"if Sheikh Hilali had made that same kind of declaration (like Pell) to Members of Parliament of the Muslim faith"

Here we go again comparing the likes of Hillali to respectable clergy like Pell.

In other words what Irfan is suggesting (while enjoying our liberal democratic freedoms) is that Islam is to be respected as equal to other religions and dogmas in this multicutural soup....

I say to Irfan: when in Rome...

First you need to prove to us, Irfan, that Islam is a main stream religion that is ready to take criticism (like Catholicism for e.g.)without resorting to blood and murder every time someone mentions freedom of thought.

With a respectable head of state, like Hillali, how do you expect us to take you seriously and listen to your rant. BTW he is still in office isn't he?

Hirsi Ali is risking her life talking about freedom - something she never encountered in Islam until she discovered western democracies.

Sorry Irfan - we have a brain, we can think freely - and I speak for most intelligent Australians (of any religion) in saying NO to Islam and yes to freedom.

You really don't learn anything do you Irfan? Either that, or you can't get out of being tribal.

To compare the vile, redneck, misoginistic, homophobic, slimebag that is the leader of Australia's Islamic community, Sheik Taj el-Dene Hillbilly, sorry, Hilali, to Cardinal Pell is outrageous, and clearly shows you are a Muslim who certainly doesn't live in fear.

You know very well that if Pell made comments like Hilali's, or any number of the rednecks that make up the Muslim leadership, whether that be Dr. Ali - who claimed the wheelchair bound in-bred Yassin who founded Hamas was a "moderate", to the slick speaking Waleed Ali's who own organisation's website promoted racist hateful literature, he would be out.

Christians who had been loyal to Pell would protest in an instant of a comment like Hilali has made, and his church would be boycotted. You know this, you know what westerners are like, so your argument is simply pandering to the paranoid delusional mindset so many Muslims have.

Everyone's out to get Islam, we slaughter innocent Iraqi's, that sort of nonsense.

You're really grasping at straws now aren't you? Not only were there no protests against the perverted Hilali, there was a rally of support organised!

No Muslims have boycotted his mosque, no Muslims ever walk out of hateful sermons, instead they support it. Polls all across the western world show that most Muslims want to live under the barbaric Sharia code, most agree in some way or other with terrorism, and hardly any think jihad means inner struggle.

But what is worst of all is that those like you, educated Muslims, enjoying the fruits of our freedom, a freedom your closed values is utterly terrified of - and has led to countless racial bashings, pack rapes, because some who hold such backward values can't handle the freedom we enjoy, don't speak up....

...Why aren't you protesting against the Hilali's? Why do you tell those off who do say things about Islamic values? You're tribal is all, you can't see past your skin colour, your culture, you're values.

Those like you need to get out of the way so those like Hirsi Ali can tell most westerners, who are utterly ignorant of Islam, the truth.

Don't you think we are entitled to demand such questions answered? I personally think the vast majority of Muslims are xenophobes, bigots.

There hasn't even been one protest about Hilali! This is utter insanity.

Come on Irfan, this victim mentality is exactly what paranoid delusionals think, which is the current state of Muslims worldwide. Your religion is under scrutiny because globalisation has brought us all closer, and quite frankly, you're terrified that this open, excessively tolerant western liberal culture, liberal values, will envelop your Arabian tribal values.

That is a good thing though. It was good that the Imperialistic Japanese took on western values - although they still have a long way to go in regard to human rights, and good that the enlightened Germans didn't stay with fascism.

However, it is the core values of Islam that are the problem. Those like you don't want to focus on that, but I see that as akin to someone trying to reform Nazism - it can't be done.

Sure, there are Nazi's who wouldn't hurt a fly, but the underlying belief system is immoral. Islam is the same. I used to an ignorant twit like many who thought all religions were the same.

It is only upon reading Islamic texts themselves, but more importantly how they have always been interpreted, that makes me worry. And no, it isn't fearmongering to worry about Islamic values, for they are utterly savage and inferior.

You think this yourself, unless you've got a ticket to live in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

And you didn't answer my question about Mohammed, how on earth can you people see him as the best example? Surely you know of his life?

Well...I'm probably going to be the bad prawn at the barby here, because I don't have so much trouble with what Irf is saying as Ben and Coach.

