In the 1980s members of the United Palestinian Workers in Sydney wrote a joint statement for peace with members of the Sydney Jewish Left. The SJL invited the Palestinians to a passover feast as well. It is encouraging to hear that such dialogue is happening now. It is probably no accident that the main initiative seems to come from women. Keep it up, in spite of criticisms from both sides every little effort to make peace and to have dialogue is worth while.

Good on you!

Only this kind of efforts can start the real peace process.
So far, most efforts were just focused on armistice.

There is a need for deep understanding that happiness of Jews and Palestinians can be achieved only simultanously.

regards

Paul

I would encorage participants in this thread to read "Blood Brothers" by Fr. Elias Chacour and also to learn a little of his life at http://www.meei.org/who/abuna.html.

"Blood Brothers" give a bit of history of the establishment of the state of Israel through the eyes of a Melkite Christian Palestinian boy as he grows to manhood and becomes a leader in the quest for reconciliation between Palestinian Arabs and Jews. That boy is Elias Chacour.

where do the palestinians stand? the jews have taken most of their land, and seem intent on taking all.

after taking the land with military force, they are aggrieved to discover that hamas wants to take it back, with military force.

every conqueror wants peace, when their appetite for conquest is sated. it's much easier to enjoy the fruits of victory when the other side accepts defeat. hamas isn't there yet, and after the failure of the usa to establish a colony in iraq, perhaps they are right to be hopeful.

in the meantime, ozzies should think twice about following the usa into military adventures: putting morality aside as pollies do, the relative decline of usa economic base is beginning to manifest itself in their military capabilities. the yanks will declare "mission accomplished" soon enough, and leave iraq. then the people there will work out their destiny without 'guidance' from the pentagon. but the truth is, our "great friend" is a hollow shell, a paper tiger. standing near them will be painful and profitless.

As a 54 year old gentile but keen observor of middle eastern politics, I think that the authoress is spot on in her strategy. The start of the resolution of the northern ireland problem, started with the groups that the authoress is proposing and ended in the unified womens march's of the eighties that was the basis for the todays positive developments in Ireland.

The issues between the Palestinian people and the Jewish culture are our best bet for a peaceful resolution between Islamic culture and Western culture. Jewish culture is middle eastern culture but whether western civilisations like it or not, it is a parant of western culture. If such a resolution occurs, then it becomes a conduit of the West to open a dialogue with the Islamic world.

It is clear that states cannot resolve this dilemna and yet citizens of both cultures want the same things. They want security, economic well being and social stability. The only way to effectively deal with radicals in both camps is to have members of their family seeking conciliation.

By the laws of social intercation, one person will represent hundreds. Both cultures are based on clan based family structures. Thats where effective change will occur.

I wouldn't worry to much about the local community authorities; neither should the Palestinian community. Its not a political exercise its a social episode.

Best of luck.

Goodness me, speaking as a social scientist, how in the heaven can anyone expect peace between Arabs and Israelies, when a half-baked America has allowed little Israel to build atomic weaponry with power enough to take command of the whole Middle East?

All this with the Arabs, apart from crude rocketry and a few side-arms, have only suicide bombing to really voice their opinion.

Talk about condemning academics who have Phd's covering the problem, it is about time most of our onliners got real and listened to people who spend their lives doing scientific studies on it.

Donna

Unfortunately the usual group of Israel and US haters have just tried to take over the discussion.

To get back to what you are doing, taken on face value it seems excellent. I think however that many Jewish groups are being careful because so many other peace groups have in fact been running hidden political agendas. It was a mistake to include Iraq and Hicks as they are irrelevant to the issue and make it look like you are just beating the usual lefty drum. Too many Jews have been deceived before and this mistake may be fatal, when your group deserves wider support.

To recover credibility you will have to work hard and isolate yourself from side issues. You will also need a presence in Melbourne. It would have been appropriate to replace Buddhist and Hindu prayers with Druze and Baha'i as these are religions actually represented in the Middle East.

Logic, though I fully agree with small patch up friendships occurring between Jews and Arabs as you point out - again I must say, let's get real and look at the side of the Palestine-Israeli problem which is the real cause, as any Middle East historian will tell you.

Too many Western interests favouring the Israelies rather than the Arabs, which certainly gave allowance for Israel to be given the ridiculous freedom to go martially atomic in the first place.

Even though many social scientists dislike the Arabs personally, they are still taught as in sport, to retain that sense of fair play, which is certainly not being carried out as regards the whole Middle East problem, ever since the end of WW1.

Am still ashamed to say that our modern record in the Middle East smells worse than an open sewer, Logic, and that is speaking as a qualified historian.

annnnnd...another totally wasted article, full of naivity and utopian leftist dreamtime.

QUOTE:
"We would not stay for the political speeches, because we all knew that such political specifics serve to divide people. They alienate and they threaten."
ENDQUOTE

Ummmm.. no kidding? The PROBLEM is 'Political' you duffer and when people start to talk about the ACTUAL problems and issues, you all go home! A bigger pack of sobbing, pathetic dills would be hard to find.

Political problems require (wait for this.. it's a dooozy) POLITICAL solutions. You can hug and lovefest each other in the comfort of Sydney till the cows come home, but it won't change the fundamentals which divide the Jews and Muslims.

CHALLENGE
Ok..

1/Ask those friendly Palestinian Muslims who you are warmly hugging "Would you accept Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem including the Temple Mount"? If you get a 'yes' response, then peace is possible.
2/ Ask them if they are ok with the refugees NOT having right of return (but being re-located and compensated)?

There..just 2 "political" issues. If you score ok with them, we can deal with the rest.

So, I doubt if its 'Jews and Palestinians' standing 'united', its more about 2 groups of highly polarized people standing in the same place at the same time, and not mentioning those things which divide them.

The other important point is, you may find a group of Quizzling Jews who are of the same mind, and are prepared to sellout their spiritual and historical heritage...but that does not make them representative of all Israelis. *think*

DEMOS
where do the Israelies stand ? They are reclaiming the territory STOLEN by:

a) Romans around the time of Christ
b) By the Muslims around the time of MOhammad.

CRIMES OF HISTORY are being reversed and all you can do is moan about the poor 'victims' who are in fact the descendants of the CRIMINAL INVADERS.
Simply being 'born' in a place which your parents stole does not make it any less the property of those it was stolen from, and YES this does apply to Australia.

I've seen the fire in the eyes of young Aboriginals in Melbourne on Australia day, I've seen their passion and hatred for 'the white man' and trust me, though I'm not a prophet, I can predict BIG trouble from radicalized, socilist-ized and possibly Islamized young Aboriginals in years to come.

The difference between Australia and Israel/Palestine, is that the Israelis have the firepower to use the "If you don't accept the historical right argument how about the 'MIGHT is RIGHT' one"?

Demos, notice what is happening in Zimbabwe? Notice also what is being SAID in Zimbabwe about 'why' they are doing what they are doing?
Yep....you got it.. 'reversing crimes of history' where the white man stole their land by military conquest. Now all the bleeding hearts are whining and wringing their hands about 'human rights' HAH! what about the human rights of millions of black africans who were marginalized to the most marginal land by our mob?

