Greg says that "If she (Ayaan Hirsi Ali) were a genuine leader she would seek dialogue and consensus". What: just like Neville Chamberlain in 1938 when he was seeking consensus with Adolf Hitler?

Didn’t we just road test that word ‘tolerance’ when we played host to muslim revert Yvonne Ridley? Why not exercise ‘tolerance’ when dealing with Ayaan Hirsi Ali?

Greg offers up a few people such as Ali Asani, Amina Wadud and Karen Pahlet who palter to anyone who will listen about the virtues of Islam and muslims. Mohammad Anwar Shaikh, Ali Sina and Walid Shoebat don’t share that same Panglossian view of Islam

Greg uses a popular term 'intolerance' to mount his absurd arguements. Greg argues that by not allowing women priests and condemning the perversion of sodomy that it equates to a the domination of women and killing of homosexuals that is mandated by the Koran.

No one forces people to join the Catholic church and no one forces them to stay. I for one left the catholic church many years ago. In the past the Catholic church was like Islam as they murdered many 'infidels'. We must not foget that probably the most intolerant of all were the fundamentalist humanist who were and still are responsible for more murders than all the religions put together. Communism and humanist certainly has as much if not more to answer for than both Islam and Catholicism put together.

The real intolerance in this article is shown by Greg himself who seems intolerant of all views but his own. This is a common practice with those on the left of politics. Greg's weak arguement that this woman is intolerance avoids all the main issues she raises.

Disappointing Greg that you should write on this topic. It's actually reserved for Irfan's dirges so could I ask you change the author's name on this item?

Greg,

Good article thanks.
Ayaan is entitled to her views and opinions although reading her book, she was pinning all her cultural fallouts on the islamic faith.
The point of some media applauding so loudely is beyond me.
*Former Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali*
Caught up in a row over her Dutch citizenship, Somali-born former Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali has left the Netherlands.
< http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_5160000/newsid_5167300?redirect=5167376.stm&news=1&nbwm=1&nbram=1&bbram=1&bbwm=1 >

What I can't understand is some Australian media like to market the discredited left overs of European intellects as "Voltaire in town".

It is truly difficult to understand how any intelligent person could be as naive as Mr. Barns. Does this gentleman ever bother to actually LISTEN to what radical Muslim clerics and activists in the democratic societies of the West are actually saying about their long-term agenda . . . an agenda they are pathologically committed to, even if it takes 200 years? Has he ever made the effort to research the differences in the documented comments made by many of these radical clerics, between the pablum they dish out to the general public and what they preach to their most devoted followers? Mr. Barns condescendingly describes the notion of a Muslim "Fifth Column" as nonsense, despite the outrageous public comments of radical Muslim clerics themselves. Why is he so inclined to trust in the veracity and alleged wisdom of any ass-kissing apologist for Islam, but ridicules the testimony of those who were born and raised in the repression of Islam's "peace and compassion" before taking the opportunity to escape? Suggested reading: Ibn Warraq's, "Why I Am Not A Muslim", and "The Sword Of The Prophet", by Serge Trifkovic. If Mr. Barns really believes that the doctrine of the "Prophet" is the same as that of he known as Christ, it is reasonable to ask if he has ever read the Quran in its entirety, as I have. The Quran is certainly full of contradictions, but it is very seldom ambiguous in its tone. Read it, sir. Read it slowly, every word in context. Study what is objectively known about the life of Mohammed. Then tell us if you feel the same.
Mainstream Christendom has at least evolved since the Middle Ages. Can the same truly be said of mainstream orthodox Islam? No Christian or Jew that I have ever met has advocated stoning people or killing apostates. Ms. Ali, to my knowledge, did not have her life threatened by Christians or Jews. Yet, Mr. Barns declares her "intolerant" because she recognizes that there is indeed real good and real evil. Barns's tirade is silly and pathetic.

and indeed, as harris et alia have made clear in recent months, the only reason catholicism and other xian sects are less in the limelight over human rights abuses and life-hating doctrines is that they have sold out to their "foundation texts" and "updated" their "interpretation" of same, to make it less barbaric, less embarrassingly out of step with reality...
so, no wonder that catholics "seem" more moderate; they are, to the exact extent to which they distance themselves from their "iron-age magic books" to borrow and paraphrase harris and others...

(btw, greg, i wonder if your average muslim would appreciate their magic book being referred to in such anachronistic terms as a "foundation text"; the quran is, after all, for most muslims, inerrant -every sacred syllable- and an eternally exact report of what allah said to the prophet thru the angel)

and moreover, greg old son, its' a bit rich having a snide shot at a woman who is living under repeated death threats as one who is "surrounding herself with beefy bodyguards just to emphasise the point that she really is a brave soul who is under threat of execution at any moment"

"just" to emphasise this...
as if being targetted by jihadists is not a bit of a problem?
targetted by those who cling to a medieveal "metaphysics of martyrdom" that convince them they are going straight to paradise on ridding the world of an enemy of islam, an apostate, who is incidentally, in this view of theirs, sent straight to the eternal flames of hell...

wouldn't you be hiring a bit of meat to put around you if it meant you could continue to live a semblance of a normal life?

rise up, sleeper, and behold the barbarians at the gate...

I actually wasn't opposed to the SWF inviting Hirsi Ali as a guest. After all, she is an author of a best-selling autobiography.

At the same time, she is a pathological liar who admitted entering the Netherlands using fraudulent claims. She actually used the word "fraudulent" to describe her refugee application when she spoke to Dutch journalist Ian Buruma.

It is a very sad day for Islam-haters on these forums when they must look to migration frauds to support their paranoid fantasies. I have no problems with people despising a religion. But seriously, can't you find a less dishonest pinup for your cause?

Only a man could write such provocative trash ! If he had had his genitalia chopped off, a la women in Islamic countries, maybe he would feel just a tad different. Or perhaps he could try wearing the burka for a day or two, and not driving or going out without being accompanied by his spouse. Probably he wouldn't even be able to write his feeble missives, as women are so often not sent to school. Let him stay home and cook and mind the kiddies, and confiscate his PC. Any disobedience and he'll get a beating.

Before people such as Greg Barns go into spasms about dissidents such as
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, he should become moderately informed about Islamic penal codes as enforced in Iran and Arab countries. These codes represent the social and legal aspects of Islam; they are not the fulminations of individual fundamentalists. Penal codes are a method of gauging the general, accepted temper of the people. Barns mentions Catholicism and homosexuality and their ban on female priests. As far as I know, there are no female imans in Islam, in fact females get pretty poor recognition as far as human rights is concerned, as do children; and as for converts and those who speak out against Islam ...

The Iranian Islamic Penal Code

Article 83, para 2
Women and girls can be stoned to death; this article also sets out size of the stones to be used - neither too small not to hurt, nor to large as to kill outright.

Article 49
A child becomes criminally liable at 9 years old for girls and 15 years old for boys, (which includes the death sentence), Whenever a boy or a girl who has not reached the age of liability commits a crime, the court is entitled to sentence him/her to corporal punishment ( a public flogging).

Article 110
Homosexuals are to be executed.

Article 513
Apostates from Islam are to be executed.

Article 13 of the Iranian Islamic Constitution
Only followers of three other religions are recognized as minorities (who do not have equal rights with the Muslims believing in twelve imams). The rest are infidels and deprived from all civil rights and killing them is indisputable.

Also see: http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/ir_un2005a.pdf

Barns cites an extremist Israeli, Mike Guzofsky, in support of his argument. However, Israel is a democratic country with freedom of speech. Perhaps Barns should find out how many Jews are more secular, than profoundly religious, let alone extremists. Of Israel’s population of 7 million, 76.1% are Jewish, 16.2% Islamic Arabs, 2.1% Christian, and 1.6% Druze, the remaining 3.9% others. Arab Israelis enjoy equal rights with Jews, as do all Israelis, including representation in the Knesset. Druze, an Islamic sect, subject to persecution in Islamic countries, have their HQ in Israel, they also, voluntarily make up a large percentage of the Israel Border Police personnel.

Courageous Islamic intellectuals and dissidents are becoming increasingly vocal about human rights abuses, the need for democracies, and rigorous examination of Islam within their countries. They call for an approved, theologically rigorous interpetation of Islam challenging the accepted norm. Importantly they want the West to listen to them and support their aims. However, Barns would like to see these same people gagged.

Ironically, it is the smug, politically correct Barns’ of the West who are the obstacles
to change. They ignore the human rights abuses within Islam, or make excuses for the indefensible - as one Muslim remarked, the West’s obsession with political correctness, trivialises his people, in the same way the West in a bygone era, saw them as “the white man’s burden.”

Barns would do well to read the article by Tawfik Hamid, just one of many Islamic intellectuals and dissidents:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009890

Islamic intellectuals and dissidents are not asking for military intervention, nor change imposed from outside, only that the West listen to them and support them. They know that real change can only come from within.

Irfy..I have to give you a score card for that last post.

1/ "Islam-haters" Tick.. at LAST you have departed from "Muslim" haters.

2/ "Migration_Fraud". Tick, true.

3/ "Pathalogical liar" ? X for that one.. 'lied on an immigration from out of desperation and fear/terror does not make one a pathological liar.

4/ "Paranoid Fantasies".. X for that one also, which gives you a pass rate of 50%. Living in real fear of being murdered as her associate Van Gogh was... nope..I won't call that either paranoid or fantasy.

Now.. being a lwyer, you will realize this is not really good enough.

BUT.. Greg Barns ? "intolerance" ? (laughs until crashing onto the floor) ....

gets up...

Reads more. "There is no Muslim 5th Column" exactly Greg, just like J.EDGAR HOOVER was right when he said "What organized crime?, there is none"

Greg.. if it were not for the fact that I SAW you on the defense team for the 13 alledged Muslim terrorists, in the courtroom, I might just think you are naive, but given your involvement with alledged terrorists (by virtue of your legal services).. you must admit that to read 'FROM YOU' 'no Muslim 5th column' does raise certain questions about your motives.

I'll leave everyone else to figure that one out and speculate themselves.

"If she were a genuine leader she would seek dialogue and consensus"

Thats right Greg.. (pat pat).. just as Theo Van Gogh would have said to his attacker.. "Now wait a minute.. lets discuss this... " Oh wait.. I think he DID say things like that.. in between begging for his life... and sadly, it did him no good. Within seconds of seeking 'consensus and dialogue' he was laying in a pool of blood, with note pinned to his blood soaked chest by a knife.

Greg.. you just make yourself look like a total idiot, devoid of anything resembling common sense, when you woffle on like this.

Me ? recovering from the impact of "OBSESSION-The rise of radical Islam" viewed last night at a synagogue.

GREG says:

"Scholars such as Harvard University's Ali Asani have written eloquently about the fact that the foundation document of Islam, the Koran, stresses tolerance and unity."

Greg.. I don't know who needs therapy more, me for having to put up with your clear and misguided representation of Islam, or you, for being so devoid of careful reading ability that you would even post such garbage and think people are so brainless as to take it as true.

TOLERANCE and UNITY.

Quran 9:29 "Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low."

Quran 9:30

"And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

Now Greg, did you see those tolerant words ? "MAY ALLAH DESTROYYYYYY THEM" who ? Christians and Jews!

You are either willfully (and maliciously) misrepresenting Islam, which is an unconscienable act, when doing so to the OBJECTS of this religious hatred contained in the above verses, (-but something I would expect from a "lawyer" who seems to care more about winning cases than truth and morality) or.. you are simply brain damaged and unable to read a John and Betty primer for kindy, let alone the plain language of the Quran.

I can’t believe all the bigoted, paranoid rubbish in this forum!!

Then again … yes, I can. Islamphobia is all the rage these days. The Murdoch press in Australia, in particular, has given it a chilling respectability – enough to blind us to all its hypocrisies.

Sure, there are some horrible aspects to Islam. But that never seems to stop the Australian Cricket Board from sending our cricket team to Pakistan – unlike South Africa in the past or Zimbabwe in the present. Nor did it stop the Americans from carefully nurturing the Pakistan dictatorship’s nuclear ambitions, or its development of nuclear weapons, in blatant contempt for the NPT – unlike Iran. Nor has any Western country suggested an embargo against Pakistan for not doing enough to stop the terrorist training camps within its borders.

Nor has it ever stopped us from turning a blind eye to Indonesia’s human rights excesses, or Malaysia’s tolerance of polygamy, or Jordan’s record of sororacide. Nor does it stop the West’s palsy, walsy cosying up to that most fundamentalist of Islamic states, Saudi Arabia, despite its embarrassing over-representation among the 911 hijackers. Ditto Egypt. Nor did it stop us from taking the Muslim side in the Balkan conflict in opposition to that upstart Christian leftie, Milosevic – despite roughly equal genocidal excesses on both sides.

When it comes to the cynical pursuit of Western interests – Islamic fundamentalism is all relative. Islamic fundamentalists are OK, as long as they are OUR Islamic fundamentalists

In the Wall Street Journal, Tawfiq Hamid tells his fellow Muslims a few home truths about ‘Islamophobia’ Read it at Melanie Phippips blog.
Part of the comnet made: 'It is well past time that Muslims cease using the charge of ‘Islamophobia’ as a tool to intimidate and blackmail those who speak up against (..) those who rightly criticize current Islamic practices and preachings. Instead, Muslims must engage in honest and humble introspection. Muslims should–must–develop strategies to rescue our religion by combating the tyranny of Salafi Islam and its dreadful consequences' http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1535

the full outrage of Barn's original post has just struck me...
how dare you!
a woman has had her friend and collegue viciously murdered by someone in the name of an imaginary daddy-spirit in the sky and his magic book, who capped his monstrous act by skewering his prone and dying victim with a dispicably ugly letter, with macabre style, pinning it to the poor man's heaving chest,
and you have the brutish insensitivity and slavish adherence to the groupthink of political correctness to accuse her of somehow parading her need for protection....accusing her, essentially, of posing...

i'm aghast at the vileness of your opportunistic, ignominious point-scoring in such horrible circumstances....

rufus

This is by far the funniest thing in the whole Islamic debate: Ayaan Hirsi Ali being veted by the right and conservatives!

Ayaan is a 'queue jumper' par excellence. She can show the poor slobs who come on rickety boats to Australia a thing or two!

She left Somalia age 7 and lived in Kenya till arriving in Holland. She lied about her name, age and country of origin or that she had valid travel documents. Ayaan was on her way to Canada, legally, with airplane ticket, paid for by her husband. Her husband came to the Netherlands where they divorced.

She was working as a translator in Nairobi for the UNHCR before she left to go to Canada. On the way she stopped over in Germany to see some rellies and decided to go to the Netherlands and seek asylum. It was pretty well known that the Dutch are a bit of a push-over where paperless asylum seekers are concerned.

She was a member of the Labour party for a number of years, till she was offered nomination by a liberal party. She switched over and was elected. She went from a left wing party to a centre-right party. Cheryl Kernot, that's how you switch parties and live to do world wide tours.

She made a low budget movie with Theo van Gogh, called 'Submission' which gave her notoriety and got van Gogh murdered. Theo van Gogh was an anarchist. Hated the royal family, the whole idea of a monarchy. He was no pin up boy for the conservatives!

It was not the 'Left-wing' who outed her and caused the ruckus, but from within her own conservative party. It caused a furore! It caused the government to collapse through a vote of no confidence by another liberal party in coalition with the government.

She still has her Dutch nationality by the way. She is a very intelligent woman, quite beautiful and glows with attention. She is articulate and knows what the crowd wants, enjoy the performance!

Good on you Evonne

Argue the character of this woman instead of the facts about Islam. You write 'She is a very intelligent woman, quite beautiful and glows with attention. She is articulate and knows what the crowd wants, enjoy the performance!' Is this a crime? Would you rather she had hairy armpits and a tea towel over her head?

