And it's quite clear that you implied posts would be removed if they didn't comply with political views, when you assumed your post would be removed for this reason. That post wasn't. There's your crying.

And yet, you have nothing to support this assumption.

I know it's easier to adopt a haughty attitude and claim that it's everybody else playing chinese whispers, but really, I've been quite straightforward: either put forward an example of why Irfan is so nasty (which you have been unable to do, save the sarcastic post) or revise your view.

And I'm afraid there is nothing in those posts to indicate your acceptance of that quote was 'faux.'

A little consistency would be nice - it would make it ever so much easier to follow your arguments.

Heya TRTL

I wouldn't waste your energy.. the fact that the original sarcasm went so far over Betty's head gives me little hope for your being able to engage her in rational debate.
The whole things reminds me of a wonderful neologism that some of you may have come across - "sarchasm" - the yawning gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the intended recipient's ability to get it....

MOHAMMED THE PROPHET OR ALEAXANDER THE CONQUEROR?

Today, when many examine the experiences of Islam visa~a~via Judeo-Christianity, we tend to look for the roots circa 580-630 CE. Those familiar with Arnold Toynbee, however, would turn the clock back, even further and review the eight hundred years leading-up to the establishment of Islam.

If we do take acount of the mentioned pariod, we find the Ancient Gripes, before the Old Gripes.

Around 300 BCE, the Syriac civilization resisted Hellenisation and continued to do so until the Arab tribes were unified in seventh century. In parallel the Christian myth had been Hellenised, via the Pauline doctrine, wherein, at the time of the rise of Isalm, we, also had a [Vulgar] Hellenised Rome,and, a [Vulgar] Hellenised Church of Rome. The Western Roman Expire had fallen, 476 CE (Gibon), and, Isalm was on the ascendency 700 CE into to the tenth century.

What stood in opposition to Islam was not merely Judeo-Christianity, but, rather, "Hellenised" Christianity. Islam respected the prophets, but not the Western church. Moreover, meanly, the older churches ridiculed the ermerging Islamic faith, for its lack of knowledge of the ancient scriptures. Thus, immediately DID NOT accept an ecclestastical posit.

In sum, the [disunified] Arabs were opposed to the Greeks, cautious of the encrotchment of expanding religions [already having prophets]. Meanwhile, the Hellenised Roman Catholic Church poured oil on the frames.

[The irony is Byzantine Empire preserved for the West [Attic] Greek Philosophy/Theory/Episte, which fueled the Reformation and the Great Divergence in the West.].

What -in part- has happened is, ancient dissimilarities morphed and were carried-forward under religious guise into the Christian Crausades period and with the expansion of Islam into Africa and Spain.

Perhaps had Paul not contrived the Nature of Jesus, we would not have this conflict between Christianity and Islam. However, without Paul, there might have been no modern Christianity.

In the Letters/Comments section of the online version of The Australian (March 8, 2007), Irfan (Yusuf??) of Canberra asserts the following:
"There is no such thing as ‘Muslim culture’." and
"There are many Muslims who prefer not to be just defined by their religious background. In fact, most Muslims have other defining features they regard as more important e.g. nationality, ethnicity, language".

OK, Irfan - if that is the case then answer me the following:

1. Look up Anouar Majid's 1995 essay "Can the Postcolonial Critic Speak? Orientalism and the Rushdie Affair" and note that he applauds Ali Mazrui's observation that Salman Rushdie "has been perceived by many Muslims as being guilty of cultural treason". This was in the aftermath of the publication of The Satanic Verses. (How could Rushdie be a traitor to something that you claim does not exist?) Indeed, if there is no such thing as Muslim culture, why then did thousands of Muslims all across the globe violently demonstrate against Denmark, America, Jews - you name it - in the wake of the publication of the Danish cartoons of Muhammad?

2. If in fact, most Muslims have other defining features they regard as more important e.g. nationality, ethnicity, language, then why is it that when Terry Sander from Britain's National Secular Society, recently wrote that,"Not all Muslims are as attached to their religion as the MCB (Muslim Council of Britain) document would have us believe', he was taken to task by Osama Saeed at the Rolled-up Trousers blog, amongst many others? Including it should be added, the fruitbats at the Islamophobia Watch website.

Snappy Tom,

if all Muslims have such an overriding culture that it negates language, ethnicity, nationality, etc why aren't they than a homogenous united group?

Have you noticed the killing that is happening in Iraq between Muslim Iraqis for instance? Why is the Middle East then such a powder keg? Why are there then so many Muslim refugees and displaced persons in the Middle East?

If Muslims are so as one culturally they should be one happy family united in facing a common enemy.

Are there really people who believe that everybody who practices their Islamic faith is hell bent on destroying the West?