The day you can get a Muslim Palestinian to admit they "stole" the land, rather than "liberated it for the sake of Allah" you might have a chance of 'peace'.

Boaz, you might also care to reflect on the fact that not all displaced Palestinians are Moslems. Some of them are also Christians. Also, if you think that "might is right" in palestine, then perhaps "might is right" in other places around the world too.

Your God, put certain conditions on Israel which they have chosen to violate, so in fact they have forfeited their right to be His chosen people.

Since you are all dismissing the basic concept of peace I will reiterate.

DEMO

You talk about stolen land. Is this a mantra you use in meditation? If you want to talk about stolen land please remember:

1) The long term Jewish and Christian inhabitants. Yes they exist and were never given complete equality under the Muslims.

2) The purchase price demanded of the Zionists to buy land. This hardly fits anyone's definition of stealing when a price is paid for an item.

3) The land taken from about 900,00, yes 900,000 Jews and also from Christians, Druze, Samaritans, Baha'i when they were edged out of Arab countries.

To ignore the other side of the ledger is just biased and morally bankrupt. Israel in fact has been a haven for these indigenous, displaced people, who have a right to continue living in the Middle East in the sort of freedom we enjoy. They form roughly half of its population.

In fact what decent people like Donna and friends are trying to achieve is a resolution of a conflict where several groups have seemingly conflicting rights. To empty the argument of one sided prejudices is surely the first step. And DEMO your views don't help in the least.

bushbred - suggest that you enrol youself in a critical thinking course and if your post reflects your overall grammatical skill; I'd suggest you clean that up as well. For the other's, rehashing all the reasons why Donna and her group will fail; not one of you has provided a constructive alternative. But that's not what you are about, is it? Its about maintaining the rage and prejudice in a endless cycle of assertions that have the novelty of a broken record.

If you don't have the courage to break out of the square of your prejudice and bigotry, then stay where you are and take comfort in your catechism of negativity. Meanwhile Donna and her group will cut the Gordian Knot and do what movers always do - change the world!

Have some respect for you rightist elitist hangers-on, but must say it will get you nowhere, but just eventually more war - war. Please do some well proven academic study, and you might even find a recipe for a decent peace, not a peace held together with fully loaded US and Israeli missiles, with nuclear warheads ready standing by.

As the great writer Tacitus said of his countrymen - these Romans, peace to them is not the quiet after winning a battle, but after putting a whole population to the sword.......

Yes, even modern elitist minds do have such thoughts as Tacitus mentioned.

Good article Donna,
More of the same please!

Boaz,

Don't u get tired of being anti-peace, anti-harmony, anti-everything that other humans promote?
People try to bridge gaps between humans by better communication and focussing on what we have in common. Yet all you seem to promote is differences, division and disharmony. I mean, are you a happy person? do you sleep well at night?

Peace,

F.H. you of all people should realize that I'm sufficiently read in history to know that what Donna's group is doing is 'warm hearted' but naive.

I don't 'oppose' such overtures, I just think they are a waste of time. Why ? Because no amount of Donna's mob marching with a banner is going to change Hamas Charter Part 3 Article 11 "Islamic Waqf"

Mate.. arguing with me won't change it. But don't you agree that such things are imporant to consider in a debate such as this ? There is absolutely 'zero' room for negotiation in the Hamas position. You know it, I know it.

Peaceniks are in every society, they just don't have a clue about how the world works. They live in some sentimental dream time that has never emerged in history...ever.

The only exceptions I can think of, are when genuinely faithful Catholics and Protestants marched together in Northern Ireland. But was the IRA marching with them ? Nope, or the Protestant Paramilitaries ? Nope.

Peace can exist between people, but not between nations when those nations are founded on the perceived or real oppression or disenfranchizement of the other. So, the most which can be hoped for is that little groups of peaceful sympathetic Jews will meet with and be friends with similar Arabs, but is anyone brave enough to think that the Arabs are not hoping the Jews will come over to their view ?

If they did, they would be kicked out of Israel (socially at least)
because they simply don't realize the eventual outcome of embracing the Arab views about things.
If the Arabs come with 'Right of Return' (and compensation) and the Jews come with 'Right of Return' (and compensation) (to former homes in arab countries) how far do you really think it will get?

Boaz,

You are saying what I am saying:
Hamas is a result of people like Donna being 3 or 4 decades late.
Hamas and similar angry organisations wouldn't have the chance to survive let alone come to power if Donna and people like her started their efforts with their palestinians counterparts in the sixties.
Late is better than never anyway, but at least she is lighting a candle.

Peace,

David,
If we extend your example of northern Ireland; then we have a little dilemma for you. The result of these 'christian' women who had been at war with each for 200 / 300 years; marching for peace was that the gunman of both sides are sitting down together as patriot politicians. Or it that you have a problem with the prospect of the women of the book from both cultures, marching together to ignite change?

Your rather strangely transparant attempt to divide these two great cultures on the basis that the Jewish culture will stand with christianity against Islam both astounds me and leaves me a bit speechless. But I think you can safely assume that the families in Israel and Palestine have other things on their minds.

The world is moving David; its almost apocolyptic in nature and it has had the effect of questioning old truths and that is why you are fighting a rear gaurd action. The days of Australia as a christian nation are over; we are a multicultural nation and that is a demographic fact - the disputes of are we or are we not a multicultural nation are over; we are!

Dear Netab, you raise an important point. You highlight that the 'warriors' of those peaceful women are now turning into legitimate politicians. Well noted. I think the reason might be more connected to them realizing that there is no basis for militant antagonism in Christ. (or, maybe the prime movers like Paisley and co. are just wanting a more positive legacy)

The difference between Catholics and Protestants is more like that between Shia and Sunni than Jews and Muslims. The gulf between Jew and Muslim is as far as the east is from the west, as the Hamas Charter clearly shows.
F.H.'s thought about Donna's mob coming on the scene too late, such that attitudes hardened to the point of giving birth to a 'HAMAS' monster child, is 'close but no cigar'. Hamas are simply reflecting true Islamic theology.
ISLAMIC
"I have been called to fight against people so long as they do not confess there is no God but Allah" Hadith Muslim book 1 number 30,(also in 31 and 32 and in Bukhari)

CHRISTIAN
Protestants and Catholics suddenly getting along, is also reflecting true Christian theology.
John 13:34"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

Regarding Australia being 'multi-cultural' Please reas this:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=164

Boaz,

Hamas is a political movement trying to legitimise using religion.
If it was only religious, why did it start only 3 decades ago?

Political movements using religion to legitimise to expland is a deja vu. I was in Egypt recently and was surprised me to the M Brotherhood gaining 20% of seats in the latest elections. This movement was founded in Egypt in the 1920s to resist British occupation. Why is it that only now (90 years later) that it would come to power and political landscape? . The same reason over and over again: a mix of failing government policies and US foreign investment policies.