The big question surrounding Hirsi Ali is whether her story is primarily concerned with Islam or feminism. I think the latter. Hirsi Ali's story is repeated millions of times across the globe and transcends cultures.

Global misogyny is now in pandemic proportions. The figures put out by aid agencies and governmental bodies are staggering. Here is one many examples that can be cited;

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr62/en/index.html
http://www.who.int/gender/violence/who_multicountry_study/en/index.html

Seen as a feminist issue Hirsi Ali's story needs to be told over and over again as a necessary catalyst for action. Indeed, trying to sweep feministic issues under the carpet just because they are intertwined with religion is a crime against women.

There is a mountain of evidence that Muslim women are abused within their respective Islamic societies at a rate similar to non-Muslim societies. Many studies have suggested that Muslim societies are probably worse that initially assumed because of under-reporting, poor statistics and under-representation at the political level.

This example comes from Malaysia, a supposedly more progressive Islamic society. God help the women in Saudi Arabia or East Africa;

http://www.wao.org.my/index.htm
http://www.wao.org.my/research.htm#dv

I would suggest that Greg Barnes is out of touch with the global issue of womens rights. He should be praising women who stand up for women, not denigrating them.

Greg, in your moral equivalence between Christian-Jews and Muslims you nullify your intelligence, your sense of history and reality. Certainly there are fanatic Christians and Jews, but they don't threaten the existence of Western civilization as fanatic Muslims do.

Moreover, life for Muslims is difficult because of their bigoted attachment to an atavistic religion, not because of the "pop star" status of Hirsi Ali.

Further, by giving fanatic Muslims a piggyback you play the role, in the unfathomable depths of your ignorance, of the tortoise, in the unforgettable fable of Orson Welles, THE SCORPION AND THE TORTOISE. When the former convinced the latter that in its transportation on the back of the tortoise from one side of the river to the other, it would be silly to sting it as it itself would drown, nonetheless, midstream it did sting it. And in the dying question of the tortoise why it stung it, the scorpion replied, "this is my nature".

Likewise you will be stung by the "Muslim Scorpion" that you carry on your back.

See Australia Calls America-http://australiacalls.blogspot.com

I heard Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the radio this morning, an extended interview of nearly an hour with Richard Fidler. Here is a link to the podcast http://www.abc.net.au/queensland/conversations/stories/s1941807.htm?nsw

The interview began by traversing her history and I found myself nodding along to her explanations of how she abandoned her faith and embraced a secular western life. I felt I understood her reasons for fleeing an arranged marriage and could sympathise with (if not condone) her dishonesty in obtaining refugee status. After all, wasn't it done to escape a brutal misogynistic patriarchy, to forge a new future in a liberal democracy? Even her partnership with the charmless Van Gogh seemed a serious attempt at coming to grips with Islam. Van Gogh might have been a sleazy provocateur, bu no-one deserves to be killed for their ideas.

I was shaken out of my complacency, when Hirsi Ali began stridently insisting that the west had to disarm Iran. Otherwise Iran would mount a nuclear assault on Israel and an atomic war would erupt. She brushed aside the debacle in Iraq, saying that it was essential to stop the "death cult" of Islam. Of course, soon afterwards it was revealed that Hirsi Ali is now a Resident Fellow at the belicose American Enterprise Institute. http://www.aei.org/scholars/filter.all,scholarID.117/scholar.asp Undeterred by the calamity their policies caused in Iraq, the AEI is now at the forefront of pushing for intervention in Iran. http://www.mediatransparency.com/story.php?storyID=180

So it seems that Hirsi Ali has abandoned one brutish patriarchal culture only to join another.

Let us not forget quotes like this;

"Reforming Islam, changing it from what it is now, will benefit women and as women benefit from it they will become educated, become owners of their own bodies and their own destinies."

Especially in the light of;

'Ali has had an around-the-clock guard since 2004 when death threats were made against her because of her outspoken views on Islam.'

Because of;

'She says Muslims must examine their religion and "review the example of the prophet Muhammad. Muslims are not used to criticising Islam, they are not used to criticising the prophet Muhammad", she told a sell-out audience at the Sydney Theatre.'

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/author-calls-on-muslims-to-reform/2007/06/02/1180205582657.html

TR,

I grew up in a north african country and there were a lot of 'bad habits'one could see that people liked to pin on religion. One have a duty to stand up for his/ her rights and many times I challenged cultural habits but I never threw the blame on someone else.
Islamic history shows in the time of the prophet, a man tried to force his daughter to marry and she challenged him in front of the prophet using the Quran (chapter 3 named women) and she won the argument. Another challenged one of the caliphates (Omar) on dowry and he conceded. Go to :
www.readingislam.com.

The issue with Hirsi Ali is she was happy to be treated like a potato by her culture and just pin it on the Islam 'hanger'.
Tunisian women stood up for themselves and they are now more that 11% females in the tunisian parliement: same Islam, same Quran and a country poorer and an hour away from Somalia.

Boaz,

Any muslim or non-muslim will know that the Quran makes sense with 'reasons for revelation. They would also know that all chapter 9 refers to times of wars when few tribes initiated wars and broke peace treaties with the early Muslims and claimed to be Jewish and Christian holy wars.
This also explains why chapter 9 is the only one of the 114 chapter that does not start with "in the name of God most gracious, most merciful".

But as usual, you fail the intellectual honesty test everytime you write about Islam. I also noticed you never concede or apologise for your intentional misrepresentations you just duck and reappear on another thread with the same "facts".

Greg, anyone who calls a person right or left in politics or religion is ignorant about the past history of its use, probably because they were not alive to experience it.
The left was the working class who were wanting better conditions, the right were the bosses of industry who did not want the workers to have better conditions, this is when the unions were formed to bring about improved conditions for the workers and their families.
Now we have the business class, which exists in both Labor and Liberal parties. The workers have lost their workers rights, in the interests of the corporates and politicians who run government on a business model.
The money seeking Western religions of today have joined the American led business class in wishing to dominate the globe with their brand of capitalism.
Ms Ali is a female wanting change for the betterment of women, within the Muslim male dominated communities, just the same as Western women have been attempting to do in the male dominated communities. The catholics have denied women equality forever, and the same situation with the Muslims.
Greg, are you a male who dislikes honest intelligent women, fighting for equality with males, anywhere in the world?. Have a look at what powerful males are doing in Iraq, killing and maiming women and their children. Get real.

I believe the issue here is one of culture. Countries that are predominantly Islamic tend to have a restrictive views towards social doctrines of fairness and the rights of women. Maybe it’s a religious thing but maybe its more of a problem with the culture itself. Ali is speaking about Islam in the context of where she grew up. I think it is easy to confuse a religion with culture.

I do believe this though. When you have a Islam as a national identity it is more likely that your society will adopt ancient approaches to human rights and social policies.

Tolerance goes so far when these attitudes are brought to countries that embrace differences.

father of night

You quote the following:

'It is well past time that Muslims cease using the charge of ‘Islamophobia’ as a tool to intimidate and blackmail those who speak up against (..) those who rightly criticize current Islamic practices and preachings.’

The term ‘islamophobia’ is not a tool of blackmail or intimidation. It describes a very real and dangerous social virus that is ripping through the Western world. Here is a tiny fraction of recent alarming examples:

• In the UK, a bank’s decision to discontinue issuing piggy banks is widely reported in the media as bowing to pressure not to offend Muslims. The charge turns out to be false – the bank had simply decided on a change of approach and its decision had nothing to do with Muslims – but no retractions were published.

• Three days before the Cronulla riots, in response to a caller who complained of ‘really derogatory remarks’ being aimed at Middle Eastern people on Cronulla beach, a high-profile Sydney shock jock warns her ‘not to get carried away’ because ‘We don't have Anglo-Saxon kids out there raping women in western Sydney’.

• An op ed writer for The Australian takes feminists and left-wingers to task for supposedly not speaking out enough against Islam’s treatment of women. She then warns us that she is ‘fighting to prevent the possibility that [her] granddaughters – our granddaughters – will one day be forced to wear a burka’. (25 August 2006)

• A British airline pilot refuses to take off when his passengers request the removal of two ‘suspicious’ men from a plane on the grounds that they were speaking in a foreign language thought to be Arabic. A search of the men and the plane found nothing suspicious.

These are not examples of people ‘rightly criticis[ing] current Islamic practices and preachings’. They are examples of mass hysteria, which our guardians of public debate are ruthlessly exploiting for their own political agenda – and that agenda is certainly NOT the cause of women, Islamic or otherwise

The Muslim world needs more honest people like outspoken Ayaan Hirsi Ali (and for that matter Sheikh Hillali) if they will have a faint chance in hell to ever reforming and become part of the human free race.

The Qur'an forbids inquiry. Islam is to be accepted as it was practiced by their beloved prophet and his disciples, in 7th century Arabia. It is this mentality of slavery to their god that blocks all hope of free speech and intelligent debate.

If a born Muslim is not "in the fold" i.e. a state of total slavery (submission) like the rest of them - he/she is not considered to be a Muslim - therefore he/she deserves to burn in hell with all non-believers (in Islam), Christians, Jews, Women and Daemons (Jinns).

Women are enslaved to men through Qur'anic dictates and Shari'a law. If they dare to think differently, it is up to their husband (or the next family male present) to discipline them. Women don’t dare to revolt against mistreatment and risk being divorced and or bitten.

So how can Islam reform when any external criticism is viewed as blasphemy - and any internal investigation is not allowed?

Of course there are always the proud defenders (Hi FH) who will argue that Islam is the perfect political and social system that need not change but be imposed on all humanity...to establish true peace and harmony on earth.

Islam is Allah's perfect gift to humanity. After all how could anyone doubt Allah or his prophet? How could the slave question the master?

Well what do you know? Irfan has a say. And calls this women a "pathological liar".

Read here about her : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

I would suggest Wikipedia may be a touch more unbiased than a person who says what Irfan does. Not just on this thread as we all know.

I would read Irfan's "pathological liar" as "critic of Islam". Words from Wikipedia.

Another comment from there about this lady :

"She has received numerous awards for her human rights work, and in 2005, was named by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world."

Obviously a decitful, nasty woman, right? We all know Islam does not support human rights. Except for men.

Perhaps Irfan covets her place as a writer. Good of him not to mind her visiting Australia. Wish he hadn't. However he got here.

A word Irfan. Just between you and I. Australians don't hate Islam. Never have, never will. It's people like yourself that are hated as it is people like yourself that keep trying to create problems between religions.

I think Greg Barnes can be accused of trying to influence public opinion in favour of some of his clients, who are Muslims facing terrorism charges. He has an interest in having the public thinking that Islam is not a violent religion, and so seeks to denigrate a woman whose experience of Islam has been disastrous, and violent.
He reminds me a lot of Irfan, in that he spends at least as much time denigrating his opponent as he does addressing the subject (actually Irfan usually spends a good deal more on the former, so the comparison is perhaps unfair to Greg). And Irfan's contribution is typically tendentious.
As for the Koran being a book dedicated to peace and unity, what rubbish. The book is a call to continuous war, because that was what was thought necessary to establish and maintain the community which formed around Muhammad. Might it be wondered: there were many communities with their many gods on the Arabian peninsula at that time. There might have been a lot of intercommunal fighting, but there were also some hundreds of idols in their holiest place. There was a lot of live and let live. Why did so many of them decide that the new fellow, Muhammad, had to go? Not, I'll bet, because he was the nice tolerant fellow scholars like to make him out to be by the 'early' (Meccan) sayings. Certainly, by the time he got to Medina, his nasty side was clear to all. What a way to start a religion.
Islam started nasty, and continues to be (according to its book, if not all its adherents).

Irfan,

Whether Ayaan Hirsi Ali lied to enter a country, or what her attitudes about Jews are, is not the issue. Whether she is lying about Islam is. You are using the typical lawyer's method to taint the victim and confuse the issue; a ploy used in rape cases.

Irfan, I do not know whether you are a strong and vocal activist against Islamic practices of public execution, flogging, stoning, and removal of fingers, hands etc. Not only are the faithful expected to attend, but where stoning occurs, audience participation is mandatory. I hope Irfan, you are indeed a strong activist against these attrocities. I may be wrong, but your website indicates that you are not, in fact, you seem ambivalent.

Irfan,

I lived in a Islamic country, Malaysia, for many years. The women were very beautiful in their sarongs, tight fitting kabaya, long hair flowing, and makeup, walking proudly to be women. Men and women regularly danced together, ronging. They were devout and gentle, and joyous and happy. The Islamic leaders were gentle and erudite. So Islam is not required to employ the human rights abuses it does.

The Malay women I now see look like little pepper pots in their Islamic clothing, their eyes cast down modestly to the ground - they certainly don't look happy in the way their mothers and grandmothers were. Recently I came across a picture of a young Malay girl being publicly flogged. I was appalled. This certainly wasn't the tolerant Islamic Malaysia, of many races, religions, and cultures I knew and loved.

When I lived there the law required that no-one attempt to convert a Muslim, which meant immediate expulsion from the country. Everyone respected this totally reasonable law. European women dressed modestly, not in shorts, so as not to offend Muslim sensibilities. Again an absolutely reasonable requirement as we were living, "guests", in an Islamic country. Muslims did not drink alcohol, non-Muslims did. However, at all times we respected one another's culture and religion ... which appears greatly at variance with some muftis and Muslim faithful living in current Australian society.

Irfan, I ask you directly. Can you justify the human rights attrocities occurring in the name of Islam. Do you speak out against them loudly and often? Certainly, from my personal experience, the practice of a devout Islamic faith does not require these practices. Muslims and others should condemn what is occurring under the banner of Islamic faith, and demand, like many Muslim intellectuals and dissidents do, an approved, theologically rigorous interpetation of Islam challenging the accepted norm.

If this happened, then many of those whom you glibly label “Islam haters” would see Muslims in an entirely new light. Has it occurred to you, that it is not Islam many dislike, but the practices perpetuated in its name.

Hey Dannielle... that was an interesting post about your time in Malaysia.

Though it sounds like you did not see the Chinese when you were there.. or you were cooped up in a remote Malay village.
The chinese girls wear SHORT shorts.. and have plenty of skin showing.. (in KL they do) ..

But your comment about the older generation of Malays ..yep.. I can understand that, but that would have been before the era of mass communication and the influence of radical (Quranic) Islam from the Arabs. Last time I was in KL they were doing cartoons about the new shopping atmosphere with so many women in black burka's. My language teacher was very attractive and wore a kubaya, and make up, and was of royal lineage, I shudder to think of her in a Burkah. I was taught by her alone in a closed room also, (as all students were) I can't imagine that going down in Kelantan.

Maybe you were in a state like that?

Its quite different in East malaysia (Sarawak&Sabah) Muslims are less than 30%. There are many examples of attempted forced or deceptive conversions including bribes. Your description of Malaysia sounded tooo good..and you know what they say about that :)

Irfy should voluntarily sit this test.

1/ Does the Quran allow men to have captive females and have sex with them any time they like?
2/ Are you prepared to publically REJECT or ENDORSE such a notion, publically?
3/ Does the Quran call for Allah to curse and destroy Christians and Jews?
4/ Are you prepared to publically denounce this ?
5/ Is it the consensus of the major Islamic Schools of Law that any apostate should be KILLED?
6/ Are you prepared to go on record as 'rejecting' this and denounce the practice?
7/ Does the Quran endorse wife beating ?(however softly you wish to intepret it)
8/ Are you able to publically denounce such a practice?

There you go Irf :)

Think about why a woman who was very highly thought of and very influential in a country doesn't seem to want to continue her work there anymore.

I was an admirer for years of Ayaan. She was outspoken and not afraid to speak out on controversial and confronting issues. She made people in the Netherlands think and examine a lot of issues re Islam and Christianity. Now, knowing a lot more of her story than is probably available in English, I take what she has to say with a big grain of salt.