My major concern is that the incident demonstrates one of the flaws of 'hyper' organized religion of any flavor where it involves a beaurocratic or orgnizational heirarchy which requires 'OBEDIENCE' from the flock to the beaurocracy as much as to Christ.

It can be a stage worse than that, where the 'beaurocracy' alters it's understanding of the foundations over time and promotes THAT understanding as 'the' understanding which then must be adhered to in order to remain 'that' denominational orthodoxy.

The Catholic Church does have some 'interesting' takes on certain doctrinal issues, one of which (and it forms the primary basis for the emergence of the Protestant movement) is the 'sacrement of indulgence'. Readers may wish to read further on what Dr Google shows up on this, and they could also fill in some blanks by reading "History of the Reformation and Luther"

From his 95 theses.

Number_27 There is no divine authority for preaching that the soul flies out of the purgatory immediately the money clinks in the bottom of the chest.

Number_31 One who bona fide buys indulgence is a rare as a bona fide penitent man, i.e. very rare indeed.

COMMENT
I have no problem with myself saying to Peter Costello, a Baptist, or John Howard an Anglican (as is Kevin Rudd) 'as a Christian citizen to a Christian' citizen....

"We should pass legislation which stops XXX rated pornography to come by mailorder from ACT to States which have OUTLAWED the sale of such material." but in saying this to them, all I am seeking is that their VOTE on that issue, relfects both their and my convictions as Christians. If we have the numbers.. so be it, if we don't... we live with the outcome. But I have zero 'clout' other than an appeal to individual spiritual conscience.
They in turn, must weigh up the electoral consequences of voting in such a way.

That...is democracy

Irfan,

Thats an interesting point.
I was watching BBC world and I think our moderators have a weakness in comparsion. the moderator or interviewer would clearly articulate if the view is personal, social or religious.
In the absence of a proper approach to public interviewing, the door will always be opened for different media interpretation.
Right now it appears to be:
- A person says a contraversial comment.
- We see his quote in the media followed by "what he meant was.."
- What comes after "what he meant was.." depends on the character, popularity, etc..
After all Mel Gibson is still in Holywood. If it was Hirsi Ali making the same comment she will probably be in guantanamo by now.

Brotherhood of the ring:

Its all about Islam and muslims for you isn't it? What was in your life before OLO and Islam bashing?

Boaz,

Unless I missed something and Irfan please correct me here, the article context is about two topics:

1. in a secular democracy, the religious institution and state are separate. Clergy views and opinions regardless of its ource should be confined to personal or social views.
2. Matters like abortion, stemcells, etc.. can be oposed by many human beings regardless of religious convictions or non-religious people at all. Cardinal Pell does not have monopoly on morality since other religions and no-religion groups could share the same views on moral or human grounds. An atheist could feel as strong about the stemcells research without the need to dig a book and quote 'chapter xxx' page 'y' says so.

Coach, you may speak for the likes of Benjamin but your claim to 'speak for most intelligent Australians' is breathtaking arrogance.

Irfan Yusuf makes good sense to me. The separation of church and state is crucial for the health of a democracy - and that separation must apply equally to all religions.

Irfan rightly pointed out that Sheik Hilali has been condemned by Muslims across the ethnic, social and political spectrum of Australian Islam (and the Australian National Board of Imams has abolished his position).

Irfan hardly needed to mention that the Sheik was also roundly condemned by non-Muslims throughout the land, including John Howard, Peter Costello and Kevin Rudd. And rightly so, not because he was a Muslim cleric, but because what he said was outrageous and offensive.

Irfan Yusuf demonstrates the double standard of many of our national leaders, most of whom are now mute in the face of the Catholic Cardinal's blatant interference in political life. The Australian's editorial is more hypocritical - it suddenly finds that in “mixing affairs of church and state”, Pell was “only doing his job”. On that basis it must be OK for a Muslim cleric to do the same.

But it isn't OK. Both Cardinal Pell and Sheik Hilali have overstepped the mark - as does any religious leader who tries to dictate to the community at large, or, for that matter, any political leader who uses religion for their own political purposes.

Some people ask me why I did not condemn Hilaly. The answer to that is simply this: You don'y know what you're talking about.