Another comment you said:

"The gulf between Jew and Muslim is as far as the east is from the west"
Actually nothing is further from the truth and simply look at history of the middle east. Jews and Muslims share a lot of habits and traditions from the food they eat all the way to pure monotheism.
How did they manage to live together side by side that long if the enimity between them was religious? didn't the Muslims rescue the Jews from the Catholic Spanish Inquisition?

Peace,

Fellow_Human

You have taken words out of my mouth. Religions are adaptable beasts and hardly anyone looks hard at their fundamental teachings. Manipulative people will use religion to manipulate others to their ways.

Fanatics in my view tend to act out of hatred and insecurity. They will pray on others as insecure as themselves. Once you get to the children you have established a dangerous pattern which is hard to remove. Attaching all of this to a religion, as you say gives it holy sanction.

But Jews and Muslims have at times lived badly together. When Jews do not accept Islam (or Christianity) that becomes a bad a advertisement for the proselytizing religion which then feels it has to act.

Logic
‘But Jews and Muslims have at times lived badly together‘
A very subtle way of putting it!

Fellow-Human
1) ‘the M Brotherhood gaining 20% of seats in the latest elections… Why is it that only now (90 years later) that it would come to power and political landscape’
Actually the brother has been very active in Egypt & other parts of the ME for a long time-and have been instrumental in a number of assassinations. Govt suppression probably had a lot to do with their low profile up to now..

2) “a mix of failing government policies and US foreign investment policies’
Or is it at base levelthat Egypt is overpopulated -& some finding material opportunities limited or frustrated are prone to listen to anyone who promises a way out.

3) Would you agree that the Koran does not always portray Jews(as a race) in a positive light- & how do you reconcile your beliefs with that?

Hi Logic,

Good to read from you again!

Agree with your last comment but the overwhelming majority of times Muslims, Christians and Jews lived peacefully in the Middle east.
Why did the early Muslims maintained the nativity churches until today in Palestine and Egypt?

Hi Horus,

I grew up in egypt and am aware of the MB activities and history. The issue is people need a system (jobs, schools, education, health system, hospitals, etc..). Right now the egy gov is failing to deliver that at the proper pace while the MB seem to be very active in community svc (ie delivering and not only promising). It looks bad especially that the foreign investment policies (US, EU) help isolate the secular govnmt. One would think that if a country secular system is under threat, the US and EU should pour investment to support it not the opposite. Maybe its only me.

Re Quran and Jews its really simple for me:
The Quran for us is God's word and God's judgement and only addresses believers (not Muslims). The quran preaches we shall all be judged and cannot judge each other and that people of the book have the right to worship and be respected and that God will judge their intentions and actions. Prophet Mohammed interacted with Jews and had peace treaties with them which he never broke and so did all his followers after him. The prophet had his shield mortgaged to a jewish merchant he did business with.

Many of the Muslims position on jewish people is influenced by the Palestinian israeli conflict which for some reason got blown up into an Islamic-Jewish confrontation. It should not in my view, its only a land conflict between two countries could have been arab-arab, muslim-muslim conflict.

Peace,

F.H. ur a cheeky possum :) watch out, my cat has caught 2 ringtails in the past few weeks. (which is one reason she was sent to a shelter to be desexed and passed on)

What is your 'source' for 'Mohammed mortgaged his shield to a Jew' ? :)

(the jaws of the consistency trap are about to close on you matey :)

Logic, while I agree that religious fundamentals can be misused or even rightly used in political causes, I have to caution you about applying this too rigidly to the Christians.
I don't know if you have ever done this, but I'd love to know if you can establish your point based on say Lukes Gospel and the book of Acts ? Or.. Pauls 1st letter to the Corinthians, or his letter to the Roman Christians (Especially chapter 13)

I find no 'fundamentals' in the New Testament which can in any way be rightly used as justifying political movements. The contrary is true of Islam, which is highly political from square one.

There are some nice people around who are Muslims, (such as F.H.)but I don't believe a strict Muslim can be a nice person to an unbeliever BASED on..the very fundamentals of that faith.

I still scratch my head how FH can suggest the Quran is 'nice' to people of the book, because it sounds like he has never read Chapter 9:30

"May Allah DESTROY them, they are deluded, away from truth" (because (wrongly) it says Jews believe "Uziah" or someone is Son of Allah and Christians believe Christ is Son of Allah)
Note.. the call for destruction was not based on any particular 'action' but on core BELIEF.

.. F.H.. any comment?

Boaz, I'm amazed you weren't able to track down this simple fact on your own.

>>What is your 'source' for 'Mohammed mortgaged his shield to a Jew' ? :)

(the jaws of the consistency trap are about to close on you matey :)<<

Perhaps it was because there's nothing on YouTube about it.

However, the Islamic University of Rotterdam has.

"Islam permits all manners of lawful dealings with non-Muslims, including commercial transactions, the development of friendship and social relations, visiting with each other, calling on the sick, and giving and receiving gifts. There are many instances that prove this. When the Holy Prophet passed away, his shield was found to be mortgaged with a Jewish lender. Some of the Companions of the Holy Prophet, if they were slaughtering a lamb, would instruct their servants to distribute the meat starting with their Jewish neighbors."

http://www.islamicuniversity.nl/en/showarticleinfo.asp?id=425

Sadly, I suspect that you didn't bother to follow it up yourself because it didn't fit into your "Whack-a-Mozzie" approach to life.

Look around you. Think before you speak. Check before you write.

Have a great day.

Pericles,

I am impressed!

Boaz,

I am now questionning your expertise on Islam.
All muslims know that the modest prophet of Islam at his death left a shield and a mule (the 'greedy power hungry' man you are talking about) so the story of the shield is public knowledge.

Early muslims honoured people of the book, they maintaned their churches and treated them well. the prophet married a Christian woman (mother of his only son) and a Jewish woman. He honoured his peace treties with people of the book and ordered their protection. The only thing that happened to a non muslim was the Gizyah (ie 5% tax rate) for being exempted from the army/ military service.

Here is a challenge:

Please compare the same period up to the spanish inquisition what happened to Muslims and Jews when their brotherly 'tolerant christians' took control of their cities?
Torched alive? forced conversion? mosques and temples looted and turned into churches? What happened to jews during the inquisition and in Christian Europe up to (and included the holocaust)?
Please check the history of the word 'live ammunition' (crusaders used to put muslim prisoners in a catapult and fire them back at the Jerusalem walls).

Straight facts Boaz (sadly from the encyclopedia britannica and biblica)..
Don't fool yourself.

Fellow Human,
1) “The only thing that happened to a non muslim was the Gizyah (ie 5% tax rate) for being exempted from the army/ military service”
I think this is not an accurate picture of what happened under Mohammed or under later Islam…

2) “Please compare the same period up to the spanish inquisition what happened to Muslims and Jews …Torched alive? forced conversion? mosques and temples looted and turned into churches? What happened to jews during the inquisition and in Christian Europe up to (and included the holocaust)?.
Are you suggesting that such things did not also happen under Islamic rule ?
Even up to the present, I can point to forced conversions, temple/church burnings/bombings & inquisition like decisions in Islamic courts …

What are your thoughts?