What was an enormous disappointment was that the stories she told and the values she was strongly advocating did not equate with her own reality. There are people who supported her from the very beginning, when she first arrived in the Netherlands. Ordinary citizens and people with influence who at this moment have a sense of betrayal, brushed off, they are no longer of any value. Now she is in the USA working for a conservative think thank. This would have been unthinkable a few years ago.

When next you excuse her lying to gain asylum, think about the safety of where she was. Her entire youth her schooling was unbroken and of very high standard. She was working in Nairobi.

Think of all those asylum seekers who try to come to Australia who we feel quite OK about treating harshly because they bypass safe havens, who we accuse of destroying papers. Appalling refugee camps are filled with desperate people, but they should apply for visas and wait their turn. Not arrive here as illegals. I'm sure there are many women who could tell stories. About the plight of women, in cultural, religious and war situations. Wouldn't you rather hear their stories?

Listen to what she has to say, by all means, but surely the credibility and authority of the messenger is also important. And ask why she is no longer speaking in the Netherlands. Why has she lost so much credibility?

What arrogance, and outright vileness this article is, and all you cowards who agree.

Hirsi Ali is a heroic woman, who tells the truth about the bigoted, violently intolerant, homophobic, misoginistic, spew that is the Islamic religion.

Mark my words, this period will be looked back on as a time when the west had a stroke over the ethnic other, debating what we should do, should we bring all these uncivilised backward tribes, namely, Asia, Africa, and the largely in-bred hicks that make up the Muslim world (just watch their TV mate, read their papers, to call them right wing would be an insult, they make Hitler look like a leftist hippy).

Why is that darlings of the left are David Hicks, Mamdouh Habib, and likely even Osama Bin Laden?

She is everything the racist left ilk ever dreamed of, but they are too cowardly to say it.

That is what makes me sickest of all, is that those like Barnes, will one day be saying the same thing, they are just cowards pandering to the uncivil non-westerners.

FACE IT, THE WESTERN CIVILISATION, WESTERN VALUES, ARE IN EVERY WAY SUPERIOR, TO THOSE OF NON-WESTERN HERD CULTURES.

The day will come when sick values that the non-west have, such as Muslims - who are by far the most intolerant people ever to walk the planet, will be forced into line.

How dare a smug Barnes not speak up when a coloured person says something.

His logic is akin to, if he was living in the deep south in the 1930's, telling off any blacks who complained.

Your vile mate. You have no argument, only vitriol.

She speaks the truth, surely you understand by the moderates saying she shouldn't even have been allowed in the country, that they are in fact so extreme there ought to be a law to send them back to the 7th century from which their in-bred ilk come from!

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has had to put up with more than this in her life and will no doubt continue to pay the price for speaking up in the name of freedom.

Hi Yvonne / Danielle,

My criticism to Hirsi Ali is that of her fellow somali female partner published on the BBC website. That is she refused to stand up for the wrongdoings of her culture and was ok to resort to pointing the finger at the Islamic faith. Women in Tunisian parliement are more than 11% which is higher than an average EU country and achieved that through challenge, debate and dialogue using Islamic history and women rights in the Quran. My personal experiences in the middle east that tirany (either governmental or family level) will usually claim some religious support. Individuals have to stand up and challenge rather than blindly obey because someone told them to.

Coach and his brotherhood,

"one ring to rule them all" , from the fellowship of the ring.
"Aslan, the sacrifice king", chronicles of narnja.
"what the..Bhudda?..dan I chose the wrong religion!" Ned Flanders on his death bed in The Simpsons.

Sorry but I can't take anything you write serious anymore. Its repetitive..repetitive..petitive...tive..ve

SARAH101... you make an intersting point about Unions seeking better conditions. While that's fine...within a CLOSED economic system. i.e. If the only people making the widgit are you and the company you work for, as soon as you have 'competition' from within your country or outside, the race is on to reduce costs ...or..DIE. Its that simple.

So, I'm all for improved conditions but PROVIDED that the Union side can see the numbers and the economic wider picture of what might happen if they go tooooo far. (Union officials keep their jobs even when those they represent go hungry due to loss of jobs, but the get ELECTED based on often unsustainable and immoral promises..Dean Mighell)

F.H. you can trot out your mantra of me 'misrepresenting' Islam but you forget your readers have brains :)
You made the claim that chapter 9 was during a time of war.

RESPONSE. I have pointed out many times that the basis for the call of "Allah's curse be on them/May Allah destroy them" was not prefixed with or suffixed with "Because_they_are_attacking_us- or broken some treaty" no..it is "because they believe Christ is the Son of God"..
Now even a policeman on the beat can see that, and if a judge was considering 'motive' he would see the actual text, not your off-beat interpretation of it.

You see.. sound interpretation is one which connects with the facts :)

Fact 1 "Christians believe Christ is Son of God"
Fact 2 "May Allah destroy them"(because of that)

CONCLUSION "Christians are to be destroyed because they believe Christ is the Son of God"
Any other conclusion is 2+2=6 or.. 'spin'.

Its not hard to extend this furher to.."IMPLICATIONS"

IE. if... Allah has specifically cursed and designated a particular people 2b destroyed, who are we to argue? Further..If Allah wishes to destroy them, and we are Allahs soldiers/Army/Followers, it stands to simple reason that we must be the instruments of that destruction.
The only question is 'what form' should that destruction take?
1/ Genocide ?
2/ Subjugation and Taxation?

I don't like EITHER.

Boaz,

Either you don't understand Islam at all or you are misrepresenting it. Lets see:

First: Living together:
The Quran respects people of the book, their rights to live in peace, their rights to practice and worship. The Islamic history "Walked the talk" and hence throughout Islamic history Christianity, Judaism maintained their rights until today. Muslims maintained and protected synaguogues and churches throught history. Do you deny the prophet Mohammed hadith “he who harms a follower of the book (ie Christian, jew or Sabean), I am his enemy on judgement day”?

Second: the Theology:
The Quran disagrees with Judaism on the nature of the chosen people in the sense that we believe they were chosen ‘to teach the message’ of monotheism and commandments. When they didn’t God sent Jesus to spread the teachings. When he was killed (or not) God sent Mohammed. For us, it’s a simple story board that makes sense. Islam is clear on monotheism and equality hence there is no room for a favourite people or relatives/ human nature to God and we make no apology of oiur theology.
That the Islamic differences. Regardless, according to Islam only God judges who is a believer and who isn’t which becomes a matter of individual conscience for the afterlife.

Ironic quote re the Genocide: genocide was committed by people of your faith against Jews (holocaust), Muslims (throught history since the crusades) and non-christians in general (Rwanda 800,000 killed in 10 days) and the neocons with a finger on the button of 20,000 nukes.
You are right we should be scared but from your mob.

Peace,

PART I BY White Warlock.

Dear Greg Barns and anyone who thinks that his post his okay,

you are a racist bigot who thinks that white westerners are so superior that all other cultures are like down-syndrome or something in comparison. This is revealed in the way you think it acceptable to not treat them as equals, whether that involves attacking bigotry or racism or religious intolerance within their communities, or talking about the REAL problem of kids who are brought up by their parents to hate "others" sooo much that they think that being involved in violent crimes, rapes, drug dealing, stealing cars or sucking dry the dole, medicare and even the Smith family (and other charities) are all okay when done to the "other" who they see as proper garbage.

But even if we just stick to issue of dealing with racism and other intolerance within any non-white community, the way that you slip over, Freudian style, double back, lie, be hypocritical, all proves that you are indeed fully aware of the massive problem with bigotry and religious (amongst other types) intolerance within, in particular, the Muslim community here in Australia and everywhere else.

How do you reconcile the fact that you can so easily attack in the western/white community anyone who shows any sign of racsim, mysoginy, homophobia, religious intolerance, etc., without being concerned that you may offend or "generalize" about all white people, when in the next breath you protect the same bigotry and bigots in non-white communities (mostly Muslims) who spew out vile filth a billion times more potent than anything that even comes out of the KKK or Neo-Nazis. And that is not exaggerating. Hilaly Feiz actually basically incited gang rape and said that the victims should be in prison. Time and time again their community in general has supported such people, who have said vile racist things over and over again.

Forums for dialogue have revealed that the average Mulsim in this country think that those such as Sheik Omran from Melbourne (who says that Bin Laden is a good man and that suicide bombing over poverty is acceptable in Australia - he by the way has a subscription of over 10,000 to his newsletter); Wasim Duherei from Hizb-ut-tahrir (who constantly says that the is against democracy and the west and that it is the job of all muslims to bring about the barabaric sharia); Keysar Trad who has called us all convict scum and said that Gays should be stoned to death (UWS in 2002 with Hanah Durabi and Sheik Shadi); Sheik Yasin, the negro American convert who accuses the church of giving aids to Africa, aand who says that non-muslims cannot be their friends, and that they are "dirt".

Fellow human,

Theology according to whom? Mohammad's Qur'an? Sorry unaccepted evidence. (One man's word won't stand in court)

Israel has always been and still is God's chosen people. Too bad if this doesn't agree with your book of revised history.

The Midle-East was majority Christian before the Islamic invasion post Mohammad military career.

If it wasn't for the Crusades, the world would have been all Islamic by now and we would still be riding camels and horses.

Genocide? Intolerance? Just remember I lived there too. And I am not Coptic as you once eluded.

If you dont like what Ali says, why not try another author instead?

Below is just 1 snippet chosen arbitrarily from a Pakistani paper today. We welcome people like Ali because its obvious to Blind Freddie how Islam and its supporters around the world are steadily marching backwards to the future.

".. even rapists have ended up invoking the holy Quran to protect themselves. The victim of a recent gang rape told police that she “ took oath on the holy Quran ...to remain tight-lipped about the matter” because her rapists had threatened to kill her unless she did so."

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\06\06\story_6-6-2007_pg3_3

______________________

Ayaan Hirsi Ali.. you are on song, go Grrl..!!

Like the astounding Ms Ali, Chris Hitchens is no doubt not exactly a favourite of Mr Barns either but nevertheless the inimitable Mr Hitchens makes a sensational case (as usual) against denialists and defeatists like him:

http://www.zombietime.com/hitchens-hedges_debate/

The point is always the same from Ali to Hitchens to Shoeblatt, Islam needs to reform and expunge its old-fashioned or primitive elements once and for all.

Terrorists gave both Islam and Muslims a terrible terrible name after 9/11 so it is up to them alone to fix their destroyed reputation. Lip service and dangerous sophistry by the likes of Tariq Ramadan for example will simply not do. Telling the truth will.

“Judaism maintained their rights until today. Muslims maintained and protected synaguogues (sic) and churches throught (sic) history.”

Fellow_Human

You appear not to be acquainted with Arab history. Yes, there were times when Jews were welcome, but many times when they weren’t. Just a glance at modern Arab history. In the 1940’s, being Jewish was outlawed in a number of Arab states. When these laws were introduced, 800,000 Jews were not only expelled from their homes, but also dispossessed of everything they owned, both personal and community: businesses, synagogues, hospitals, and schools. As for Islam accepting Christians, look at the 2nd Sudanese War ... look at Darfur at present. Apart from Islam’s issues with Judaism and Christianity, look at the last sixty years with the horrendous bloodbaths of Muslim killing Muslim both between, and within, Arab States.

BOAS_David,

Now you really want me to date myself. I lived In Malaysia (then called Malaya) for seven years leaving in 1960.

When I was there, no local women did. In daytime, Chinese women, wore a cotton jacket over long pants. Wealthy women wore the form-fitting cheongsum split on each side, sometimes going as high as the upper thigh for evening wear. In those days I even had the figure and looks to wear it myself ...

I travelled round the entire coast of Malaysia from Koto Bharu on the east to Langkawi on the west, and lived in all western states from Johore to Perak, finally on Penang where I worked very happily and closely with co-workers of different religions and races. Confidences were shared, all festivals celebrated together.

However, I wonder how the indigenous Malays are fareing now. They are a distinct race from the “typical” Malay. When I was there they were were animists, not Muslims. They lived in kampongs, away from average communities. My feeling was that they were looked down upon.

“Judaism maintained their rights until today. Muslims maintained and protected synaguogues (sic) and churches throught (sic) history.”

Fellow_Human

You appear not to be acquainted with Arab history. Yes, there were times when Jews were welcome, but many times when they weren’t. Just a glance at modern Arab history. In the 1940’s, being Jewish was outlawed in a number of Arab states. When these laws were introduced, 800,000 Jews were not only expelled from their homes, but also dispossessed of everything they owned, both personal and community: businesses, synagogues, hospitals, and schools. As for Islam accepting Christians, look at the 2nd Sudanese War ... look at Darfur at present. Apart from Islam’s issues with Judaism and Christianity, look at the last sixty years with the horrendous bloodbaths of Muslim killing Muslim both between, and within, Arab States.

BOAS_David,

Now you really want me to date myself. I lived In Malaysia (then called Malaya) for seven years leaving in 1960.

When I was there, no local women did wear western dress. In daytime, Chinese women, wore a cotton jacket over long pants. Wealthy women wore the form-fitting cheongsum split on each side, sometimes going as high as the upper thigh for evening wear. In those days I even had the figure and looks to wear it myself ...

I travelled round the entire coast of Malaysia from Koto Bharu on the east to Langkawi on the west, and lived in all western states from Johore to Perak, finally on Penang where I worked very happily and closely with co-workers of different religions and races. Confidences were shared, all festivals celebrated together.

However, I wonder how the indigenous Malays are fareing now. They are a distinct race from the “typical” Malay. When I was there they were were animists, not Muslims. They lived in kampongs, away from average communities. My feeling was that they were looked down upon.

I have just finished listening to the unedited interview I had with Hirsi Ali yesterday. And I am pleased to say that she says thre things with which I thoroughly agree.

1. That people who want to teach creation science in schools should be thrown in jail.

2. That abortion should be made available to women who need it.

3. That Christian conservatives should stop trying to impose their agenda on liberal democracies.

I now look forward to B_D and others here to join me in congratulating Hirsi Ali for holding sensible views on these issues. Go on, Boaz. Admit that your beliefs on abortion and creation science are a danger to liberal democracy.

Now you are being stupid Irfan.

Surely you don't agree that creation "scientists" should be thrown in gaol! I don't think that Hirsi Ali does either. What was the context of her comment?

Yes, I agree that women should have ready access to legal abortions. It's safer than using a coat-hanger in someones 'backyard'.

As an secular humanist I believe that all three monotheisms are fundamentally divisive as evidenced by your cheap shot at Boaz which was immature and stank of the usual religious tribalism.

Everyone who lives outside the closed circle of monotheism knows that the political force of Islam is just as destructive as Christianity. In fact, NEITHER are desirable and deserve to be held in shackles by a more humane liberal democracy.

(Note: Can someone put Cardinal Pell AND Sheik Hilaly in the corner with their dunces caps on for being intrinsically stupid. Also, can their Bibles and Korans also be confiscated as they're obviously of little use in teaching good behaviour)

This article must count as one of the most asinine ever reproduced on Online Opinion. Only a cultural relativist of the most dhimwitted kind could come up with such rubbish.

What is perhaps most absurd is that Barns praises Islam for very definitely having "a strong liberal and progressive tradition" within it (but where exactly is this tradition being carried on today Greg?), whilst at the same time demonising both Christianity and Judaism for all manner of ills. In fact his own words need to be turned against him: "But by emphasising only the bad and ugly in Christianity and Judaism, Greg Barns feeds prejudice and division".

Barns then goes on to say that Ali "makes life more difficult for Muslims wherever she goes", without providing a shred of evidence. Have there been burning mosques left in her wake, Greg? Absolutely not.

It is clearly evident from this writing that Barns has joined the illiberal left, whose only desire is to silence any opinions that conflict with their own and in this way he is just as bad as the ABC-hating John Howard that he also rails against.

