TR,
If I understand you properly, you want the Muslim “creed in a nutshell” to state "We believe that there is no god but God, and that Mohammad is or is not the Prophet of God.” Firstly, if I say Melbourne is the capital of Victoria I do not have to qualify it with an “I believe”, whereas if I say that there is only one God, or that Kevin Rudd would be the best PM for Australia, it is understood, without having to be said explicitly, that these are statements I believe to be true, while others might not. Secondly, a sentence “we believe A is or is not true” is a tautology. Why should Muslims want it to be part of their creed?

You are entitled to disagree with, or find meaningless, this or that Muslim (or Christian) tenet without requiring them to water it down or make it meaningless to a Muslim (or Christian). The same as others might disagree with the empiricist creed that states - if I understand it properly - that there is nobody/nothing that sustains this Universe (accessible through natural science) we live in; it is self-sustaining and self-explanatory.

By quoting E.O. Wilson you showed us a very thorough and beautiful description of a scenery by a colour blind person. The scenery here is the material world and the colour is that something that turns a person’s system of beliefs and opinions into faith.

goodthief, if you keep playing with words like that, you will go blind.

>>“Before knowledge can occur, there has to be experience.”
However, the truth of this statement cannot be experienced. You simply believe it<<

If you continue to deconstruct in this manner, you will end up arguing on the same side as those arch-enemies of truth, Derrida, Foucault et al.

The reductio ad absurdum that drives your argument does not hold water here.

If there is no experience, there is no knowledge. What would there be to know? I fail to see how you can possibly refute this.

>>There is now room for people of my persuasion to say they have "experienced" God. And, when they say that, you are no longer permitted to deride them as irrational<<

But goodthief, that is the whole point. If you have "experienced" God, then it is perfectly correct for you to say so, and completely incorrect for anyone to tell you that you haven't.

However, it is also axiomatic that if you had not "experienced" God, then you would have no knowledge of him, therefore could not, rationally, believe in his existence.

Does that make empiricism clearer for you?

For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Every man that has ever battled to lift his thoughts off the ground has had to face the Dawkins of the world who don't want man to consider himself any different than the chimpanzees or amoeba. This is because they want the excuse that man is incapable of spiritual knowledge, and question that the Creator would choose to acknowledge the thoughts of man with out directly influencing mankind, and not create a heaven on earth were man would survive with out responsibility for his actions. This is what they fear more than life. Actually being held culpable for the direction of human kind. “We empiricist, like scientist, are superior in thought than those who believe in God”. Some empiricist here on OLO don't want to add anything to the discussion. It is a matter of destruction that brings them to their words. They want a fatalist's world, need a fatalist's world, so that they don't have to put anything more forward than their selfish position. If they can kill the idea of spiritualism and the belief of God, they then can kill morality and ethical behaviour, and are then free to tear down any other social and legal restrictions that currently inhibit their destructive nature. They want the power of the anarchist, they're nihilist. Wolves in sheep's clothing.

Isaias 46. 4, God says: I am till you grow old. Who dare infer that God should then cease to be.

Pericles, every person of faith has experienced God. That is the point, and why some empiricist can not contribute other than by false acclaim, or as TR, with anything but derision.

I say to every person of faith, reach out to your neighbour be he Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist, etc., and work together to ensure the plurality of faith that exist and to protect secular law and society. Let any Islamic reformation or renaissance come by example. Be thoughtful and be nurturing. Be inclusive. Sow the seeds, enrich the soil, and reap the rewards of diligent social husbandry.

Phew...another 'Pericles free post' :) Life is certainly looking up.

Aqvar.. am I detecting some newfound or revived spirituality in your posts? We seem to have left the age of Aquarius behind there.. and a good thing too.

EMPIRICISTS WILL NEVER EXPERIENCE GOD.. unless by divine example such as Paul did.... so, in fact they might.
Point being, true faith in Christ is not of the 'Lord, show me ur real and then I'll believe" kind.

ISLAMIC RENAISSANCE.. This document might be of interest to some.

http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Terrorism/EuropeCharter.pdf

Many if not most Muslims will find this an agreeable document, until of course they come to Article 1, i.e. the very first point. Youll have to read it to see why!

Does it not strike others as a bit odd, that an Islamic 'renaissance' can really only happen where there is sufficient freedom for it to be verbalized without death threats?

OOps... now even that does not apply, but at lest Western Authorities would try to protect adventurous muslim scholars who dare defy the 5 major schools of jurisprudence.

Boaz,

You can keep quoting the www.yet-another-islam-bashing-site.com.

For the rest of us,

The Australian muslim community have launched the Affinity Organisation, an inter-cultural foundation that promotes dialogue and harmony:
www.affinity.org.au
If you appreciate the efforts, simply forward the site link to friends and family.

Peace,

BOAZ_David, I'm disappointed if your just now able to recognize my specific sense of spirituality. Please don't confuse it with religiosity. As a Roman Catholic in education and observance I don't believe it is incumbent upon myself to evangelize and bring Christianity to the world through word. I should much prefer to go about as a living example of my own interpretation and remain true to my own belief. I like to consider myself living art in transition, errors pending, not living dogma.

We haven't left the age of Aquarius behind. It will rule the cosmos for the next 2160 odd years. It roughly corresponds to the time taken for the vernal equinox to move through one of the twelve constellations of the zodiac. The Ages in astrology, however, do not correspond to the actual constellation boundaries where the vernal equinox may be occurring in a given time. Astrological ages occur because of a phenomenon known as the precession of the equinoxes. One complete period of this precession is called a Great Sidereal Year of about 25,800 to 25,920 years and it is divided in twelve astrological ages of 30 degrees each (ca. 2150 to 2160 years).

I read your Charter for Muslims and can not see why any faithful Muslim would have any difficulty with article one. For the most part Muslim scholars have already stated that violent interpretation of jihad and unscrupulous clerics issuing fatwas calling for violence and or death are beyond the legal and spiritual understanding of mainstream Islam. I do think however, that Muslims might be more induced to participate in such a charter if it hadn't been instituted by a person who converted from Islam to Christianity and now spend his professional speaking career attacking Islam. No Christian should take it upon themselves to interfere in the process of another faith. Especially Christians who's history is heavily weighted with violent reactionism. Christians should be the first to hold out a hand and understand the current struggle with in Islam. What better place than western secular society to fulminate violent Islamism. Encourage, don't hinder.