F.H. (and Perilous) you missed my point.
When I asked for 'source' I am always referring to the earlierst one.
Pericles simply pasted something many layers removed from such early sources. I'm asking if your source is the Hadith or a Biography ?
Which then leads to a further step in the discussion.

F.H. I understand your comment and your report of the relations of Mohammad and 'the companions' with Jews and Christians, but while you point to the Inquisition which is many centuries removed from the founder and foundations of Christianity, Mohammad and the Companions 'were' the founder and foundations of Islam, and your 'spin' (selectively good) did not address the 'dark side' of their relations which include the massacre of the Jews of Qurayza, the invasion of Kaybar and the 50% tax (Jizya) on the Khaybar Jews, nor Caliph Omars total explusion of all Jews from the Arabian Peninsula.

But more importantly, you avoided the actual meaning of the Quran 9:30

Lets re-iterate, it curses and calls for divine destruction of Christians and Jews NOT for the breaking of a treaty or the such like but for the specific reason that they have a belief in a 'son' of Allah.

Now..this is crucial. It is also a public record that Islam is very strong on 'Ascribe no partners with Allah' and maybe just maybe that verse is one which contributes to this ?

So, could you explain the meaning of 9:30 please ?

This relates to the topic how ? Simple, if Muslim Arabs believe the Quran and it condems Jews and Christians for their most fundamental beliefs, who can see any possibility of 'standing together' ?

I'd like to know also how the claim of 'Jews regard Uzair as son of Allah' which is plainly incorrect, impacts on the 'inspiration' of the Quran ? :)

FH I and others will be making strong use of that Quran verse in future activities, so a good response would be advisable.

I think I have discovered your problem, Boaz.

You honestly and sincerely believe that every Muslim is a fanatic. Perhaps this is a reflection of your own attitude towards your own religion which is, you have to admit, just a tad on the fanatical side.

But to ascribe evil motives to every human being who follows Islam, simply because of some verses that were written a millennium and a half ago, is taking things just a little far.

As Jesus once said "... those mine enemies, which would not that I reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" Luke 19:27

I am aware that he "spake a parable" in imparting this instruction, but there can be little argument, surely, that whoever wrote this was making exactly the same point: it is ok to kill non-believers.

Or is there perhaps another way I should interpret this instruction? Putting it into context (as you are so fond of doing) this gospel was written by someone who wasn't an eyewitness, so he was simply putting a whole load of stuff together as supporting documentation for a nascent religion.

Do you see the similarity here? The writer of Luke's gospel was making a point, rather strongly, of what happens to non-believers - even going so far as to put the words into Jesus' own mouth.

I'd be happy to accept that he might have been mistaken, or the people who reported it to him had somehow slipped up, or maybe that he was just adding some colour to the narrative.

Or maybe it was a metaphor?

Whadd'ye reckon?

Horus,

Comparing likes to likes throughout history (ie same actions, same period same cultures) Muslims were a lot kinder and tolerant in comparison with, say Christians of the same period in the same era.

If you lived in the middle ages and you were, say a Christian or a jew, you had a choice of Gizya (ie defence tax for being expemted from the military and have the right to practice your faith). A muslim (in spain, north Africa, Middle east, Jerusalem) had no choice.

The reason being Islam at the very core (ie the Quran) believes in prophets of Judaism and Christianity and their followers as people of the book. The only Muslim leader throughout this ear who discriminated against Christian believers was ‘elhakem’ who burned down a church in the period of 990AD to 1000 AD. What did the Muslims community leaders do at the time? They put their collective efforts to rebuild the church from their own volunteer work.
In contrast, the Bible teaches that all non-Christians are pagans and hence tolerance becomes a personal choice.

The Haya Sofia church which was turned into a mosque was an act of tribalism by the ottoman and to be fair, there was a precedent in spain: the Masquitta cathedral used to be the largest mosque in Europe and was made into a church after the slaughter of 8000 muslims.

Boaz,

Every Muslim knows that 9:30 got nothing to do with faith or interfaith but deal strictly with war and defence when a nation is suffering military aggression, war and treason and the likes. And it clearly rejects transgression.

You still didn’t answer my challenge above:

“Comparing likes to likes what happened to Muslims and Jews on the hands of their ‘Christian brothers’ throughout history?

Try and ‘spin’ an answer because I got a better challenge waiting.

David Boaz

Christians and Jews have a belief in a 'son' of Allah. Christians yes, but Jews, surely not.

Fellow_Human

I like your style, you give me hope that peace can appear again in the Middle East as long as problems of jobs and poverty can be overcome. Also I understand that a lot of Islamic groups reject the Western style of democracy and the Westernization of their lands.

Why not should they not be permitted this? But can they exist with a Western Nation in their midst and just believe in mutual tolerance. I do believe that most Israelis actually can, and David's comments aside, expect that most Muslims can too.

I would love to hear your comments.

FH (part 1)

Fellow-human I also like your style .
You discuss issues in a open & rank manner.
If you are an example of most Muslims- there is great hope for reconciliation between faiths …

To point to similar injustices by Christianity is no defence of Islam- what you are saying is we have less blood on our hands than them. But how would you justify your position to a non-Christian ?

Take the issue of Dhimmitude.
This cannot be excused as a SHORT-TERM, WAR-TIME measure
since it is an on-going policy -& much of it can be found in Sharia law - even today.

The full obligations of dhimmis include:
-The payment of the jizya . This was not JUST A TAX -if you failed to pay -it was considered as a rupture of the dhimma, which left you open to death or deportation .
-Religious restrictions - ranging from prohibitions in building, repair and enlargement of synagogues and churches to regulations imposing humility, silence and secrecy in prayer and during burial. - proselyting Moslems was not allowed.
-In the legal domain, specific laws ordained permanent inferiority and humiliation for the dhimmis. Their lives were valued at considerably less than that of a Muslim. The penalty for murder was much lighter if the dhimmi was the victim. Likewise, penalities for offenses were unequal between Muslims and non-Muslims. A dhimmi had no right to defend himself if he was physically assaulted by a Muslim; he could only beg for mercy. He was deprived of two fundamental rights: the right of self defense against physical aggression, and the right to defend himself in an Islamic law court as his testimony was refused. Dhimmis could be judged under the provisions of their own legislation. However dhimmi legislation was not recognized in Muslim courts, whose judgements superseded dhimmi legal decisions.