Danielle,

You quoted “Just a glance at modern Arab history. In the 1940’s, being Jewish was outlawed in a number of Arab states. When these laws were introduced, 800,000 Jews were not only expelled from their homes, but also dispossessed of everything they owned”

I am aware of arab history and these actions were political 1940 conducted by Arab leaders at the time in retaliation to Palestine and was widely supported by Arab Christians by the way. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a land conflict and not religious. If it was, why the jews lived peacefully amongst Muslims until the 1940-1950s then?

I live in Egypt and traveled across Sudan. the Darfur conflict in one sentence is this: 7 starving poor tribes living across 2 countries when they suddenly realised they are sitting on one of the world's largest natural gas reserves. They are fighting for wealth, the 2 governments are fighting to kick them out, oil cartels are involved. Its about wealth and oil.
Whats ‘religious’ about that?

Peace,

What's religious? Jerusalem for starters.

Muslims believe somehow that they have a religious right to it because of one of their prophet hallucination... he was allegedly (by him) transported in his dream of course to the site of the historical Jewish temple - So his followers built the Aqsa Mosque to mark the site for the world to see that the land is now Islamic.

Yes Muslims keep some Churches and Synagogues but it is more for superstitious reasons than humanitarian or religious respect.

What baffles me is how can a tiny little nation like Israel remain unbeatable by the millions of blood thirsty Arabs surrounding her. Answer: God’s protection. Israel is to exist until Jesus returns in His full glory to judge the world - including all false prophets, false gods, and false religions.

What irks me most of all is that those disagreeing with her aren't disagreeing with her comments, they are desperately grasping at straws in other areas, i.e, she lied on her form to get into Europe, and so on.

This is because they too, know that she speaks logic, truth, which is why she can never be silenced.

To those of you who, in this day and age especially, are so naive you think Islam like Christianity, you need to have reality smacked into you.

For starters, Islamic texts themselves paint Mohammed as a paedophile, murderer, brutal man, nothing like Jesus. Go read about him, and no, not the Karen Armstrong western guilt for imperialism angle, but read sacred Islamic sources.

Your local mosque should be able to point you there, or better still, if in English, just listen to a sermon or two yourself.

How about the recent case of the Malay woman, Lina Joy, who was not allowed to change her religion on her 'identity card'. Malaysia is merely 60% muslim yet the civil court still had to give way to the sharia court which then duly arrived at this unsavoury verdict despite, yes despite, the oft-quoted stattement that in Islam, there is no compulsion in religion.

Saudi Arabian religious ideology is infecting SE Asia and it threatens the multiple ways of life and peoples that exist there. (http://www.monsterblog.com.my/tag/lina-joy)

& Speaking of Saudi Arabia:

"In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil"
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-women6jun06,1,6178058,full.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&ctrack=1&cset=true

What can you conclude after reading yet another story like this. That Ali is exaggerating? That she is wrong to criticise? Hardly..no one concludes that right here in muslim heartland - the home of Mecca and Medina forsooth, Islam endorses APARTHEID.

Yuck. This sexually repressed, separatist belief system will not survive the moral scrutiny of this century.

I also meant to post a link to this from last month to show, just as Ali shows over and over again, that Islamic values directly involve men ruling over women in a ridiculously patronising and revolting manner. Yuck, do they have no shame these people?

"Dr. Sleiman Al-'Eid, head of the Islamic culture department at King Saud University: Driving will lead women to leave their homes a lot, whether they need to or not. In principle, women should stay at home, as everybody knows.

In addition, this might lead women to wear make-up and uncover their faces. Even if you say that women will drive covered by a niqab, or dressed modestly, and so on, this will gradually lead her to uncover her face. This will also encourage her to be disobedient. There is no doubt that women will eventually be photographed, and these photos will be shown to other people – whether the traffic police or other who need to look at these photos, for identification or nay other purpose. This will lead women to mix with men.

Another consequence of this will be the diminishing of men's guardianship over women. If a women drives, she will have a certain degree of independence, and she will come and go, travel, and so on. This will also lead to an increase in suspicions. When she has her own car, she will go out and return late."

http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1475 (driving)
http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1466 (circumcision)
http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1442 (childhood education)

http://memritv.org/Favorites.asp# (to watch the videos)

Coach,

You appear to insist on turning every political opinion into religion. Also, if you have no respect for the Islamic faith why you are so hot under the collar if some of them disrespect your faith. Hate and fear is a self fulfilling prophecy.
As for your ‘Israel is to exist until Jesus returns in His full glory to judge the world’
What a coincidence, Muslims too believe in Jesus second coming. So why do you hate them so much?

Benjamin,

Islam as Muslims learn it and practice it promote good human and social values.
Here is a link www.readingislam.com.
The site includes a Q&A section and many stories for westerners who chose Islam.

Ro,

Its a known fact that Saudi Wahabbism is conservative and not main stream (practising wahhabism are around 10 millions worldwide of 1.5 Billion Muslims, making them less than 1% of total Muslims).
You are free to keep quoting their articles but its dishonest to call them a majority.

Peace,

Fellow_Human, Wahhabism might be a minority strand within Islam but it is the strand that is being bankrolled across the world via Saudi oil money. Do you think we are blind to the fact that over the past thirty or so years that the moderate strands of Islam have been receding in the face of this reactionary wave?

There was an interesting article in TIME magazine a few weeks back in reference to this trend in Indonesia. Don't have the link for it as I read it in the analog edition (print format that is).

What baffles me is why supposedly moderate Muslims like you and Irfan aren't up in arms about this encroachment. Or does the prospect of Saudi oil money lubricating the mosque actually turn you on?

I'm with you on this one Coach. It is amazing how such a small nation that has been so despised for so many years still remains intact. It should not be so amazing as the Scriptures have always predictred this. The reason so many secular humanist join with the Muslims in hating Israel is because of the God of Israel.

Fellow Human writes 'Hate and fear is a self fulfilling prophecy. '

That is why all men have the choice to turn to the Lord Jesus Christ who alone is able to deal with the hate and fear in men's hearts. Shalom!

Fellow_Human,

Unfortunately with religious conflict the line between religion and territory is debatable. Look at the sectarian violence happening in Iraq, undoubtably also fuelled by tribal loyalties, etc. I do not wish to cross swords with you regarding Arab history, unless of course, you wish too.

No-one asks that Islam be “destroyed”. Islam remains, and should remain, a major religion. Many Muslims, however, themselves say it should be subjected to modern, rigorous interpretation; and with this, acceptance of Judaism, Israel, and Christianity.

Both Judaism and Christianity has had to examine itself. Jews no longer stone women adulterers as in biblical times, Christians no longer convert people at the end of a sword, then “despatch” them in case they recant, nor do they burn other Christians who are of different denomination.

Turkey is 99% Muslim; they threw out Shariah (Islamic Law) on 3rd March 1924.

Fellow_Human do you not believe that the Islamic penal code in Arab countries, Iran, and elsewhere is harsh and violent? Such practices are inhumane and denigrate human life.

You must admit that there there are also Islamic "denominations" that promote peace and gentleness, but they are repressed by the majority.

Perhaps it would be a start to remember that certain ancient tribal mores, with no connection to Islam, have been absorbed within Islam, like honour killings, and female circumcision, etc. and these should be rooted out.

BOAS_David,

You question my Malaysia of “sounding tooo good” - well it wasn’t all sweetness. I was there during the Communist Emergency. I knew how to use arms and hand-grenades at the age of 15. I had too. We lost friends in horrific circumstances.

The worst experience occurred when I was about 16. I knelt among the aftermath of a grenade attack in a cinema packed with families - all locals - no Europeans. I held a dying toddler’s hand, her agony so great, she could not make a sound. I doubt if she was aware I was there. Only now can I revisit this scene; a scene quite unlike sanitised pictures in the media. The carnage was horrific: with it, the stench of blood, insides of body cavities, vomit, and nitrite; and sounds not human. The few medical staff available imposed triage. The already dead were fortunate. Later I stood under a shower fully clothed so I could peel off my jeans and top, caked and dried to my body with blood and human detritis. Human fluids had seeped into my sandles. Everything was burnt.

From then on I loathed all terrorists with a passion. It was more for what they did to, and how they exploited , their own people, than their attacks on their perceived enemy - us, Europeans. They can never be confused with freedom fighters. Terrorists use the carrot and the stick, but the stick is more effective to engender compliance among their own.

Abuses by radical Islam, albeit institutionalised, are no different than terrorism. Upholders of political correctness, while promoting human rights, remain silent. Attrocities are “sanctified” and bowed to as freedoms, under the umbrella of religious belief. The silence of PC condones it - indeed it is tantamount to collusion.

Danielle,

‘Upholders of political correctness, while promoting human rights, remain silent. Attrocities are “sanctified” and bowed to as freedoms, under the umbrella of religious belief. The silence of PC condones it - indeed it is tantamount to collusion.’

I get so fed up with this slanderous, bigoted, culture wars mantra about so-called political correctness. To lump so-called 'political correctness' in with the horrific atrocities you describe is both manipulative and reprehensible.

Read the so-called ‘politically correct’ literature – Chomksy, Pilger, Fisk, New Internationalist, Green Left Weekly etc – and open both your eyes and your mind. There is no silence in any of this literature regarding atrocities of ANY kind. The very opposite.

‘Political correctness’ – that most abused phrase in Western discourse – is just a euphemism for the demonisation of anyone that does not snugly fit the Western might-is-right agenda.

What about that much more insidious, but unacknowledged ‘political correctness’ that supports pre-emptive war, illegal occupation, weapons manufacturing, the propping up of puppet dictators, corporate welfare and the inhumane restructuring of vulnerable economies to make the rich nations even richer?

These atrocities are never referred to as 'political correctness' - instead they are emulated and admired as good old traditional conservatism.

Fellow_Human,

The difference between your "version of the truth" and reality is that you see it all through the Qur'anic interpretation without reference to God’s Word: Jesus (in the Bible)

Your version of Jesus coming back is to say the least "comical". Your version of God's word, i.e. the same God that sent His Son to die on a cross for you and me, you have Him (Jesus) coming back as a Muslim, burning crosses and killing pigs, Christians, Jews, in fact admitting that He was wrong and that Islam was always the right religion...etc.

So, Islam is mistaken about God.
God doesn't change His mind like you describe Allah.

God loves the Jews. God sent Moses to rescue them from Egypt, remember? God promised Abraham. Isaac, and jacob, the land of Canaan (Israel). So why would God now take side with Muslims to exterminate His beloved people the Jews?

God has sent salvation in His Son Jesus - Sadly Islam missed it.

Result:- you're stuck in ancient history, pre-Jesus times, the Mosaic law - or should we say your interpretation of that law.

Admit your error and accept Jesus for who He is, not what your prophet wanted Him to be... supposedly just a prophet - (audaciously comparing himself with Jesus!)

Jesus is The Alpha and The Omega, the beginning and the end... of everything.
That’s why HE is coming back to JUDGE the world and NOT to endorse what Islam made of His Father.

You can criticise me all you want – but you know that in the end you will have to bow down to Jesus if you want access to God's paradise.

Jesus said: “I am the way and the truth, no one comes to God but through me”.

Isn’t that what you pray for five times a day? Asking God (Allah) to show you the right path?

It is by faith in Jesus that we are saved from hell – not by following one man-made religion.

Coach,
You know little about Islam. Muslims also believe in Jesus and his teachings. The difference between us is not his teachings but who he is.

Danielle (1/2)

1. “Certain ancient tribal…like honour killings and female circumcision”
Female circumcision is African and was part of the Abyssinian (Ethiopian-Christian) culture for centuries before Islam. None of the females in my family for the last 3 generations (including my daughters) were circumcised. I accept that it’s widely practiced in the out-of-city and in less educated societies. I also know first hand from a number of Egyptian and African doctors that it is slowly dying out. As for honour killing, its also a Bedouin Mediterranean culture and exists till today among Christians in the south of Egypt and in Sudan. One of the highest honour killing rates is Italy, Its nicknamed for “Italian Divorce”.

2. “there are Islamic "denominations" that promote peace and gentleness, but they are repressed by the majority”
The opposite is correct: I lived and grew up in Muslim countries till the age of 29. Most Muslims go about their life and faith in a peaceful and gentle manner. The radicals are usually, a bunch of angry clerics and frustrated teens in economical conditions where people can’t find a job; afford a marriage or even food. The issue is how to control the radicals? Its people who don’t believe in moderate Islam and we are on their target list as well (90% of victims of Islamist terrorism are Muslims). It’s like asking Catholics in my street to control the IRA.

To-be-continued...

Danielle (2/2)

3. “do you not believe that the Islamic penal code in Arab countries, Iran, …Such practices are inhumane and denigrate human life”

With the exception of Iran and Saudi, most Muslim countries have a secular legal system since the end of colonialism days. Since then, there was a debate over how much ‘alignment’ secular laws should have with Sharia laws. There are two views:

a)The conservative view: believe in literal application of the Sharia laws. Its difficult to implement/convict (crime convictions mandates 4 eye-witnesses of character to testify). You will also have to accept that in this form, it’s preventive enough that people go to bed with their car keys in the ignition.

b)The moderate view: believe in the context/purpose and re-interpret for today. This view is popular with most mainstream Islamic thinkers, scholars and influencers.

The moderates view picked up few ‘contexts’ such as:
*Prevention not correction: penalty has to be harsh enough to be preventive. An example you can’t give 1 year sentence for thief who stole million dollars.
*Enphasis on intent.
*Punishment and crime have to be of the same nature: ie graffiti offender should be sentenced to cleaning graffiti, etc..
*Victim’s consideration as a part of the legal process: As you may know, the current Sharia law allows the victim (or their family) to interfere to drop the sentence for a compensation sum of money (i.e. in cases like man slaughter) or just forgive the offender as a charitable act.
Either view does not cater for socially damaging industries like liquor, tobacco, etc.

4. “I do not wish to cross swords with you regarding Arab history, unless of course, you wish too”
You will notice throughout my posts I only ‘draw’ on a mis-representation (mostly intentional by few posters) and I just correct it and move on. I am familiar with the ME history, theology, philosophy and politics so you won’t find me dogmatic and I accept any rational debates without 'swords' :-)

Peace,

“The radicals are usually, a bunch of angry clerics and frustrated teens in economical conditions where people can’t find a job; afford a marriage or even food .... The issue is how to control the radicals? Its people who don’t believe in moderate Islam and we are on their target list as well (90% of victims of Islamist terrorism are Muslims). It’s like asking Catholics in my street to control the IRA.”

Fellow-Human,

I agree with you 100% ...! We have arrived at a meeting point! I thought, and hoped, I had made my feelings clear. I am not in any way against Islam, a major religion in the world, but against the radicalization of it (as I am of any religion). I apologise deeply if I haven’t made this clear enough.

Iranian dissidents, apart from wanting the UN to expel Iran until human rights are introduced into their country, also state that a lot of the problem is poverty.

The West should be supporting you and others. From your perspective as a Muslim, do you know how this can be best achieved.

As you pointed the IRA /Protestant persecution occurred, and recently.

I was interested in your comments about tribal mores, etc. absorbed into religion. I was aware that Italy used to have honour killings, but thought that the practice had died out.

Interestingly in the Gothic cathedrals and churches there are bosses (faces) on the ceilings. These are pagan and represent the “Green Man”; also along the outside roof-line are gargoyles, some of which are downright obscene. These too are pagan. The church permitted these in order that their new communties did not feel completely alienated from the religion. Chartres cathedral was deliberately built on the site of a Roman temple. The small female ebony figure found there was immediately adopted and revered by the Catholic church as the “black madonna”

I have just received your latest comment. and find it very interesting. We are unaware of much of this. Perhaps we need more “enlightenment” about Muslim law as it is enacted today.