I have condemned and criticised Hilaly's words and actions on numerous occasions and in the following outlets ...

a. Here on this site
b. Twice in Sydney's Daily Telegraph (one occasion, I was quoted on the BBC website)
c. Once in Sydney Morning Herald
d. Three times in Canberra Times
e. Once in the Melbourne Age
f. three times in Crikey.com.au
g. twice on NewMatilda.com
h. Once in the New Zealand Herald
i. Once in the Wellington Dominion Post
j. Twice in the Christchurch Press
j. Once on NineMSN.com.au
k. Four times in AltMuslim.com
l. Once on Malaysiakini.com

I'm not sure what the combined audience involved here is. Can someone calculate it for me? Perhaps 2-3 million in Australia, maybe 1 million in New Zealand and the rest in Malaysia, the US, UK and online.

Now, over to the person who asked why I didn't criticise Hilaly ...

the Australian editorial was interesting, one wonders what their comment would have been if Pell had said something simillar about work choices...

what religious authoritarianism (as opposed to religious individuals) often fails to comprehend is that the protection afforded by the separation of church and state runs both ways. it serves no religion to be drawn into a situation where principal is a matter of political expediency

Well said Irfan. I'm in full agreement.

However I'd make one small point. I like many of my generation and my parents generation of Catholics gave up listening to the Church's anonited representatives years ago.

The issue. Contraception. Many now lapsed Catholics rejected the idea a bunch of celibate men had any right to advise people on what they should do in their bedrooms. The argument boiled down to an intrepretation of Christ's message. Since Christ never directly addressed the issue the intrepretation was left to his current representatives. Todays issue is similar and will probably lead to a falling off in the numbers of adherents who place any great store in the infability of the Pope and the pronouncements of the princes of the Catholic Church, the Cardinals and Bishops.

The only possible difference I see in parallels between the Catholic and Islamic cases is that I am not sure the same questioning or rejection of intrepretation of the Koran's teaching would ensue in Islam. Sure the positions of the Clergy in both cases has been undermined but in the case of Islam I doubt the same exodus away from basic traditions inherent in the Koran is likely to follow...as occurred in Catholicism.

BOAZ-David,

What have you been drinking/smoking etc? Your comment re the "sacrement (sic) of indulgence" nearly had me in fits of laughter. "Indulgence" is NOT a sacrament of the Church.

Re the anti-Semitic Luther....Have you read "On the Jews and their lies" published by Mr Luther? And he didn't like peasants either!

I'd rather have "organized religion" than disorganized religion! So would Jesus!

I don’t expect any stem cell breakthroughs from the Islamic world or scientific discoveries of any kind. They are so mired in their straitjacket of religious beliefs that they can do little else than protest about paying for medical and other technology discovered in the decadent west. Maybe Mr. Pell shares some belief with the Muslim brothers after all.

No difference between Pell of Hilali. They both preach religious dogma with equal enthusiasm and yet I can't help but wonder why so many deluded people hang on Pell's words. As a "prince" of the Catholic Church, he continues to spread the lies and deception enshrined in Catholic teachings to it's thought bound and ignorant congregation.
For example: Why is it that the Catholic Church continues to observe Sunday as it's sabbath? You won't find anywhere in the Bible, either in the new or old testament whereby God or his son gave permission to change the holy day. In fact, moving the sabbath isn't mentioned at all. Most other Christian religions, being a spin-off of the Catholic faith, follow along blindly and without question.
Same with the 25th of December! Show me in the Bible where it says we much observe "Christmas" day? Right! You can't!
Religion was invented to explain the unexplainable in times long gone. It's also been a convenient way of keeping rabble in their place. From history, I do happen to believe that a person called Jesus walked the Earth, but I don't happen to believe he was the son of God. In fact, I don't believe in fairy tale creations that fly around the sky seeking retribution or giving reward for deeds done on this Earth. Mankind has 'over-thought' himself on this issue and brought desolation and destruction on countless millions over the decades as a result.
Anyway! How come all religions state THEY'RE the only true religion? Someone must have it badly wrong. Jesus was a very wise man and if all religions followed his ideals and principles, what a beautiful world we'd have to live in.

I find it amusing that the same people who want a separation of church and state want to be able to legislate to enforce churches or church schools to employ homosexuals or others living in sexual sin and/or perversion. You can't have it both ways. The separation of church and State is a myth and always will be. Just like any other lobby groups the church will always have its say.