FH (Part2)
-In the social domain dhimmis had to be recognized by their discriminatory clothes whose shape, color and texture were prescribed from head to foot, likewise, their houses (color and size) and their separate living quarters. Dhimmis were forbidden to ride a horse or a camel, since these animals were considered too noble. A donkey could be ridden in towns but only on a pack saddle, the dhimmi sitting with both legs on one side and dismounting on sight of a Muslim. A dhimmi had to hurry through the streets, always passing to the left (impure) side of a Muslim, who was expected to force him to the narrow side or into the gutter. He had to walk humbly with lowered eyes, to accept insults without replying, to remain standing in a meek and respectful attitude in the presence of a Muslim and to leave him the best place. If he was admitted to a public bath, he had to wear bells to signal his presence. Stoning Jews and Christians especially in Arab populated regions was not unusual likewise disdain, insults and disrespectful attitudes toward them were customary. Some regional rules represent an aggravation of this pattern. In Morocco and Yemen, Jews were forbidden any footwear outside their segregated quarter.

Is there any wonder why many ‘voluntarily’ opted to convert!
( & once they crossed-over it was illegal-under pain of death- to cross back)

Horus,

Great chating with you too.
My comparison of ‘likes to likes’ was to answer Boaz intellectual dishonesty and inflammatory comments. While Coach is merely brain-washed, Boaz is intentional. My comment was not in support of the historical events but to merely explain that every history and culture had its own fallouts and bloodshed and we can only try from our mistakes as humans.
Let me address the two points you raised:

1. Historically: the Jizyah: is a per head tax imposed on able bodied non-Muslim men of military age. The tax is not levied on slaves (People of the book kept slaves), women, children, monks, the old, the sick, hermits and the poor, and is subject to certain conditions. The tax allows the non-Muslim citizens to practice their faith and to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy as well as being entitled to Muslim protection from outside aggression and being exempted from military service amongst numerous other exemptions levied upon Muslim citizens. If you keep in mind the time the legislation, you have to agree with that was a revolutionary social justice system of that time, in comparison to social rights under Byzantine, Roman or other civilizations of the time.

2. Re dhimmi (rights of non-muslims living under Islamic rules) keep that all references quoted is for scholars who died 10-12 centuries ago. Again you may agree that these guidelines these legislations were generous in comparison to the rights of Muslims and Jews living in Christian empires of the time.

From my perspective, I think modern day scholars should use these references as a ‘baseline’ given the time and non-Muslims rights should evolve to cater for the 21st century and also given the rights Muslims enjoy in non-Muslims countries. In fact, for centuries many Muslim countries in North Africa runs hundreds of Greek Orthodox churches, even though that Greece is the only European country that does not allow Greek Muslims a single Mosque license (yes, there is no mosques in Greece).

Fellow Human, please keep on writing on all threads that have anything to do with people of the Islamic faith. I like your calm way with words. I've been reduced to almost ranting myself!

Though not Muslim myself, have had the fortune to grow up in countries where Islam was practiced in equal numbers to Christianity, or was the majority religion.

Subsequently, I know that people practicing Islam are no better or worse than Christians, though less likely to be obnoxious drunks. What is really disappointing is the willful refusal to admit that over 2000 years dreadful things have been done by Christians in the name of Christianity with the bible as reference and justification.

When I made the comment that, after reading and rereading the bible and the Koran, though only in an English translation, which I understand is limiting in itself, I find the Koran to make more sense, poor Boaz was at a loss for words.

I've become despairing at the dreadful carry on on some of these threads.

yvonne

You must admit though that the threads are getting better and the more malicious are calming down, perhaps they have been banned.

Most of us have mellowed, and hopefully David will too. With Fellow_Human we are having a good discussion. It is in my mind that for the times the Muslims treated others well while the Christian Church was evil. But the Church has changed and now leap-frogged Islam in that respect. There is hope that Muslims will move to the forefront, again and positive signs in many quarters. Remember that Islamic fanatics are also a problem in Muslim countries. I think should learn to distinguish between fanatics and ordinary Muslims and all moderates work together, which is what the article is all about.

Hi Yvonne and Logic,

Its actually words of encouragement from decent posters like yourselves that keep me going. People like Boaz have alienated a number of Australian Muslims who used to contribute to these forums. Then he wonders why Australian Muslims are not part of the forum?!. I believe if we provide an open and honest discussion forum we can make a great improvement in finding the common values that bind and unit all of us.

Yvonne,

Trying to keep Boaz (and the fellowship of the ring) honest over the last year was like trying to teach a fish how to bicycle but persitence is my middle name:).
He have a talent for ducking, weaving then appearing on a new article but all the good things come to those who wait :)

Peace my friends,

Fellow-Human,
I would not classify the dimmitri code as revolutionary .

What was REVOLUTIONARY was that some Moslem rulers – were/are big enough to step beyond these rules & allowed their non-Moslem subjects a much higher degree of latitude…

I take your point about – mosques not being permitted in Greece.
But one is not permitted to build churches or temples in Saudi Arabia either !
And, a Greek is not liable to face the death sentence if he/she chooses to renounce, or denounce, his/her religion of birth –. as would be the case in many North African societies.
[ but then –two wrongs don’t make a right! ] .

One of the big frustrations from a western perspective is that while we as a society are prepared to question, to criticize & even ridicule our core institutions & icons ( & many western intellectuals could be even seen as being hyper-critical of such things )
There seems little cognizance in Islamic societies that there is anything to criticize re their CORE initiations & history. –in most cases it seems to be off limits …

Though I will say this, there has been in recent years the beginning of this self-criticism.
There are some notable middle eastern thinkers who are beginning to speak -up ( some at great cost to themselves). And your own acknowledgement that no side is blameless is very refreshing …

I agree with you that we need to move-on from our mistakes.
And I look forward to the time when there are not separate rules & status’s for dhimmi & Non- dhimmi - but a single standard for all fellow humans …

Peace !

Hi Horus,

Apologies if you misread my quote; I said the dhimmi rights were revolutionary “at the time” in comparison to, say Muslims and Jews rights under Christian ruling. Can’t compare Greece to Saudi Arabia but happy for to compare the Vatican to Saudi Arabia. History have a reference where our prophet gave a room in his house to Christian monks to worship. So maybe one day they can exchange a mosque and a church.

You quote:
“One of the big frustrations from a western perspective is that while we as a society are prepared to question, to criticize & even ridicule our core institutions & icons”

Most Muslims question many things about their faith and if you got access to Islamic and / or Arabic websites you will see tens if not hundreds of thousands. What we do not do is to mock religious icons and or matters of divinity. Btw, in this matter we don’t differentiate between prophets and religions and here is an example:
Most muslim countries including Egypt banned the ‘Davinci Code’ because it was voted by Muslims as degrading Jesus to a mere reformer who was secretly married.

Let me share a frustration with you:

1. Egypt as a Muslim country started officially celebrating Christmas and Easter as public holidays to the minority Christians. Why didn’t the west recognise that as a good example? Can you refer me to a western country where the government or public congratulate Muslims on their religious festivals? (let alone have it a public holiday).

2. The Tunisian parliement have recognised women's right and now more than 11% of their members are females (which is much higher than average EU countries). Where is that recognised and applauded in western or Australian media?

Its good to criticise what's wrong but also important to recognise what is good. Integration is a 2 way street.