Peace

MLK

I am familiar with the writings Robert Fisk, John Pilger and Naom Chomsky. I have problems with them on a number of levels. My first degree was in history, classical studies (including languages and philosophy) and archaeology. These subjects required rigorous research, especially comparing secondary against primary sources. The latter being the most important. Fisk’s “The Great War for Civilization”, a massive work, has 10 pages of references, but only one-and-a-half pages of primary sources. Additionally, where he describes the preparation for, and stoning of two women. He does not ask the “difficult” questions. This is covered in a half-page; his “guide” (presumably) states that he is uncertain whether he approves of stoning or not. That’s all.

My second degree was in writing and communication; among the subjects were journalism and linguistics. From the position of new standards of journalism, neither Fisk nor Pilger would make the grade.

In October 2006 Fisk reported on the front page of the UK's Independent that Israel had used uranium-based weapons in southern Lebanon.

A panel of experts from the UN, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Engineering Regiment of the Lebanese Army; the head of the National Council for Scientific Research George Tohmeh; the Arab Atomic Agency; the UN Environmental Program ; the Lebanese Atomic Energy Commission , the IAEA, including the World Health Organization confirmed that no depleted-uranium-ammunitions had been used during the 2006 conflict in Lebanon.

Didier Louvat, IAEA head of radioactive waste issues reported these findings to a conference hosted by the National Council for Scientific Research in Bir Hassan.

This is an extremely serious error for Fisk to make. To date no retraction has been made. To make such a statement without supporting evidence immediately discredits Fisk as a journalist, in fact, everything he writes.

Pilger is extremely short on specific facts. Undoubtedly, like Fisk, he uses a limited and narrow pool of informants.

As for Chomsky, his linguistics, and indeed political writings, increasingly are coming under attack. There are grave problems with his methodology.

See: http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex.htm

I do not identify any of these men with political correctness.

Danielle
It is unclear to me why you would think one, albeit significant, mistake would fully discredit somebody of Fisk's stature. Your criticism seems extravagant to me. Whilst having no time for the ideologically driven and loathsome Pilger and not much for the pedantic, puritanical Chomsky, I think that Fisk's work is generally fair and accurate. You must allow that we all make the odd mistake?
Dan

FH.. my 'BoazBashing' meter was flicking just now...when I read 'misrepresentations of Islamic history by some posters'... *biff* :)
You didn't mean ME did you ? Now that's not nice..I suggest that you simply don't like the truth when told it.

I agree with Danielle.. PRIMARY sources are the most important.

Unfortunately for "Islam" those primary sources reveal a sad and evil state of affairs which is quite unpalatable to you. Still, we will sort you out in time :)

Can't wait to do a response to Dr Zakir Naik's "Did Jesus every claim to be God" on youtube... that bloke has an incREDible memory.. chapter and verses flow out of him like water from a tap,but.. unfortunately for him.. he is plain wrong.
I'm waiting for my 'Compro Video card' and a digital camera.

Danielle,

Thanks for your posting and happy to exchange notes and comments anytime.
You seem to have a passion for history yourself.

Boaz,

“when I read 'misrepresentations of Islamic history by some posters'... *biff* :) You didn't mean ME did you ? Now that's not nice..I suggest that you simply don't like the truth when told it.”

I am a straight shooter Boaz and yes you are one of them. You prove day after day and here is 1000+proof: you recently quoted another .islambashingwebsite.com. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for the 1001 times and found the following intentional mis-information: “Taqeyya”is used by muslims to hide or disguise their faith !

Now, you and I know that the truth is this:
“during the 10th century AD, there was ‘lovely’ bunch called the crusaders who butchered and burned muslims alive to convert them by force into their ‘tolerant’ faith (bit of sarcasm!) . So an Imam during from the 10th century AD allowed Muslims to convert to avoid death while keep their faith in secret”

Sounds totally different now doesn’t it? Take it on the chin Boaz. I thought the prophet you claim to follow said the truth shall set you free. Can you be truthful even if the truth may inconvenience you?

peace

My favourite moment when interviewing Hirsi Ali was to see her talk about Indonesian madressas being funded by the Saudis. Huh? Madressas? I then mentioned the word "pesantran" (the Indonesian word for madressa), and she looked at me in this confused manner.

This woman is supposed to have been a member of parliament of a country which ruled over Indonesia for centuries. Hundreds of Indonesians study in Dutch universities. Yet here is this woman pontificating on Indonesian religious institutions without even knowing the basics, without even knowing what Indonesians call their religious schools.

I really feel sorry for the lunar-Right. Couldn't they have found a more credible person to attack a set of religious cultures they love to hate?

Grasping at straws, Irfan

"If it wasn't for the Crusades, the world would have been all Islamic by now and we would still be riding camels and horses."

Rewrite.

If it wasn't for Islam, the world would have been all Christian by now, we would be without the zero and algebra and we would still be riding camels and horses.

So much prejudice. Can some of you not realise that Islam, like any other religion is subject to interpretation, intolerance and exploitation? And can you all not realise that if you continually criticise all of Islam in such negative terms, moderates become self defensive and reluctant to criticise publicly their black sheep?

Oppose terrorism, Hilaly as much as you wish but stop tarring all of Islam with the same brush. As a Jew I hate Jewish stereotypes (money hungry, keep to themselves) and so I can empathise with Australian Muslims. We need to identify correctly our enemies and problems and work together.

And that is not idealistic or PC, it is sensible modern management theory.

As I know that some of the comments being made about Judaism are completely unsound I can only suspect that many of the comments on Islam are equally falacious.

FH.. I'm a bit miffed by your last post.. I don't recall using that phrase..though I might have.

I've never denied what went on during the Crusades..in fact one day I might even do a thread MENTIONING them.. detail by detail. I have no fear of the sins of Christendom being exposed, after all, my reference point is Jesus and the Apostles.. not the 10th century Catholic Church. But if I mention the sinful crusades, I'll also mention the sinful Islamic invasions of many places and the ensuing slaughter.. Good for Peter, good for Mohammad.

If you want 'Islam bashing'.. just wait till you see a picture of a 50+ yrs old bloke, holding the hand of a 9 yrs old girl, and see their relative sizes, on YOUTUBE.. and an explanation of the 'Mohammad' connection. All that would be needed would the the image... plus the hadith.. with ZERO comment...... people can make up their own minds.

Just imagine F.H.. if you have a little sweet daughter and an old bloke came along and said "Oh..little girl.. ALLAH has told me I can have you for a WIFE".... now.. you are there and you hear this.. and.. you react...how ?

How about this. "50 yr old Priest says to 12 yr old Alter boy, son...God has told me its ok to touch you, and what God has made lawful, man cannot deny or make unlawful" -repulsed ? exactly.

The last scene in that video will be a quotation of Jesus:

"If any man leads one of these who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a mill stone is hung around his neck and he be thrown into the sea"

that...is how Jesus would view the action of MOhammad.

I 'bash' what needs to be bashed.... Catholic, Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, Protestant.. who is my example in this ?

"Woe to you lawyers" (etc) Jesus.

Boaz, exactly which part of the bible is made up of 'primary' sources?

I also hate to admit it Boaz, but you would know much much more about Islam and what's in the Qu'ran than Ayaan Hirsi Ali does.

I still think it is the funniest thing that she is so loved by the Right here. She is a feminist who was making some noises that are are worrisome to the Dutch conservatives. They are endlessly relieved she has gone.

Doesn't anybody think it hypocritical to enter a country on lies, then work for a party that is strict on asylum seekers and promotes reduction in Muslim people entering? Why does Ayaan Hirsi Ali think that she deserves the changes she got, but others do not? Why do all you supporters think she deserves the opportunities she had and not other Muslim people? Keep in mind that she did not renounce her faith and become an atheist until after some 10 years in the Netherlands.

Boaz,

Here is a detailed article that explains prophet Mohammed (pbuh)'s marriages:
http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1179664473565&pagename=Zone-English-Discover_Islam%2FDIELayout

Then again you knew that, you are testing me, again :)

On another ironic note, I have to thank you for I received an email from a Melbourne based old friend, saying that he met many people who followed our 'duel'and were encouraged to know more about Islam. More than half a dozen are seriousley considering becoming Muslims. So thanks :)

I give you credit for your persistence, too bad that it is not on the side of truthfullness (half-truth is worse than a full lie in case you are wondering).
Peace,

Let's see - people are seriously becoming Muslims after reading this thread? I'm sorry Fellow-Human but there is no Allah and anybody who wishes to 'convert' to believe in the fundamentally NON-EXISTENT is in need of a psychiatric examination.

Let's see - people are seriously considering becoming Muslims after reading this thread? I'm sorry Fellow-Human but there is no Allah and anybody who wishes to 'convert' to believe in the fundamentally NON-EXISTENT is in need of a psychiatric examination.

Robert Fisk’s “The Great War for Civilization”, which admittedly I have only thumbed through, reveal factual errors - undoubtedly readers will pick them up. Fisk should have corrected these in his galley proofs. Such errors slew the truth, also indicating a journalist cavalier about facts. He admitted every journalist should carry a history book in his back pocket; he needed tomes. Unfortunately, less informed readers will believe them; more cynical readers ...?

Working in the Middle East for many years he would know it essential to get Islamic historical facts correct. In an Islamic society, not to, is insulting. Even with my, albeit, limited knowledge, I know that Imam Ali, was both a cousin and son-in-law of the prophet, having married his daughter, Fatima. Iman Ali was not a nephew.

Fisk states that he retains his innocence ... people are being killed and maimed around him. Having witnessed carnage myself, I find this an extraordinary comment to make. Also, he appears to have found no moderate Muslims ...?

He mentions nothing about the extremely significant and pivotal Egyptian-Israeli and Jordanian-Israeli peace treaties. Also ... Britain’s “support” of a Jewish state during the Palestine mandate ... !?

As stated, I lived in Malaya in my formative years. My stepfather was a top ranking colonial officer, with OBE (in colonial parlance “other buggar’s efforts”). With such proven loyalty to queen and country he was privy to much inter-colonial information. The British use criteria extending from “confidential” to “top secret” to “off-the-record”, the latter never witnessed with ink on paper. We knew top brass who had served in the Middle East; the British treated the Jews appallingly.

I stated non-confidential facts, indeed on public record, on another forum. Now someone is virtually trumpetting off with my head, or at least run off the onlineforum.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5940

He provided yet another online forum which, indeed, confirmed my opinion.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5358

Actually to be fair about my step-father, he earned his OBE. After all, anyone, dressed only in a sarong, standing rigidly at attention and saluting a TV set playing “God save the queen” at midnight ...

Dan Fitzpatrick,

I am not sure I agree with you about Fisk’s stature.

However, such a significant mistake at such a period in Middle Eastern history, I consider, reprehensible.

He should have double verified his information. Surely, he would have contacts in the Middle East to do so.

I believe Fisk has had issues with The Times; I do not know the circumstances. However, UK’s Independent is financed by 75% advertising accounts. This presents problems. The primary one is to beat all other newspapers with a scoop.

Also ... vested interests. In the US, an editor of a newspaper sent out his best investigative team to research environmental damage and hazards. They did so will compelling and damaging results. Unfortunately, the most profitable advertising account the paper had, was also the worst contributor to the problem. The story had to be pulled.

Very rarely is there such a thing as freedom of the press. As all editors know, other issues impinge on this freedom.

Another thing I noticed is Fisk’s unsophisticated language. Many newspapers, especially surviving on advertisng accounts, instruct their journalists that language used must be comprehensible to someone of the age of 12 years.

Yvonne... let me clear something up quickly.. Hersi Ali's personal morality track record is her own business..I do care that she speaks truth.. and if it is about Islam, that it should also be truth rather than mere speculation or recounting of tribal/cultural anedotes.

Primary sources for Christianity are the Gospels, Letter of Paul, and the Old Testament. They exist in a variety of formats, secondary sources would be the writings of the Church fathers 'quoting' the primary sources.

FH. I'm glad that people are following our duel here. That people would consider becoming Muslim after reading our back and forth ? hmmmm if that's true then I feel sorry for them honestly.

I read your 'sugar coated' site about Mohammads wives. Lots of sugar, very little reality. Claiming on the one hand that Mohammad is the 'best of all mankind' (in other places) and the example to be followed says little for his choice of marriage partners.

It was claimed in that site that he married her for 'strategic' reasons.. such as cementing an alliance with a powerful man..Abu Bakr.. well newsflash.. Bakr was ALready a convinced and close ally of Mohammad. He had zero need to marry Aisha. If he was truly from God, he would have firstly NOT married more than one woman, and secondly, he would have chosen an age which would have been acceptable to mankind. But.. apparently (according to Islam) God smiles on a 60 yr old man having sex with a 9 yr old girl........

well..if that is the attraction to Islam.. mate..you can have them, we don't need or want them, I won't say God doesn't.. after all, Christ died for us WHILE we were enemies..and old men who lust after little girls.. are certainly Gods enemies.

Don't even think about telling me MOhammad had sex with her out of 'duty' mate.. she was his FAVORITE wife, which itself is illegal under Islam.. 'Treat them all equally'....

I just provide the 'real' truth..not the 'half' truth you accuse me of.

FH. ... by the way, one soul has returned from the darkness of Islam in Sweden, as a result of knowing the FULL truth of Islam now.. I pray it will be many more.

Honestly, that you would even consider justifying Mohammads marraige to Aisha is astounding.

60+...... 9... go figure.

Your 'reading Islam' site also claims:

"Islam prohibited adultery and homosexuality, and prevented forcing female slaves into sexual acts against their will."

Really ? WHERE?

That is an outright lie from the pit of hell old son... Islam does allow and MOhammad did ALLOW the rape of captive slave girls
Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432:

He in fact, suggested they ejaculate INSIDE the women because they cannot stop a soul being created if Allah wills.

Those traditions are described in that same site as follows:

QUOTE 1
A'ishah came from a house famous for learning and memorizing great quantities of knowledge; her father was a live encyclopedia of Arab tribal pedigrees and poetry. She inherited his ability, and in her young, intelligent, receptive mind, she preserved a precious portion of Islam

QUOTE 2

and she taught thousands of men worldwide their religion as she had learned it firsthand from the Prophet. To our present day, she is considered among the most prominent Islamic scholars.

FH..honesty time, WHERE is her teaching recorded ? aah.. in Muslim and Bukhari!

Narrated Ayesha... etc etc. yet...you 'reject' my quotes by her.

So much for intellectual honesty F.H.

The Messiah, our Saviour and Lord, Jesus, lived a pure life, did not allow himself to be distracted by sexual interst in females, he shines as an example of purity and holiness. He did not condemn or deny marriage, but he did stipulate it must be holy, he made NO concessions to male sexual desires outside of wedlock.

...but who did?..and don't say "God" but you can say from the 'other place'..I'll accept that.

Boaz,

On theology: No hadith can contradict the Quran so keep quoting any pervert crap as much as you like, its just mirrors a sick and hateful mind. You are a shame to Australia and the faith you claim to be promoting.

My, my - is it only yesterday that 'yvonne' said that she admired Fellow_Human's ahem, "courtesy". Well it looks to me from the tenor of her riposte to Boaz_David that FH has now blown a gasket or two.

George Bushed,

Boaz is a missionary with the only purpose in life is to twist and turn facts about Islam. the word 'hateful'is a descritpion of his actions and not persoanl. Take the example above, Boaz knows Islam well enough and he is too smart to compare positions on slavery between the Quran and the bible.

One of the Quran positions to free slaves is what he mis-represented above. The full verse reads as follows:

"If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And God hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: ...
Quran 4: 25.
Self explanatory that for those who can't find a wife they can marry of their POWs, give them their rights and free them.
Its actually encourages people to free slaves of that time.

http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE&cid=1123996015526

I should have done better controlling the 'gasket'but the Christian Taliban members on this forum (Boaz, Coach, GZ Tan) are just one nasty piece of work and manners.