Ifran,

HELL'S PELLS

One would hope that any religion will keep its theocracy out of democracy. Besides, both Islam and Christianity is diced into a multitude of competing fractions. The great [Christian] Schicism, the Anglican break with its parent Church. Besides Christianity started as a Jew cult and had fifteen Jewish bishops, before its formation. We should be governed by the People through our parliaments, not from Churches, Temples, Mosques or faries up a rock in the backyard.

From what I have read about Jesus his concept of the Kingdom of Heaven was unlike his fellow itinerate Messiahs, popular in that era.
He challenged the Jewish "Religious" Law and was not about to actack Rome, instead, he would "render unto Caesar".

Pell is as far from Jesus as a Prince is from a Pauper.

Fellow_Human,

1. “in a secular democracy, the religious institution and state are separate”.

Bingo!

But in Islam religion is the state and state is the religion. So what the Khalifa or the Mullah, or Imam says the crowd follows.

When you are a muslim - you don't question - just follow and defend your lies.

2. “Matters like abortion, stemcells, etc.. can be oposed by many human beings regardless of religious convictions or non-religious people at all.”

Right again – but how could we ever trust a Theology that believes in a holy book that claims that human beings are formed from a clot?

I am not a Catholic but in matters of life and death - and of high moral implications - we better listen to the educated members of our society who after all have earned the right to a better understanding of theology than your average taxi driver or barber.

Aime,

People like you are going to wake up one day and finding a Hillali as President of the Islamic Republic of Australia.

For your information Sunday is the day of The Lord marking His resurrection on the third day after He was crucified on a cross, for ALL humanity – the day of a new beginning for all the believers in the Son of God.

Jesus birth date, the 25th December, January 6th or 7th, doesn’t really make a difference as long as you understand WHY He was born and WHY He died.

Far out, coach. Are you OK? You really sound full of anger, hatred and paranoia. Is that how you usually are? If so, I think you need to get some help.

Religion and state separated after the Prophet Muhammad's passing. Scholars are in disagreement as to exactly when it happened. Some say it happened after the assassination of the 2nd caliph. Others say it happened when the 4th caliph decided to move the political capital away from the holy city of Madina to a place called Kufa in Iraq. Since that time, religious scholars and authorities tended to shun the courts of kings and rulers.

In fact, the founders of the 4 major schools of Sunni jurisprudence avoided patronage of kings. Quite a few were persecuted. All the Shia imams were persecuted.

In orthodox Sunni jurisprudence, the unification of religious and political authority will not take place until Christ returns to establish the Kingdom of God. Certainly that is what I have been taught.

In the Catholic world, the state struggled to keep away from the church. In the Islamic world, it was the reverse.

Coach, you said...."For your information Sunday is the day of The Lord marking His resurrection on the third day after He was crucified on a cross"

Now let me tell you what really happened. Firstly, lots of things were happening at the same time. Philosophers were attempting to reconcile paganism with Christianity whilst at the same time, anti-Jewish sentiment was becoming more pronounced. In the 4th century, the conversion of Constantine happened. The story of how he had a vision is well known, but most likely the result of ingested fermenting grain or too much hooch. He then proceeded to convert to Christianity all of his army, most of whom were pagans, but they remained pagan at heart. At that time, the cult of Mithraism or sun-worship was the official religion of Roman Empire. "The Venerable Day of the Sun," the first day of the week (Sunday to us now) was set aside to worship the sun God. Rather than cause disent amongst his newly acquired "Christians," Constantine accepted the pagan day of worship instead of the Christian Sabbath which had been observed by Jesus and his disciples.
The Catholic church is only too willing to tell their followers that it was the Catholic Church that made the switch, but such is not the case. This is well documented Coach, but like all ye who are blinded by fairy tales, you probably will not bother to look it up for yourself.
Coach, this is another reason I don't believe in religion. Any religion. Look! If you feel you must hang onto something in order to survive the terror of this big old world, then fine. I respect that, but don't try to convert me. I'm only part human and see things through the eyes of truth.

What’s good for the Islamic goose is clearly not good for the secular humanist gander. What a bunch of hyprocites most of those from the humanist schools are! Apply your arguements to yourselves and your own godless religion.

What Irfan,Islam George Pell,Sheik Hilaly and the Pope want is power over ordinary people.They lasiviate in our fear and ignorance.

Irfan just plays his little games of equivocation trying to impose Islam on all of us.