Peace and have a good weekend,

FH,

<< Most Muslims question many things about their faith... we do not... mock religious icons and or matters of divinity.... banned the 'Davinci Code'... >>

No, no credit to Muslim countries that ban the 'Da Vinci Code'. Such countries would also readily out-law any attempt to cast doubt on Islam.

Do Muslims question if Muhammad truly met with Angel Gabriel? I think to openly question this would tantamount to mocking Islam and its prophet also, and would be banned.

What you said is only sweet on the outside.

Any religion must be subjected to open challenges, no if or but.

As you must have picked up on other threads, I'm interested to read your proof if any, that Muhammad's alleged encounters with Angel Gabriel were no hoax.

It's off topic... so be it.

GZ Tan,

Hoax = to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous (preposterous “contrary to reason or common sense”).

Now, if the tenets of Islam are to believe in one God and all his prophets and messengers. That to be good means to pray, fast pay the alms follow the commandments (ie honour your parents, tell the truth, control your desires, master your ego and pride, etc..). That no one can save you but you are actions and intents. That to be good means acting good: pay the alms, help the needy and the poor. That all sin is forgiven (except for idolatry or worshipping other gods or object) provided that you genuinely repent and don’t commit it again.
That all people of all races, skin colours and gender are equal in front of God.
(You don’t need to study the whole Quran or Islam for that, just google prophet Mohammed last sermon).

What exactly is hoax “contrary to reason or common sense” in the above?
Especially in comparison to other religious convictions.

In my view religion has to make a simple sense to the average person. The question of hoax or real applies when you need to bend the average mind back and forward to understand the fundamentals of a faith.

PS: I am confused about you religious conviction.
Your comments appear to be bouncing between Christianity, wiji boards, scientology, atheism.

What do you believe in, if any?

Fellow-Human
I didn’t misread your comment - I just didn’t think it deserved the accolade
[ Neither Christian ,Jewish or Islamic models would make my Olympic team!]

If you compare the Islamic dimmitri system with the open tolerance practiced by the early Persian empire under Cyrus the great …
If you compare it with the tolerance & even-handedness of Ashoka the great Buddhist king of India
If you compare it with the early-mid Roman Empire (which despite pop history misrepresentations )- was non-intrusive in personal religious matters - unless the religion became involved in rebellion …
Then you would find the dimmitri code was a very big retrograde step…

Interesting point you make about Egypt allowing the Copts to celebrate Easter & Christmas.
There are actually very close parallels with Australia in this regard:
The Copts are the Aborigines of Egypt .
Australia also encourages its Aboriginals to take off time - to attend their festivals - and has been doing so for years.

Comparing Saudi Arabia to the Vatican is a stretch …
There probably wouldn’t be room to build a mosque in the Vatican unless you demolished some of the existing buildings .But more importantly - the Vatican does not have tens of thousands of resident guess workers -who follow other faiths but are not permitted to publicly practice them…

I do applaud the positive & liberal trends I see in many middle eastern countries But I think you’d have to acknowledge that Tunisian record is far from the norm …
I do access Arab websites -those not closed or blocked by the mutaween - The Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.
I do read Arab authors -but most of the ones I like have had a fatwa pronounced against them…

Taking a non-critical line on icons (of religious or secular nature) is a two edged sword.
While it may be admirable to protect peoples sensitivities
There seems to be a positive relationship between a societies willingness to challenge icons & the number of Nobel prize laureates it produces….

FH,

Your dad was right about you. He saw a steadfast Muslim in you. With a peace of mind, he confidently sent you to study in Europe. That way, you got good western education and would also be able to leverage off your western experience, to go on establishing mateships with non-Muslims, to the good cause of Islam.

It took me some time to realise that most people have an innert inability to change their thinkings, no matter what one tells them. So I do not expect to change your belief, or anybody else's, for that matter.

But I do not envy you at all. Your reply to my question simply confirms that you never even asked the most fundamental question that anyone seeking a truth ought to have asked. It seems you can't even comprehend such a necessity.

Put simply - you are just plain religious, someone that accepts a faith and then build your reasonings based on the belief.

As for me, I am very open-minded. I consider anything and believe in what logical reasonings would have me believe.

What I know is: Muhammad is NOT to be believed.

It is unfortunate Islam attained a critical mass early on that enabled it to expand uncontrollably.

It is not my business if someone insists on believing a tree or a rock. But Islam is a threat to freedom and democracy likes none others. This is a concern, especially when the threat comes from a frauded religion to begin with.

Still, if you have a proof that Muhammad did came face to face with Angel Gabriel, then please mention it.

( A mountain of teachings not based on the truth, is nothing but futile )

GZ Tan,

You quote:
“Your dad was right about you. He saw a steadfast Muslim in you. With a peace of mind, he confidently sent you to study in Europe”
Not sure who you mean by that statement? I started travelling after my father passed away and in fact I was agnostic till the age of 25. Resorting to personal comments and name calling as you do with Irfan is not intellectual.

You are the challenger on this forum and you contradicted yourself with your own statement:
“What I know is: Muhammad is NOT to be believed”

What if this statement is the Hoax? Now ask yourself why? The “why’’ is a great question and helped me over almost 6 years of soul search.

Why would an honest, illiterate, wealthy, popular and well respected merchant invent something at the age of 40 that will make him lose his status, his wealth, his popularity, risk his own life and his family members over the next 23 years? Only to die leaving behind a shield and a mule.

Start from there. The answer should be very personal to you and I don't want to know what you come up with. But use your own ópen mind as you claim and put your ego aside.

FH,

Why ?

Why has it not occurred to you Muhammad supposed he would be even more powerful, wealthier and more respected, if he could make people follow his stories and instructions?

If his life did not end in richness, that simply shows:
1. Muhammad never could fore-tell his future.
2. his hoax back-fired on him, at times.

But now Muslims twist a logic and argue that Muhammad's life "sacrifice" is a proof that an "honest" man had told an honest truth.

What a joke !

Have you not heard someone testifies that another person is "honest", therefore that person must have told the truth? If that person suffers bankruptcy, would that be further proof of his honesty?

Yes, I am the challenger. If you know anything about logical reasoning : The onus is on Muhammad to prove that his encounters with Angel Gabriel were true.

It is not up to people to prove a negative. Therefore the burden is on you to prove Muhammad had met Angel Gabriel. Since you are a believer.

Unless and until a proof is provided, my statement stands:

--> Muhammad is NOT to be believed !!

The answer should NOT be personal. It is only personal and hurtful when you fear the truth, when the honour of your ancestors, Arab race and dignity of Muslims are at stake.

But that's your problem. I am only interested in the truth.

GZ Tan: " I am only interested in the truth. "

Okay, despite myself I'll bite.

I'm interested in "the truth" too. How about GZ Tan provides us with conclusive proof of the Virgin Birth and of the Resurrection?

If he responds to his own challenge, I'll bet his 'evidence' is - empirically speaking - right up there with that which supports Mohammed and Gabriel.

GZ_tan, the malicious undertones in your argument are appalling and are in no way constructive...