Logic, Irfan, and other Islamophiliacs,

The only judge that stands between Islamic bashing for the sport of it and factual criticism, must be the Islamic scriptures. We don't make anything up that's not in their books already...even if most don't want to admit it.

When Allah, his prophet, Hillali, or Bin Laden, ... say something - it is gospel. They all must use the ONE same text.

Don't blame us "the bashers" instead amuse yourself by reading their books. Starting of course with the word the Qur'an (using a reliable translation)

Only then can you take part in this and other debates.

As it is apparent from this sample here, most Muslims don't study their own books, they prefer to rely on their Imams or Dr. Google for their explanations.

Irfan is undoubtedly familiar with this Brookings/Lowy report a quote to address his 'pesantren' comment. (Irfan shouldnt really sneer at Ali for her lack of Bahasa Indonesian as she speaks quite a few more languages than he does after all.)

"Perhaps the key institution of Saudi-sponsored
Islamic education in Indonesia is Lembaga Ilmu
Pengetahuan Islam dan Arab (the Indonesian Institute
for Islamic and Arabic Sciences or LIPIA).

..Alongside a salafist disposition, LIPIA
had..notable Muslim Brotherhood influences. Many of its teachers
have a strong Brotherhood background.

..On the one hand, no single institution seems to have
done more than LIPIA to propagate contemporary
forms of salafism in Indonesia. Graduates of LIPIA
have become leading figures in the Indonesian salafist
movement. In particular, LIPIA graduates have gone on
to establish salafist pesantren, often with Saudi funding. These have grown from a handful in the 1980s to hundreds today, providing a
mechanism for spreading salafist ideas through outreach
activities and for the training of local salafist
teachers and propagators.

DDII (another organisation) also played a key role
in popularizing Brotherhood thought, translating
seminal Brotherhood texts in the late 1970s
and 1980s, the most popular of which was Sayyid
Qutb’s ‘Signposts’."

Could we ever imagine recruiting the horrid Muslim Brotherhood or propagating the doodlings of shallow bigots like Qutb to schoolchildren here? Of course not and partly because it is quite impossible, for example, to read 'Petunjuk Jalan' without simply feeling sorry for what was a culture-shocked man totally defeated by his own xenophobia and massive superstition.

What the sole example of Qutb shows is that Indonesia has a great deal more to teach Saudi Arabia about islam and humanity than the other way around.

Although Saudi-funded education is, as the reports authors clearly point out, a complex question, nevertheless the thin stain of middle eastern islamism is found amongst the children of Asia today.

Ro,

Not sure how much you know about Muslim brotherhood. It started in the 1920’s in Egypt initially as a resitance movement to British colonialism. It was actually Kotb in 1966 who re-invented militant Islamism and changed their path & ambitions into anti-government, anti-systematic movement. Kotb was Egyptian by the way and not a Saudi. Also, he was not a salafi, wahhabis are.

Coach,

“most Muslims don't study their own books”
Urban myth, majority of muslims read and study our HolyBook (not books by the way). There is no middle men in Islamic faith and its every individual’s responsibility to find the truth and save his own soul. I teach that to my children and so does every Muslim.

“they prefer to rely on imams for explanations”
There is no clergy in Islam, any imam’s opinion is just another opinion including fatwas: there are thousands of fatwas for non-smoking and 3 out of 5 muslims smoke (including myself occasionaley).
Imams can clarify certain matters but they don’t decide what the faith or tenants is, its already been set. We don't kiss their hands or ask them for blessings ;)

“amuse yourself by reading their books”Starting of course with the word the Qur'an (using a reliable translation)”

Thank you for the invite I encourage people to learn and study spirituality and Islam. Oxford and Pickthall are reliable translations.
There is also a couple of good sites:
Spirituality: www.readingislam.com
Social/secular: www.affinity.org.au

Thanks again for the invitation, its most sensible and responsible suggestion.

Peace,

Brushy.. well noted :) (re F.H.)

Now.. 2 points need to be addressed here.

1/ Biblical position on slavery.
2/ Temporary marraige in Islam (which F.H. avoids by quoting the next verse..25 instead of 24)

1/ BIBLICAL SLAVERY (Old Testament)

Certainly an ugly aspect to life in those days. There were many aspects to it. It could arise as a result of:
a) Prisoners of War
b) Debt.

On the prisoners of war, (women and children not killed in a war) the children would be joined to an Israelite family as slaves. The women also, but there was the possibility of marraige to the master.
If the marriage did not work out, she was FREE.
Second. An Israelite master could NOT have sexual relations with a slave girl, UNlike the Muslim situation.

b) Debt.. just like me.. a slave to the CBA for a few more years. self explanitory.

What FH did not do, (and in so 'not' doing is guilty of distorting things) is mention how Quran 4:24 is used to justify temporary marriage (another word for prositution) in Islamic law.

TEMPORARY MARRAIGE in ISLAM.
Now.. don't take MY word for it.. take the word of Muslims.
here is a forum where Muslims are discussing it and scroll down to the person named 'Aliya'
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t29815.html
Here is a Muslim web site DEDICATED to the practice

http://www.mutah.com/

So.. I ask the forum.."Who" is distorting ?

FH. peace :)

Boaz,

Nice spin re slavery …I won’t pursue it further but I will assume you are close to Islam’s position on slavery : - )

Re Temporary Mutah Marriage, its origin and facts:

- The prophet allowed, as a term of necessity for a man when he is away on long travel (+6months) and he fears temptation (adultery), he can marry a woman for companionship.
- The marriage must fulfil the 2 corners of Islamic marriage (intent to live together and declaration/ announcement of the marriage)
- After the prophet died caliph Omar found few muslims abusing it so he banned it.
- Sunni Muslims (90% of muslims don’t practice it).
- A percentage of shiaa muslims practice it still there is no exact data but from my Shiaa friend I was told its 5-10% at best and declining.
- Shiaa Muslims being 8% of total muslims. So 10% of an 8% makes a total of below 1% of Muslims practising it.
- Since you are into comparisons, please compare to women position in the same period according to your faith.
- Its not my problem if there is a site promoting it, there are mormon sites promoting polygamy according to the bible. There are 50,000 polygamy cases (some men with 12 wives) in the US today in a single state (South Dakota).

What was that question again? Oh yes “who is distorting”?
You became addicted to falling on your own sword :-)

Peace,

Falling_on_my_sword ? not_at_all_FH.

Let me re-iterate.

1/ BIBLICAL POSITION on Slavery.
I don't find slavery 'advocated', I see it tolerated. I find it was recognized by Paul as a social institution, and his approach was rather than form a terrorist gang and take on the Roman Emperor, he took the STING out of Slavery in Galatians 3:26-28
"Neither slave nor free" I assure you, the presense of the Holy Spirit in a life will mean the very idea of slavery is abhorrent, and while it may take some time for people to open the ears of their hearts to the Lords voice, I point out that at the cutting edge of the anti slavery movement were evangelicals.

2/ ISLAMIC POSITION ON SLAVERY. Surah 23:5-6 a man can have sex with his wives AND his slavegirls. I see no mention of 'with their permission' but I DO see many Sharia sites arguing that she had NO choice, because she is a....'possession'.

TEMPORARY MARRIAGE. The point of my post was to elucidate a lecture on 'statistics' from you. It was to demonstrate at the fundamental level, the idea of temporary marriage is an Islamic reality, and the argument that it no longer applies is one which sets the word of Omar ABOVE that of Mohammad/Quran, and this is disputed by Shia, and SHOULD be disputed by you, who are always telling me that the Quran is higher than the hadith. The Hadith is the ONLY source of its being forbidden, (Mohammad at Khaybar and Omar later)

So.. lets call it by its real name "paid one nite stands" or.. if u like, 5 nite stands.(Prostitution)

You also make the point that it was allowed 'of neccessity' REALLY?

Well..the Christian position is "self control" not looking hungrily for the nearest woman who will open her legs for you because ur a horny soldier far from home. Yes.. I'm speaking rather vulgarly there, but if the shoe fits, wear it.

CONCLUSION... it took some work, but you did admit the very thing I suggested you were 'spinning' into a hiding place :) *thanx*

We can call Islam cruel and observe that its teachers lack human compassion. Islam certainly appears to be in crisis from a distance so how can we understand the often silly, sometimes dangerous and ad hoc, illogical "fatwas"?...

"CAIRO, June 11. First came the breast-feeding fatwa. Then came the urine fatwa. It said that drinking the urine of the Prophet Muhammad was deemed a blessing..... “There is chaos now,” Mr. Megawer said. “The problem created is confusion in thought, confusion about what is right and what is wrong, religiously.”

...A couple approached. The man’s clothes were tattered, and his wife looked distressed. Their 9-year-old son’s clothing was clean, his hair gelled, his smile bright. The man explained that they had adopted the child when he was 9 months old, and that they had just heard that under Islam their son had to be put out of the house, because the mother had not given birth to him or breast-fed him. He would reach puberty as an outsider, and could not, technically, be around the woman he knew as his mother. The imam at their local mosque said it was haram — forbidden under Islam — to live with the boy."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/12/world/middleeast/12fatwa.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th

So, "official" Islam today is inconsistent and logically incoherent. Its teachers embody the very opposite of tolerance, love, compassion and mercy. Cruel judgements make cruel people and so from the social confusion of this ad hoc 'intellectual' environment, come bombers, beheaders, ‘honour killers’ and other such stone-throwing 'swords' of islam.

It is no wonder then that Islam seems so strange. Fatwas are untransparent edicts that interfere with democracy, individual rights and social justice. And our values don’t coincide naturally, whether it is simply the pervasive dislike of (guide) dogs, the unnatural desire to separate men and women or simply the characteristic "fear", "humiliation" and overbearing rules hardwired into being one of Allah's "slaves" that represents the opposite of an open, progressive and cheerful Australian. It is clear how Muslims are officially taught to blame others first while we are more realistically educated not to inhabit glasshouses.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflicts/middle_east/arab_defeat

Fellow_Human,

Re: Slavery - it is still striving in many parts of Islam land today. Why? Because the prophet allowed it and practice it himself in 7th century Arabia.

Did you know that if a divorced woman that is now single wishes to remarry her husband, she must first sleep at least one night with a stranger before the husband can re-possess her?
What do you call that FH?

“Urban myth, majority of muslims read and study our HolyBook (not books by the way).”
You may recite the verses but you don’t question their meaning. If you did you would not be a Muslim anymore.
The Qur’an does not make sense as a single literary volume – without the many Hadiths to explain it.

“There is no middle men in Islamic faith”
Both true and false. We share a similar position in protestant Christianity. Jesus has opened the direct access to God, he is our only priest. But in Islam everything must be agreed upon by consensus of the sect leaders before it becomes applied by the crowd.

BTW, how come you accept Mohammed’s words as ‘gospel’ – wasn’t he just a middle man?

“and its every individual’s responsibility to find the truth and save his own soul.”
Well good luck with that.

“I teach that to my children and so does every Muslim.”
Child abuse! Call the cops...

” 3 out of 5 muslims smoke (including myself occasionaley).”
If you respected God’s scripture, the Bible, you would agree that man was created in God’s image and that our body is the temple of God (not a building) - you would think twice before lighting up.

About the invite to read the Qur’an and explanatory texts (ahadiths) – you’re welcome. Though I’m still not so sure what this has that to do with ‘spirituality’ but let our volunteers decide.

Do me a favour though – I know you have access to a Bible – what do you make of Acts chapter 2?
Thanks.

coach

Wow!

I am now an Islamophiliac! I am a strong supporter of Israel and an opponent of Lowenstein. At least I am not an Islamophobe!

Words fail me.

Ro

I checked the website. All religions have their crazy ideas. I am amazed at the ideas of some Rabbis, and also with Cardinal Pell. Buddhism has its oddities as well.

I judge people on how they behave, I don't care what they believe.

Coach, a divorced woman would do well to sleep with another man before remarrying a husband. It would give her a chance to rethink the idiotic move she was about to make! Besides that, you know jack of the divorce laws.

Of the 3 monotheist religions, Islam is the only one with a reasonable and equitable pronouncement on divorce. For both men AND women. Unlike Christianity or Judaism.

Boaz and Coach, give it a bit of a break with your constant harping about slavery and how women are treated under the Islamic faith.

I'd like to remind you that Christianity is still somewhat touchy in Africa. For some 300 hundred years Christians used the scriptures as support for slavery. Western nations, in Europe and the USA, became very wealthy not through loving Christian compassion of other peoples.

Before enlightenment, when it was no longer necessary to see God as the only arbiter for moral behaviour, political, government and business/trade actions were made with the bible as proof that those actions were justified.

As for women. Where do you guys come off that women's lot was so fantastic under Christianity? Are you guys for real? The improved status of women has nothing to do with Christianity and everything with women themselves speaking up. Know why we can now vote? Or divorce? Or own our own property? Until relatively recently a woman on marriage lost all of her property-it became her husband's. Not so in Islam. It's because of enlightenment that Western women now have a good life. Not because of Christianity.

That is completely different under Islam. Where ever Islam is now, it is still further than Christianity was some 150 years ago. So they don't have that much to catch up on.

Think of how extraordinary it was for Mohammed in his time to declare that women had right to property ownership, inheritance and divorce. Know what it was like to be a woman in the years between 0 and 1900 in Europe? The bible does not give much support to women.

Boaz,

Ok then, since you challenged me on slavery, your funeral : )

- According to Islam, the Quran have more than a dozen of ‘commands to free slaves’ such as inability to fast, using God’sname in vein (wrongful oath) etc..
- Now show me similar references in your scriptures that “commands freeing slaves”. Don’t conclude and philosophise, just compare text to text. Your quote “I don't find slavery advocated, I see it tolerated in the Bible" is not good enough. If you can’t find any, you have to concede that the Quran commands freeing slaves while your scripture does not. And here I will ask Logic and Yvonne to be witnesses since you challenged me.

Marriage,

“the idea of temporary marriage is an Islamic reality”

Marriage in Islam have 2 corners: Intent (intention to be with and raise and family with the chosen person) and announcement (ie 2 witnesses + public announcement). So anything like 'temporary marriage', 'secret marriage' is a disguised adultery that individuals chose to mislead themselves into and commit on their own accor.
Humans fall in love, get married, get divorced, get remarried and a merciful gracious God will accommodate for their needs and not order them to opress their instincts through 'self control'.

Coach,

Boaz is a 60 y.o. 'master missionary' with PHD in Islam Bashing and Masters in Islamic Mis-interpretation (new science invented and patented by Boazy boy:-)
You look like a 'Boaz wannabe' so please watch him and learn you got a long way to go. You also need to leanr a lot about Islam before you can start mis-representing.

Yvonne,

Impressive comment and a razor sharp argument. I wouldn’t like to cross swords with you : - )

Peace

"Migrants from Muslim countries are like migrants from any other society." Except that migrants from nonMuslim countries don't say "Praise be unto him" after the name of a man that murdered, enslaved, lied, tortured, etc. This may, just maybe, explain the problem of Muslim immigration.

Ms Hirsi is only being honest - yet her words do not begin to scratch the surface of the violence in Islam.

I took time off and read all the hadiths and histories of Islam, including Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tabari (30 volumes), Hisham, Kathir, etc. I wonder if Muslims actually read these things. It is a story of diplomacy and genius, and also lust, lies, murder, torture, plunder, slavery, and rape.

Here is a quote from Tabari, Volume XXXI, Biographies of the prophet's Companions, 2453, p.185 - about Muhammad's captive wife:
While the Prophet was lying with Safiyyah Abu Ayyub stayed the night at his door. When he saw the Prophet in the morning he said "God is the Greatest." He had a sword with him; he said to the Prophet "O Messenger of God, this young woman had just been married, and you killed her father, her brother and her husband, so I did not trust her [not to harm] you." The Prophet laughed and said "Good."

He laughed? These murders occurred the night before the "honeymoon." Safiyah's husband was hacked to death in front of her!