The only true religion is that of logic and science which has freed us from poverty and drudgery.Show me where in the Bible or Koran a system of logic that equates to that of science.In fact the religions have done everything in their power to destroy logic since it frees people from it's clutches.

If you want to be truely free and spiritual,think for yourself.Religions have been built upon lies and distortions and mostly brings misery to our humanity.

coach,

If God is all powerful, why was substitutionary ransom even necessary? Would say God cannot forgive sin without Attonement. If so, It is not God.

Irfan, you certainly enjoy enjoy a fight don't you? Is your hero Don Quixote? Tilting your lance at Islam, at Hillali, at Christians, at atheist, at secularists and countless others.
You claim that church and state seperated at the time of Mighty Mo's death. Maybe, but you forgot to tell the Moslem brotherhood in Iran, Iraq,Turkey, etc. You got yourself some real baggage there Irfan.
And as for your equating Islam with progressive western thought- there 'aint enough asses in Arabia to carry that load of old cobblers around.
Good luck in your labours Irfan.

Dear Francis.. "Indulgences not a sacremant"

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm

Its a VERY fine line between it 'being' a sacrament and it being CLOSELY LINKED TO one.... read the last couple of lines on this link I provided above.

AIME.. differences between Pell and Hilali are located in the founder and foundations of what they stand for.

Hilali would be quite comfortable with political assasinations of the enemies of Muslims, because Mohammad did it. Pell would be unhappy with that because Jesus never did such a thing, he relied on the power of the Gospel and His word, not murder, to extend the kingdom.

Francis, Luther is not my hero, his antisemitism and foul language are surely not 'fruit of the Spirit' so..I'm guessing he had some 'off' days:)

IRF.. well..you didn't call me names this time.. hmmmm maybe it's because I basically agree with your point? I'll see what you call me next time I disagree :) (I have compiled quite a list you know)

MOSQUE and STATE. I disagree that 'Islam' teaches separation, you refer to the history as if it is a canonical situation. MOhammad was building a political structure from the moment he entered Medina, and any departure from that pattern would clearly be 'un' Islamic (but not 'Un Muslim' if you get my drift.
Muslims can do what they like. Their actions must be judged by the Sunnah, and the Quran, and Hadith. So, quite clearly Mosque IS the State.
The confusion about this in suceeding Caliphates is due to the confusion in Mohammad and Islam as a system.

I refer you to this:

http://www.revision-notes.co.uk/revision/35.html

5. In Islam politics are meant to be consensual and the laws must be in conformity with the Koran and Sharia, development of political parties that don’t accept this is not allowed.
6. All law must be based upon the Sharia.

The Mechanics of government might not be the Imam, but if Laws are to reflect Sharia, then who is the real boss ?:) clearly the Imam, the waver of the verbal 2 x 4 over the head of the (so called)ruler.

As a "universal kafir" I can sit this one out except to say a pox on both your houses.

The real world is so much more exciting, interesting and intriguing than the superstitions of Islam and Catholicism that I cannot understand why anyone bothers.

Every time we build a new instrument we learn something new. What will the Large Hadron Collider reveal?

http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/

The Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST) will provide the first test of a theory of quantum gravity.

http://www-glast.stanford.edu/

Will we at last succeed in bringing gravity within the quantum theory fold or is there some deeper theory waiting to be discovered?

What in the koran or bible could possibly be more weird, bizarre and intriguing than the delayed choice quantum eraser?

http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scully/kim-scully-web.htm

It calls into question all our notions of space / time reality.

Then, of course, there's the biggie. Biogenesis. How did life on Earth start? Much speculation but little hard fact.

A whole new science, epigenetics, has sprung up in the past half decade. There's more to inheritance than DNA.

With functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) we're at last getting some real answers about the way our brains work.

With all this going on who cares about the rants of a seventh century tribal chieftain?

.....or even a 1st century king, eh steven? Jesus was a king, but not a Herod king, a David king, different bloodline. hence the question, "are you king of the Jews?"

Bugsy,

I'm reasonably sure the seventh century tribal chieftain existed. He may even have been responsible for some of the rants and (mis)deeds attributed to him.

But I'm certain as it is possible to be about something that allegedly happened 2,000 years ago that no first century itinerant preacher rose from the dead. In fact I would require an extra-ordinary level of proof to be convinced that anybody has ever risen from the dead.