The problem is that the level of collective description of a physical event has a corresponding level of holistic perception attached to it and perhaps thats what your argument is lacking, but rather you choose to fundamental-ise Islam by focusing on particular aspects that are only considered a drop in the ocean in theological terms. Are u actually a theologist or pertain to a similar scientific profession? If not i suggest you en-devour to not focus on truths based on small aspects of Islam but rather seek a holistic understanding of the faith. That is TRUTH in the true sense of the term

part of being logical, which you claim being the bastion of, is providing "reason or sound judgment" and based on your personal attacks on Fellow_Human your apparent sound judgment is seriously feeble. I don't care about your Wiki-religious understanding of Islam, but rather than having a chance to actually know more about it your caught up in the welter of your own grandeur.

I'm considerably young, 21 to be precise and as a confirmed Christian one day id be fervent to sit down and seek greater understanding from someone like Fellow_Human as i think there is a more realistic dynamic to the faith.

GZ Tan,

You don’t need to feel so hot under the collar with all upper case and exclamation marks. It’s just a discussion.

You said:
“The onus is on Muhammad to prove that his encounters with Angel Gabriel were true”

True and the proof (to me) is simple: his teachings.
Mohammed (pbuh) audience were a bunch of illiterate primitive tribes. They were into all sorts of unethical practices from territorial killing, burying new born females alive, etc..
Yet the message he taught despite alienating everyone (including some of the people of the book) was above monotheism, equality, co-existence, respect, social and family values. Even though the first 13 years of his preaching life he had no followers, he persisted with spiritual and ethical teachings. His personal life went down hill from the moment he started preaching until he passed away. He was OK that the truth even though unites every one, it also alienated every one.

As CJ Morgan said: there is no physical proof on anything really: there are no videos of flying UFO or Jesus walking on water. Yet people believe what makes sense to them. The Quranic story, in my view, is the most logical in comparison to other theologies.

I don’t deny you belief in your faith, so please respect my freedom to believe in mine.

Thank you,

FH,

As you have repeated a few times your purpose here is to correct misrepresentation and misunderstanding about Islam, I put it to you that your intention is misguided.

This is because Islam itself is a big "if " that cannot possibly withstand the test of frank and open logical analysis & reasoning.

All that you are doing is to correct misrepresentation and misunderstanding of a big "IF".

I disagree with claims that Islam is logical. Still, it's your personal choice to believe.

Like I mentioned : "A mountain of teachings not based on the truth, is nothing but futile".

So whenever you think you are pointing someone to a "true" Islam, may the word "futile" also come into your mind.

- - - - - - -
CJ Morgan,
Why do you ask me about Virgin Birth and Resurrection??
Have I told you to believe anything, (except a hint that you reason poorly)?
Don't you know that Muhammad had borrowed from Judaism and Christianity (including virgin birth)? Ask FH to explain to you the virgin birth then.

- - - - - - -
To everybody - Here is a web-site, highly recommended:

http://www.faithfreedom.org

Dear Pericles, Can you show me where I have ever said "All Muslims are Fanatics"? I have SPECIFICALLY stated that my issue is with "Islam" and has nothing to do with average Muslims.

It's good that you make reference to Christ's parable so we can clear it up once and for all. It's a most instructive parable.

It is basically a story about Creation, the allocation of Stewardship about the Word of God, and judgement.
Judgement is not in this life, it is on the 'Day of Judgement' which Muslims happily concede is a reality we must all face.
The 'bring those enemies of mine here and slay them' is not at all about justifying an early execution of enemies, it is a portrayal of final judgement. This is clear from the fact that Jesus is speaking in a parable, he is not teaching "Thus says the Lord...you shall not covet"

Now..the central issue here in relation to my claim about Quranic teaching 9:30 is whether it relates to earthly life or the day of Judgement.

F.H. listen up old son :)
Reference http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Versions/009.030.html

CONTEXT of Quran 9:30

The commentary of Ibn Katheer states, "this is an appeal (ighraa') to the believers to battle the unbelievers (kufaar) from among the Jews and Christians."

1/ Physical EARTHLY fighting.
2/ Real world actual context.
3/ Calling for the real, actual 'in the here and now' destruction of Jews and Christians.

BECAUSE ...... they 'associate partners with Allah' for which (4:116)Allah forgiveth not (The sin of) joining other gods with Him....
-"A simple statement of fact" no contextual interpretation required.

F.H. this is not 'illegitimately' cherry picking verses. My presentation here is tantamount to looking at specific verses in the Old Testament such as 'The 1st Commandment' which can be taken by itself with no contextual interpretation needed.
I could then go to some passage in Isaiah where Idolatry is condemned, and take it as "applicable" in isolation from the context.

So, in terms of the topic, I find it difficult to accept that Muslims will ever be at peace with Jews.

GZ_tan
I think that in one post you mentioned that you had lived in a Muslim country, and was discontent with that. Was it perhaps Malaysia. I am guessing but you name sounds Chinese. If so your problem may have been racial/cultural one rather religious.

Fellow_Human
Please don't give up. I did not know about Tunisia. Islam was well ahead of Christianity in the middle ages. For its time it was very tolerant. I am sure that it will be again. We need more people like you.

David Boaz
Many would question your beliefs. But Jesus preached peace. Mohamed lived in a different environment to Jesus. I believe both men preached
according to the needs of their time. Both faiths have been badly abused. At the moment sections of Islam are creating havoc but all religions have done that at some time. But Fascism was worse than anything, and in Germany had a non religious background.

To put things straight I was brought up with a modern Anglo Australian religious Jewish background. I no longer believe that Moses spoke directly to a God, never believed that the God had a son or that there was ever an Angel Gabriel. But I have noticed that religion is often an agent for goodness.
Evil thrives when good people do nothing.

Well there you go - I had a feeling that GZ Tan wouldn't rise to his own challenge. And Boazy's still rattling on about the evils inerent in Islam, based on his very skewed interpretation of the Q'uran.

The thing is that, from the agnostic position where I sit, this is quite simply a case of the Christian firebrands here repeating endlessly their conviction that their books of Holy myths are better than those of the Muslims - based on nothing more than their belief that this is so. In the cases of extremists like GZ Tan, Boazy and some other regulars here, to a dispassionate observer it certainly appears that the great majority of hate expressed in this forum emanates from their (Christian) camp, as opposed to the Muslims who post here.

The Muslims who post here at OLO also invariably display much better manners than their detractors. I have no great sympathy for either religion, but I would much prefer to have well-mannered Muslim neighbours who quietly observe their faith and go about their business, than to have to put up with rabid Christian evangelicals like those we are subjected to here all too regularly.

Logic,
We both (should) know that unfortunately Islamic extremism is not some exotic Malaysian malady…

MC Morgan,
“I would much prefer to have well-mannered Muslim neighbours who quietly observe their faith and go about their business”
Wouldn’t we all!
But more to the point - if Islam was in a position of dominance -Would they still be so mild mannered ?