I also just finished a study on the attack on Banu Mustaliq, the enslavement of the people and rape of the women. Vile!

But what do you expect when there is this: Quran 5:33 - The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.

Radical Muslims kill, moderates make excuses.
It will get worse.

John Kactuz

Continuing...

"The media should stop lauding Ayaan Hirsi Ali: she makes life more difficult for Muslims wherever she goes."

Yes. Good! Muslims need to take a hard, serious look at Islam. We must make life INTELLECTUALLY difficult for Muslims, for their own good. The problem is that Muslims don't want to think or talk about this. They pretend that the hate and violence in the Quran have nothing to do with the islamic terror we see today. They want to believe that their dear prophet was a great moral man, a "mercy for all mankind".

You cannot fight evil by being nice to people that do evil or support an ideology of terror. This is true of white racism in South Africa and Nazi Germany. This is also true of Islam. We must be honest and demand honesty from others.

The problem now is Political Correctness and multiculturalism that says we cannot be honest about this religion, its writings, its dear leader or what its faithful do where they dominate. We cannot hurt their feelings. Look at the freedoms (or better, the lack thereof) in Islamic societies. Look at the violence. Look at the rights of women and minorities... Where, or where, does this come from? Duhhh.

It is almost impossible to get a Muslim to talk about the hate and violence in the Quran or the vile deeds of their prophet. Here is a sample discussion:
http://www.donaldsensing.com/index.php/2006/10/04/1243

Muslims will say these have nothing to do with Islam. Simple logic says otherwise. For three years I have asked Muslims, including a few here, about these things in the Quran and hadith. Not once have I found a Muslim who is honest about Islam. I cannot even get them to admit that the words "he hit me and caused me pain" in the Traditions might mean the Mohammud was a wife-beater. Now that is a new level of denial. It would be amusing if the we weren't talking about human rights, liberty and dignity.

If Muslims cannot be honest about the simple stuff....
Nothing will change, it will get worse.
John

"Boaz is a 60 y.o. 'master missionary' with PHD in Islam Bashing and Masters in Islamic Mis-interpretation (new science invented and patented by Boazy boy:-)"

So the pressure is up and you ran out of excuses err answers heh?

Forget personal attacks and let's get back to Islam 101.

One does not need a PhD to see the absurdity in Islamic laws and read the books where they are derived from.

Islamic LAW says: a divorced woman CANNOT remarry her husband UNLESS they have been divorced for a minimum of 3 months AND she then MUST marry another male even for ONE NIGHT and consumate the marriage. That stranger could be any certified re-marrying celebrant (the Arabic name escapes me... is it Moharrer?)

It is not a matter of sleeping around or cooling off at her parents home. IT’S THE LAW.

Islam is a legalistic system. No individual freedom exists – especially not to women.

Marriage is a contractual transaction. The girl is passed from her father to the groom as a commodity, a mere package part of the furniture and dowry. She is now UNDER the authority of the husband and no longer can be ordered around by her father and brothers. It's up to the now husband to keep her on track, under his thumb, because women are deficient in all aspects of DIN (religion) and conduct.

In Christianity marriage is a sacred gift from God between ONE man and ONE woman – What God unites NO man can dissolve. That rules out polygamy and divorce (except for infidelity).

So this is a GRAVE INSULT to our civil laws and Women’s rights here in Australia, and so is POLYGAMY that is practiced here under your de facto Islamic laws (the mosque) and the blessing of politicians (votes) and our tax payers money (Centerlink)

If you don't want to touch the real issues with Islam, its fine, but don't play the innocent party.

AS USUAL I am still waiting for your opinions on my previous posts.

Otherwise silence means consent.

Boaz,

Kaktuz and Coach attempts to distract won’t work this time.
Still waiting on an answer Boaz…
Yvonne, Logic, Pericles and few other members are witnesses.
If you can’t come back with a response “comparing scripture to scripture” then you have conceded to defeat on slavery.

The question again Mr Challenger: the Quran have a dozen of commands to free slaves (see above), please show me exact references where God commands the same in your scripture.

Boazy? Hello? Anyone there? : -) shall we conclude you conceded to a defeat on the topic of slavery?

FH.... Busssssssy... plus I did 2 posts so.. 24hr rule.

I will not go 'scripture for scripture' old son, because that is like asking "Show me where Jesus said 'I am God'" when he never said that once. Is it important? u bet it is.

John10:33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

Yvonnne... ur a worry... you mentioned about women not being able to own land in 'Christianity' :) err chapter and verse please, funny...I don't recall any such thing. Tell you what though, I can give you chapter and verse for women in the 'PATRIARCHAL' old testament owning land.
Priscilla and Acquila sound very equal to me in every reference to them in the New Testament. (do a search)

I have to pull the 'culture' card out here Yvonne.. I can show you how the Sha'fi school of Islamic law DOES stipulate female genital mutilation, but I can NOT find any support for the things you mentioned in your previous post in any Christian foundation document.

If you had picked on the Church for 'women be silent' or...'women cover your hair' your argument might have legs :) but the things you mentioned.. sorry.. nogo there.

F.H. back to you. The important point is the core theology, and that does not depend on the 'number' of verses on any subject, but how the verses which are there relate to the issue.

I'll simply repeat "Christianity took the STING out of Slavery" but while some people would probably use the Bible to justify a Green Cheese moon, it always comes back to sound interpretation.

Which part of "In Christ,there is no more slave.. free, Jew, Greek etc" do you not understand ?

Yvonne, back2u :) please read CAREFULLY Kactuz post about Saffiya, and *think* about that for a while.
Just murdered were your:
-Husband
-Brother
-Relatives
-Father (previous battle)
and the MAN who did it all is going down on your body.... for sex.
You don't find this repulsive?

I think Greg Barns is just a stirrer who writes just to be controversial and get noteriety.Hirsi Ali is a person of deep conviction who has suffered female castration at the hands of a vile religion.

What does Greg Barnes suffer from?I hope it is not contagious.

Boaz, read my post again carefully and think about it for a while.

Are you saying that Christian Europe did not use the bible as justification for all their laws, trade and government? Or are you saying they got it all wrong for 1950 years because they didn’t have you to interpret the bible correctly?

St Tertullian gives a very good description of how Christians viewed women in the past and some still do to this day:
"Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil's gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die."

After 1500 years of similar Christian sentiment Martin Luther did not think much of women either: "If they [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there."

Muslim women had been enjoying an almost equal status to men for some 500 years by this time on issues of marriage/divorce, property, inheritance and spirituality.

I’ll stick to the NT. The OT is riddled with awfulness re women. Eg; Stonings, double veiling, rape and the offer of a virgin daughter and wife to spare a male guest. Enough violence with or without rape aided and abetted by fathers to confront and shock anybody.

The bible does not make a specific declaration about a woman having a right to ownership. Unlike the Qu’ran.

Anybody who is interested here is a link: http://www.themodernreligion.com/women/w_comparison_full.htm

YVONNE... at last.. well done.. almost.

THIS....time you actually backed up your 'hysteria' :) with some actual quotes and history... for this I totally applaud you!

But that commendation only applies to the first half of your post, you went off the rails when you made the same broad 'shotgun' accusations on the OT. without any support.

Now.. knowing the OT as well as I do (not an expert, but know it well enough to pick the holes in your words) I immediately saw some huge gaps in the story. You linked 'incidental events' somehow to 'doctrinal position' and that...in hermeneutic terms is an absolute "NO-NO"... ya jest cayn't do it moit.

*reaches for the 2 x 4...no.. must.. resist.. cannot ..follow Luther* (grin)

I suppose Tertullian and Luther were children of their time, but to be honest, when I read the NT I simply cannot see where they derive their viewpoint from. Now that might be an admission that "I" am a child of MY time.... but still, I feel that an honest reader will not find 'anti' women themes in the NT.

Women in Islam ? :) come come..
-There testimony is worth half that of a man
-They are a thorn and a trap.
-Hell is filled with them.
-They are a political convenience.... to be married for the value of their political connections.. etc...

You won't find that in the NT.

What you WILL find there though is that a man should love with total commitment and sacrifice "As Christ loved the Church" .. that we men should love you women 'As our own bodies'....now.. if Luther and Tertullian missed those verses... it is not my problem:) but it IS theirs.

Boaz,

“I will not go 'scripture for scripture' old son”
You won’t go there because there is not a single reference. You would have quoted us by now if there was any, I examined your scriptures long ago.

Since you insist on comparsions mr challenger, examining scripture is important. On the two topics of women and slavery you got two stories:

- Islam: God commanded Muslims to free slaves (see above) and give women their rights (all part 4: women).
- Your story: for some mysterious reasons in your scripture God tolerated slavery and forgot to mention 50% of his creation (women) except for the 3 infamous statements (does the 50 SHeikel story ring a bell?).

You see how fragile the house of glass is? The first attempt to scrutiny and you fell off your chair.
People who live in a glass house Boazy are not supposed to cast stones. They either need to stop casting or move to a real house of stone (and still should not cast stones:-)

You lost this one.

More questions for Fellow_Human.

(Still waiting for your comments on my earlier posts)

How do you reconcile that Islam in 2007 is STILL allowing SLAVERY, women bitting, polygamy, and under age Marriages?

I am not talking about isolated tribal incidents - but by vertue of Islamic LAW.

How can you hope to incorporate these values AND ISLAMIC LAWS into Australia? by pretending they don't exist?

And the wait for real answers begins......

Boaz, you are one patronizing son-of-a-gun, aren't you?

>>YVONNE... at last.. well done.. almost.
THIS....time you actually backed up your 'hysteria' :) with some actual quotes and history... for this I totally applaud you!<<

If this is symptomatic of the way you treat your women-folk - apart from administering corporal punishment to your daughter, which we already know about - I feel even more sorry for them.

>>You linked 'incidental events' somehow to 'doctrinal position' and that...in hermeneutic terms is an absolute "NO-NO"... ya jest cayn't do it moit.<<

You carefully omit to justify this - rather sweeping - generalization. Which is rather unfair, considering the amount of evidence Yvonne chose to lay before you.

The first one I came across was God talking to Eve after the incident with the apple... "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you."

This is an "incidental event"?

I don't think so - there is an entire branch of your religion that has been fostered and nurtured on the basis of this "incidental event". This "original sin" thing is the cornerstone of the Catholic faith, and permeates every corner of its doctrine.

"Incidental event"? I don't think so.

>>I suppose Tertullian and Luther were children of their time...<<

I suppose they were. But if so, I suggest that all founders of religions were also "children of their time", and should not be measured against more recently acquired personal rectitude.

>>now.. if Luther and Tertullian missed those verses... it is not my problem:) but it IS theirs.<<

No, Boaz, it is your problem. You have deliberately "de-selected" these two commentators because they do not highlight "only the good bits", as you do.

It's just a matter of sauce, Boaz, equally distributed over goose and gander. You need to understand that your patronizing selectivity in what you choose to believe about your own religion, and everyone else's, is totally transparent.

And being so, is simple hypocrisy.

Boaz,

You shot yourself in the foot on theology again,
Islam came to a world where polygamy was the norm and women were treated as sub humans (specially in pagan Arabia). The teachings were powerful, direct and against everything that pagan arabs held dear which is another overwhelming argument why Islam can’t be man made as the man made stuff would like to compromise to gain social acceptance of its surrounds.

Compare that to the ‘no position’ on women right according to your scripture. It was then left to man-made theories which makes it harder and had to be influenced by the surrounds. This is why while most western nations have equal women rights legislated, you still got sects of Christianity (like the mormons) who marry up to 50 women (reseach biblical polygamy in South Dacota). You also got Orthodox Christianity like east Europe where women positions and right are few centuries behind.When women rights are in the core foundation (like Islam) its becomes easier to implement.

Coach,

Will repeat slowly.
Boaz conceded to a defeat on two topics: Slavery and Women rights in Islam (see Yvonne chats).

First, comparing scripture to scripture, if you read the Quran (muslims’claim to be God’s word), it commands its followers in a dozen of areas to free slaves (such as inability to fast, mentioning god’s name in vein, etc..)
Boaz accepted the fact that the bible tolerates or at least have no position on slavery.

Second, on the issue of women rights, the Quran have a full part on women rights (part 4, titled women) that commands women have rights to inherit, have an independent financial entity, can divorce their husbands (if he mistreats her or even if she stops loving him).
Your scripture have no references or mentioning of women let alone their rights. Women rights came later in the piece with secular (non-religious) reforms.
I will not comment on your “women biting” above, its husband wife secrets : - )

FH... I conceded 'defeat' ? good grief...if that's what you make of my posts, I better send you back to that Catholic school for some remedial education.

I am not in the slightest way conceding 'defeat' on issues already discussed. You must be reading or surfing some of those radical sites.

I hope someone will have a look at the 'Pablo Escobar' thread :) it has a very definite meaning. And you might see yourself there.

cheers

"I came that they might have life, and have it abundantly" Jesus, Messiah and Lord.

Boazy, I know you love showing off your well thumbed bible and Qu’ran, in English translation I presume, with underlined quotes as ‘proof’ for your statements. At times I have well meaning persons at my front door doing the same thing. Some of my friends have felt the need to first, persuade me of the path of error of the Catholic Church, then to persuade me of their take on the end of the world. It was always too easy to refute.

When I was much younger I too had an underlined bible so I could go Mano a Mano with quotes to refute someone's interpretations. It was enormous fun at the time. If you cannot accept my arguments without 'proof' from scripture, so be it. I've been there, done that.

Now I declare myself Buddhist when I want to cut a tiresome display of quotes short.

You say Tertullian and Luther were children of their time. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson et al are children of our time.

Paul and Peter began with diminishing women. They were children of their Judaic upbringing. This trend continued to at least the beginning of last century.

Your reference to Aquila and Priscilla puzzles me as proof of the equal status of women. This is a husband and wife team.

Jesus Christ never made any statements that we know of that classified the status of women or slaves as less than men. But neither did he condemn the attitude of the times he lived in. He did not make unequivocal statements on the status of women or slaves.

If you say Christians through the ages have used this apparent ambiguity to misrepresent Christ’s teachings, I agree with you wholeheartedly. So does Mohammed, the Prophet who came after Him. He made definite pronouncements on the equal status of women before God and in society.

There is a certain arrogance in your response to Muslims that they all are erroneous in their understanding of their own faith and Holy Scriptures.

yvonne

I support you and FH because of your tolerance and accept the good things in Islam. With respect to Judaism it does not take the OT at completely face value but interprets it via several thousand years of scholarly thinking. Orthodox Jews look to the Talmud (Rabbinical interpretations) and Reform Jews to their own modern understanding.

Thus Judaism does not consider that stoning ever meant throwing rocks at people until they died, that is cruel and forbidden.

Trouble is that many Christians think that they can pass judgment on every other faith, interpreting these faiths in a way that makes Christianity sound better. I wish those people would stop and listen to the others.

As you all know, I am an agnostic, but see the importance in reaching a higher morality.

If Hirsi Ali is a 'pop star of intolerance', then people like Boazy, coach, kactuz et al are its 'roadies'. You know, the boofheaded and untalented oafs who hang around backstage attempting to share some of the celebrity's 15 minutes of fame.

I've always thought that real roadies are rather a sad species - as indeed are these clowns who are so obsessed with spreading anti-Muslim hatred. Fortunately, like roadies, they are ultimately nobodies outside the very limited confines of their own minds and forums such as this.

'I've always thought that real roadies are rather a sad species - as indeed are these clowns who are so obsessed with spreading anti-Muslim hatred.'

I believe it was Don Chipp who coined the phrase, "Keep the bastards honest".

Indeed, Hirsi Ali and her 'roadies' are doing a sterling job at doing just that.