And lets take a hypothetical situation (one that is so far fetched it could never come about in real life!)
Say your girl friend or your wife went for a walk & she was brutalised by the police because her scarf sat too far back on the head .
Would you still be so objective & aloof ?

Fellow-Human
[ You’re not responsible for the whole of Islam- and I don’t propose to try to hold you accountable]
But Tell me …
Do you support the keeping of Saudi Arabia as an exclusively Islamic domain ( I mean it being the Islamic Vatican & all that ) Do you support its prohibition on the practice & preaching of other religions there?

To The Pakistani Interior Minister,
I salute you!
We need more people like you…
Pity you can’t write an article or two for OLO

Well of course you didn't, Boaz, you're far too cunning to fall into that trap.

>>Dear Pericles, Can you show me where I have ever said "All Muslims are Fanatics"?<<

As I have pointed out before, Oswald Mosley used the same defence.

"Our principle is complete religious toleration, and we certainly do not wish to persecute [Jews] on account of their race... Our quarrel with the Jewish interests is that they have set the interests of their co-racialists at home and abroad above the interest of the British state... An outstanding example of this is the persistent attempt of many Jewish interests to provoke the world disaster of another war between Britain and Germany" (Sir Oswald Mosley: Tomorrow we Live, 1938)

The parallels between Mosley's fear of the Jews provoking world war, and your fear that Islam is about to wage war on Christendom are scarily close. Both of you also pretend that you have nothing against Jews/Muslims individually, but then proceed to lump them all together as "Jewish interests"/Islam, and denigrate them at every opportunity.

Both of you protest to the heavens that you hold no ill-will towards individuals. So far, only one of you can be proven to be demonstrably telling porkies. But I am sure you must be beginning to see how I keep confusing your motives, that you profess to be so pure, with those of a 1930s Nazi.

Incidentally, your attempt to brush away the meaning and intent of "... those mine enemies, which would not that I reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" is totally unconvincing. You say that it is...

>>...a story about Creation, the allocation of Stewardship about the Word of God, and judgement"

No it isn't.

It says "bring them hither, and slay them before me"

What could be clearer?

Logic,

Malaysia has a significant ethnic Chinese minority, appropriately regarded as second-class citizens there.
My propensity to analyse everything down to simple true/false (independent of emotion) makes me a neutral person in a broad ways, including racial & cultural aspects. (This is what being open-minded is about).
It often flabbergasts me to hear inexperienced ignorants praising Islam as if they have finally seen a light.
Malaysia does not need Islam. No country needs it. Problem is, becoming Islamic is a one-way street. No Islamic country can ever revert to its pre-Islamic state, on its own accord.

There is nothing more tragic than so much of the world being held to ransom by so little - an ideology mutated out of an individual's silly hoax. This is my position.

CJ Morgan,

1. Is proof of Virgin Birth and Resurrection connected to Muhammad's angel encounters?
2. If I ask for proof of Muhammad's angel claims, do I also need to prove you wear red underpants?
3. If I do not prove whether you wear red underpants, does it imply I may not refute Muhammad's claims?

How does alerting people to a deceptive ideology make me an extremist?

I can imagine some days you will extend welcome to some quiet new neighbours who turn out to be Islamist jihadists. I think you will find them most well-mannered and go about their business quietly. (Won't you too keep a low profile if you were to make a bomb or two?)

The bottomline is, I have no need to prove to you anything because I don't expect you to believe anything I say, not even this : You're a fool.

Horus,

Religious critics are like football commentator in my views, if you are in it/ practising it, you do not qualify.

“The Copts are the Aborigines of Egypt” is not a correct statement and the new thinking in Egypt is all Egyptians are copts (some turned to Islam while many kept their faith). I recommend a reading by an Egyptian Christian historian called Dr Milad Hanna. It took 500 years for Muslims to become the majority population in Egypt. Regarding Saudi for me the holy city is Mecca as far as I am concerned, I can’t see the reason why the entire Kingdom is. It’s a matter of opinions I guess.

You also quoted:
There seems to be a positive relationship between a society’s willingness to challenge icons & the number of Nobel prize laureates it produce.
I agree partially with your comment for the following reasons:
- Most Nobel Prize winners belong to cultures was children education and pressure for excellence is high.
- Even though the Islamic/ Arab world and culture are at rock bottom, there are 8 Nobel Prize winners from this culture in the last 25 years.

GZ Tan,

I have to admit that I am of the view of CJ Morgan that you appear to be a devout Christian in denial. The only thing you keep refering to as 'truth' benchmark seems to be coming straight from the bible. Are you in denial or just a spiritual 'tyre kicker'?

Boaz,

What can I say?
Your Islam bashing comments on OLO 3,350!
On an average of 10 minutes a comment that works out a 558 hours = 23.2 days of ‘pure dedicated hate’.
I feel for someone who have to live with himself and that much hate and anger.

Peace,

Fellow_Human

I gather that you are a Muslim. I should like to discuss things more with you. You can contact me on pcohen@controlsmart.com.au.

Anyone else who is open minded is welcome to do the same.

I will reserve my full name and address as this site does have an occasional crazy.

Logic,
What's going on? How long does it take to figure out FH is a Muslim?


FH,
I am neither of those and I am not in denial.
I don't mind the tag "logical Christian" (which I made up).

I think the goal of logical reasonings is to get to the truth. What is the ultimate truth?

My view is that Christianity is more logical, not Islam.

Logic,

Will send you an email and the same here. My personal email address
is viewsexchange@gmail.com

GZ Tan,

"I think the goal of logical reasonings is to get to the truth. What is the ultimate truth? My view is that Christianity is more logical, not Islam"

Couldn'agree more everyone finds reason in something.
Great chating to you,

Peace,

Palestinians and Jews united? What an unfunny joke. The Palestinians have lived and farmed the land for centuries, and have every right to continue to do so. The Jews lay claim to the land by virtue of (alleged) biblical prophecy, supported by fellow travellers from Balfour until the present day - a support that now largely emanates from the right wing American bible belt from which George Bush draws his strength and support. Zionism (largely the 'religion' of rich American jews)is the curse of the middle east, and in the hands of christian fundamentalists is the ultimate self fullfilling prophecy. Palestinians have the right of it - Zionists have the high ground and the guns. Jewish people have made an incalculably large contribution to civilisation - Zionism has been an unqualified disaster leading to nothing but agony and bloodshed. Even the much vaunted kibbutz ideal is fragmenting. Forget 'cuddle' sessions in Melbourne - the only end in sight is total destruction of one side or the other - probably the Palestinians.

It is heart warming to read of the steps towards peace that the Jewish Voices for Peace and Justice group and the Palestinian group were able to achieve together - the sharing of meals and stories - the willingness to listen. I am sorry that it is so difficult for more public demonstrations of such good will. I have attended many rallies for causes that I believe in and have been appalled at the anti-Semitic sentiment expressed at some of these by people whose political and social ideas are otherwise very similar to my own. It does make it difficult to support events if you know such negative sentiments are going to be expressed.

Sharee Harper (A Quaker)