I hope Hirsi Ali sells more of her books and that the constant open debate within Australian society keeps the religious nutters in their box. Wishy-washy feeble minded appeasement doesn't work in the long run when you're dealing with a religion which promotes right-wing absolutism. Just ask the families affected by the 7/7 attacks on the London Underground.

That's a reasonable offer, TR. I look forward to you finding some juicy quotes for us.

>>appeasement doesn't work in the long run when you're dealing with a religion which promotes right-wing absolutism. Just ask the families affected by the 7/7 attacks on the London Underground<<

But first a comment from Tony Travers, director of the Greater London Group, a research centre at the London School of Economics:

"There is a dogged acceptance that this is just part of life here. After all, we've lived through 30 years of this. Not only the IRA assaults on Harrods or Regent's Park - which led Londoners to speak of a "Christmas bombing campaign" as if it were a regular, seasonal activity - but animal rights activists letting off bombs on Oxford Street, a shoot-out at Libya's embassy, a siege at Iran's and a bomb at Israel's."

Some perspective here, people.

"This sort of thing", i.e. terrorism from a number of sources - including Christians - coupled with events such as the Brixton riots, Notting Hill carnival etc. - has been colouring the cityscape for decades.

Fortunately, the people are relatively sensible, and quite resilient.

Measurably so.

A recent (2006) survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found that 63% of non-Muslim Britons have a favourable opinion of Muslims, barely changed from the 2004 figure.

You would expect, would you not, that attitudes might be a little hardened by the experience of 7/7? Apparently not.

Oh, here's another snippet.

"Three of the four bombers had links to the Beeston area of Leeds, where the city's first Asian lord mayor planted a "Tree of Hope" in the park where bomber Shehzad Tanweer played cricket just a few hours before setting off for London 12 months ago." (bbc.co.uk)

What you fail to realize is that they have learned that the only real solution to terrorism is a) peaceful and b) political.

It isn't appeasement, it is common sense.

And I would point out that a city that survived 30 years of IRA bombs probably knows better than an observer from the distant safety of Australia.

'What you fail to realize is that they have learned that the only real solution to terrorism is a) peaceful and b) political.'

Pericles, I fully agree with your statement. There is nothing about it to challenge.

But you have missed the point totally. When I borrowed Don Chipp's word - "bastards" - I meant "bastards". I was not referring to quite and gentle moderates who refuse to mix religion and politics.

I should also remind you that Hirsi Ali's approach is peaceful. The worst she done is write a couple of books and make a film. Yet SHE is the one who requires an armed escort for her own protection!

Then there is that other author, Salman Rushdie. The following reaction to his Knighthood by the Pakistani Government speaks volumes for the religion of Islam and is symptomatic of its intrinsic psychopathology;

....As Pakistani MPs demanded that the award be withdrawn, the Religious Affairs Minister, Mohammad Ejaz-ul-Haq, said on Monday: "The West always wonders about the root cause of terrorism. Such actions are the root cause of it.

"If someone commits suicide bombing to protect the honour of the prophet Muhammad, his act is justified."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/rushdie-knighthood-inflames-pakistan/2007/06/19/1182019118266.html

NO Minister. Blasphemy does NOT justify a suicide bombing attack on Western civilians. You are a complete git.

To be frank Pericles, card carrying atheists and secular humanists like myself are sick a tired of monothesim in all its forms. In response to the above insanity I can only applaud the gentle and peaceful endeavours of Hirsi Ali and Rushdie.

Indeed, we SHOULD applaud those who are brave enough to call Islam to account and back them up with like (peaceful) rhetoric, not shrink away like mealy mouthed cowards.

Now, were's my copy of 'Satanic Verses' which I bought today.......

Fellow-Human,

I have to wait before I can answer your query on the other “online”, however, as you are putting me to so much work, perhaps you can answer these:

Prior to the Crusades, western nobility were virtual barbaric in behaviour - young nobles would power their steeds (generally great draught horses) through baronial dining halls. At the time of the Crusades the pope introduced a “chivalric code” - protection of the poor, women and children, defence of the church etc. However, this code rarely affected most knights.

Only after contact with the chivalry of Islam, did chivalry blossom in the West. Simultaneously, blossomed the art of courtly love. Scholars believe that it was a combination of Ovid’s Ars amatoria, devotion of the Virgin Mary, and Arab mystical philosophy (due to contact with Islam during the Crusades), embodying concepts of love as a delightful disease, demanding of faithful service— characteristic of courtly love during the later Middle Ages. As you know courtly love prescribed the codes of behaviour of ladies and their lovers. The courtly lover existed to serve his lady. His love was invariably adulterous, but unconsummated - (marriage usually a business interest or a power alliance).

I understand that the Islamic tradition of chivalry involved consideration for others, self-sacrifice devotion, the helping of the unfortunate and unprotected, kindness towards all created beings, keeping one's word and self-effacement and commitment to a particular code of etiquette and conventions. This code of chivalry predated Islam; these chevaliers embraced Islam whilst retaining their conventions of chivalry.

- I have an inkling that it was adopted/merged into Islamic Sufism. Can you correct me on this - and if so,
- how widespread was Sufism, and
- what were the other divisions within Islam at the time; and
- from which region did the original chevaliers come?
- Also, can you enlighten me on the Arab mystical philosophy as to the concept of love being a delightful disease?

This Islamic code of Chivalry must have had an enormous impact on the Crusaders - who were not known for sensitivity.

As ever ... peace

Fellow_Human,

I am not Israeli; my mother was Australian, I was French born, baptised and raised Catholic. I left the Church because of profound theological issues which became increasingly demanding as I grew older. They could not be answered by Catholic theologians In fact, in the end, I was told women shouldn’t think of these issues as “their brains were like peas rattling round in a pumpkin”. Quite an profound and erudite reply to my theological dilemma I thought.

Whilst not now Christian, I think the historical character of Christ was insightful and he had important things to say.

You know more about me from above ...

Peace

Thanks logic.

When I first arrived in Australia some 30 years ago, from Suriname, I was told ‘in Rome do as the Romans do- here in Australia you do not talk about 3 things: sex, politics and religion’. That was to address some embarrassing mistakes I first made. I puzzled what there was to talk about that could be remotely interesting. But look at us now!

I admire a few on these threads who come up with thought provoking viewpoints.

Whatever faith or non faith someone has it really is all about how one sees others and sees oneself and place in the universe. On this thread it is important to contemplate this regarding Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Especially for those to whom she is saying things they like to hear. She was once a Muslim devout enough to wear a hajib, not through coercion from her parents.

What I find fascinating is how anybody equates his/her religion with actually living a religious life. The religion of Islam has a better ‘structure’ to live a life of a devout person. Judaism became rather too complex and Christianity has been so manipulated through the ages so that it is actually possible to act without consideration of JC on a daily business day and still be a ‘good’ Christian.

There are many who go on and on about the secular laws of a Western country. This is of course totally negating that all these laws originate very much from what a Christian God finds acceptable: laws against homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia and on marriage to name a few obvious ones. Any changes contrary are fought all the way.

By the way, I’m an atheist

Danielle,
Thanks for the intro. I went to a French Catholic school as well.

Part of the chevalerie code pre-dated Islam which were mainly 3 themes at the time: generosity, territory defence and honouring oath. When Islam appeared, the code was expanded further with a 70+ definitions such as supporting the orphan and the widow, defend the helpless and the weak, charity, etc..

Like Sufism, writers about chevalerie used the Quran and hadith to complement a moral excellence. If you take the example of charity: one of the Quranic definitions is: the ‘those who give for charity in good times and bad times’ the hadith adds ‘best of charity when the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand gave’ confirming secrecy.

Sufism Islam is widely known to have started in the year 850 AD although many including myself believe it to have started as early as 670 AD since it seems to be a perfect description of Imam Ali the prophet’s cousin. The word sufi means woollen rag and purity and Imam Ali fits the perfect profile of a sufi. Maybe this is why Sufism started in Iraq.

Sufism main theme is based on the perfection of the faith through the ‘purification of self’. Its reached when “believer must worship His Lord as if he sees him and knowing that he cannot, must know that His Lord is always seeing him”

Sufism spirituality and definitions rely on the Quran heavily in a number of areas including the types of souls and classes (believed to be 7 types in the Quran (350 words won’t help).
Some estimates of the numbers believed to be as high as 15-18% of muslims. African countries like Senegal and Chad have majority Sufi Muslims while exist in large numbers in countries like Egypt, Iraq and Morocco. The same goes for east European countries like Chechnya and Uzbekistan (estimated 10-20 millions in Turkey) and so on

Peace,

Fellow_Human,

Thank you for this information ... the details are quite beautiful in their elegance. Can you cite a text for these and I'd like to read more.

Another question, when was the golden age for Arab Islamic literature ... Also, it there a theatrical tradition as seen in the West, Shakespeare, etc., and also in Asian countries.

Finally, I have heard that Islam is one of the Abrahamic faiths - the others being Judaism and Christianty. As Christianity retains certain parts of Judaism as in the Old Testament, is there any element of Judaism in Islam.

Incidentally, I came to Australia when small, so didn't have a French education.

I assume that you are Islamic. Earlier you mentioned having lived in North Africa. Now you admit to having been educated in France. Would it be inappropriate to state where you were born?

Peace

BOAS_David,

I do have to pick you up on a couple of things. It might be because there are many denominations within Christianty.

However, until the 19th century, much was made of the fact that G_d placed you in a certain station during life for a purpose. This gave justification to slavery.

Also, the belief in Calvinistic predestination was horrific. G_d had pre-ordained before one's birth whether one went to heaven or hell - and it didn't matter how righteously one lived one's life. But an inkling of G_d's favour, and hence, indication that you were headed for heaven, was material success in life. Thus, the downtrodden and the poor were indicative of G_d's displeasure ... and alas ...

In Catholicism, the more misery and suffering one endured in this life (albeit without complaint) thereby, submitting to G_d's will, the higher place you secured in heaven.

I remember an instance in a local parish where a woman was being constantly abused by her husband. Being Catholic she could not leave the marriage. The priest never confronted her husband, but assured her she was earning much grace to enter heaven. Subsequently, she died under "mysterious" circumstances. The priest comforted her children with the assurance that their mother had earned her crown in heaven and was with Jesus and among the angels.

I do not know how Muslim religious advisors would have handled this situation.

Danielle,

Regarding the ‘golden age for Arab Islamic literature, it’s a very good question because it’s scattered.
Arabs only represent 16% of Muslims and most of the Arabic culture influence on Islam was in poetry, science and medicine, architecture and calligraphy.

The music part came through Mystic Sufis as their recitation through their recitation of the Quran and the way they pray (include soft dancing known as the derwish dance). The musical rhythm in their singing cam from an earlier science in the 7th century called Tajweed (art of the recitation of the Quran).
Most of the Muslim music came through the Seljuk Turks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_music

Many other authors and writers (like naguib Mahfouz, winner of the Nobel Prize literature 1988) have published books (trilogies). Some of the books made it to the theatre and few found their way to the movies. There was shown in the intl film festival in Sydney last week http://www.yourmovies.com.au/movies/?action=movie_info&title_id=33811amed "the Yacoubian Building"

Islam is closer to Judaism than Christianity. The Quran confirms the commandments and the Mosaic Law. Here is a comprehensive article on what we have in common and where we differ:
http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE&cid=1123996015498

“I do not know how Muslim religious advisors would have handled this situation”
Women in Islam have the right for divorce for a number of conditions (such as if the wife fell out of love). If the topic is of interest, the Muslim Women League have a useful site: www.mwlusa.org

Re personal info, pardon me for the confusion I caused: I was born in N. Africa (Egypt) and grew up there; I was in a French Catholic School since the age of 4 where I studied French literature, philosophy, science and math.

Peace,

Fellow_Human,

Thank you for the information and references. Perhaps you could recommend a text on Islam also on Islamic philosophers. Although I don’t intend to convert to Islam, I would like to know as much as possible about your culture and religion. I hesitate to just "pick" out texts, but would like informed guidance.

I find the sciences and arts of Arab Muslims elegant and beautiful ... so much contribution to western culture. Roman numerals were very limiting ... Unfortunately, westerners are unaware of this, or choose to ignore it.

Learning philosophy at school is important. A European, also taught philosophy when at school, told me that until philosophy becomes a subject at school level here, our education will be gravely lacking. Would you agree with him? He also informed me that philsophy was a “common” subject in western european education at school level.

I had forebear, an embassador for his country, who not only served in the Ottoman Empire but also married within it. I understand that it was a magnificent period in history. Would it be fair to say, that the imperialism of the British did much to “sublimate” the arts of Muslim Arabs? I confess to knowing little about this, but it would seem that under colonialism, these “slept”.

In the next few months, I hope to learn Middle Egyptian. As you know, I have a great love of archaeology.

Peace

Hi Danielle,

There are a number of references on Islamic arts. There is a flash demo below in the art gallery of NSW.
http://www.khalili.org/islamic-collection.html
http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/sub/islam/index.html

In terms of Islamic philosophers, you can distinguish 4 key groups:

1. The ‘spiritual/ mystic’ group: perhaps the most famous philosopher that comes to mind is Fethullah Gullen (www.fethullahgullen.org). He is into mystic spirituality of Islam.

2. The ‘secular modernist’ group: lead by Dr Hassan Hanafi, professor of philosophy at Cairo university, Egypt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_Hanafi

3. The ‘modern conservatives’ and interfaith dialogue lead by NY based Imam Faisal Abdul Raouf.

4. The ‘historical conservatives’ or Islamic neo-con: lead by Dr Yousself Qaradawi.

“ Learning philosophy at school is important. A European, also taught philosophy when at school, told me that until philosophy becomes a subject at school level here, our education will be gravely lacking”

Agree 100%, philosophy should be a must at school as it expands the mind.

Peace,

Fellow_Human

Hi, I did look at that site you gave us discussing the differences between Islam and Judaism. I have to say that regarding Judaism the article was full of basic errors. For example Rabbi Hillel made it very clear that Judaism accepts that Paradise is equally available to any one who is basically good, and that Jews have no special entry cards.

Also orthodox Jews do lend to each other on interest, a recent case hit the headlines.

Judaism has a very strong strong belief in a continuing Rabbinic interpretation of the laws of God. The faithful never go direct to the Bible for an interpretation but rely on these Rabbinic views.

The two faiths are of course very similar in many ways, as you say Judaism is probably closer to Islam than to Christianity..

Logic,

What about those 613 pomegrante seeds! That's a bit of a bummer ...

Being a Jew, albeit secular, you know the Jewish Rabbi, Hillel, who lived some 100 years before Christ, when asked if he could summarize Hebrew law, (i.e. the Torah) stated:

“Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.”

"What you hold as detestable do not do unto your neighbour" is imbedded in Judaic tradition.

Jesus Christ, a Jew, altered the wording to:

“Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.”

[I really get very ruffled when Christians claim this rule as specifically their own, citing it to verify the Christian religion as being the one “true” one - all other religions, apparently “goats”. As you know Jesus wasn’t very fond of goats - indeed, was quite antipathetic to them. Sheep were his “thing”. A bit strange, as I thought goats more suited to his environment ...]

But moving along ...

In different “wording”, this rule is found In Islamic tradition, Hindu tradition, and Confucian tradition.

In philosophy, this “golden rule” is central to Kantian morality.

Fellow_Human,

Which philosophers did you study at your French school? My mother did her thesis on philosophy at the Sorbonne (also had a degree from another European university). She seemed to favour Existentialism. Undoubtedly, you are not my mother’s generation, so was wondering if it is still in favour in France, and/or what other philosophers are taught.

Peace as always

Yes Hillel said “Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you,” and then added "that is the whole law (Torah) the rest is all commentary".

I believe that Confucius said something similar, given the distances between the two societies they must have independently arrived at the same principle.

Christians also try to claim "love your neighbor as yourself" when in fact it comes straight out of the Old Testament. I would rather dwell on the similarities between the religions and with the humanists.