Well Steven, if you are really interested, then I should point you in the direction of Barbara Thiering's work, especially "Jesus the Man". Extremely interesting stuff, including the idea that jesus was by no means an itnerant preacher, oh no, he was a king with a very peculiar birthday for various background reasons, which had caused quite some controversy during his lifetime and even more after!

But this is of course nothing to do with the thread at hand, but then again, the religions today have not much to do with the real message of their originators either.

"There was a time when religion ruled the world. It was known as the Dark Ages". I don't know who said it but I wish it was me.

Irfan

I know you are reading these comments. So - I would like to congratulate you on a very well written article.

Irfan,

How could you bluntly deny the basic principle of your religion? And then say: “Certainly that is what I have been taught.”?

The rest of us watch, study, compare, then decide.

Not once anywhere did we find any hint that State affairs are to be separate from daily living in Islam.
As a matter of fact there is no word in Arabic for “SECULAR”.

Unfortunately for Islam is that Utopia was never to be fully realised – hence Jihad – the continual bloodshed wherever Islam exists.

Integration into new societies is so very painful because TRUE Islam cannot submit to any other authority but Allah’s.

Islamic Law is the only way a Muslim knows how to live; two words define their lives: halal and harram.

That is why Australia cannot have Sharia LAW. It is dualism. We do not want to make the same mistakes the UK and many other EU countries made succumbing to the un-integrables whinge.

Listen to people like Hirsi Ali instead of stoning her with your insults and threats.

FREEDOM is a precious gift from God.
With Allah it is “do as you’re told because Allah and his prophet know best.”

AIME,

Wow, reading your kind of history is like being there. I can’t wait to read your spin on ‘Christmas day’

As to trying to convert you. No I leave that to God, He is the one who created you – He gave you your precious eyes, through which you now see YOUR truth. That's Freedom!


Oliver asks:

>> If God is all powerful, why was substitutionary ransom even necessary? Would say God cannot forgive sin without Attonement. If so, It is not God. <<

Don’t worry about it mate – this stuff is only for the sinners. You (like Aime) obviously do not subscribe to that race yet.

Boaz, Coach and the fellowship:

I was reading this interesting article by an Israeli regarding the 1969 fire.

"In the morning of August 21, 1969, a fire at Masjid al-Aqsa, the al-Aqsa Mosque opposite the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, gutted the southeastern wing of the mosque. By the following day, it become apparent that a non-Jewish tourist from Australia was responsible for the blaze. On August 23, Dennis Michael Rohan was arrested for arson, suspected of starting the fire. Rohan was an Australian Protestant follower of an evangelical sect known as the Church of God. By his own admission, Rohan hoped to hasten the coming of the Messiah by burning down the al-Aqsa Mosque. Rohan told the court that he acted as "the Lord's emissary" on divine instructions, in accordance with the Book of Zechariah, and that he had tried to destroy the al-Aqsa Mosque in order to rebuild the Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount. He was hospitalized in a mental institution, found to be insane and was later deported from Israel."

So do you guys subscribe to the fruitloops fellowship?

Oliver,

Very good question..Coach is good at only casting stones at others.

BOAZ-David,

It is NOT a very fine line between "the sacrament of indulgence" (as you so erroneously put it) being a sacrament and being closely linked with one. You have no idea of what a sacrament is so do not use the word. You're trying to squirm your way out of making a huge blunder.

The desperation is obvious in Irfan's article. His cheap insults to those who post here with the 'wrong view', i.e, against his, reflect this desperation further.

I can end that Irfan, all you have to do is answer a few simple questions - I know you won't because you actually can't, if you want to remain a Muslim that is.

To liken the two leaders situations is deceiving, immoral. How are they similar? You yourself know that the standards westerners hold themselves to regarding figures in public office are unrivaled anywhere on the planet.

You know that if Pell said anything even remotely like the vile, homophobic misoginistic racist that is the LEADER of the Islamic community (still haven't seen any protests to have him removed by the way, or boycotts of his hate mosque. I hope you don't still go there Irfan, you probably never did anyway. Yes, I know about how mosques, even in Australia, are bitterly divided along ethnic lines - best put by youth leader Fadhi Rahman, who stated in an interview with ABC's Religion Report that a "Pakistani wouldn't be welcome at Lakemba mosque, as it's a Lebanese mosque. Only if he was an Imam would he be welcomed" which sounds strange coming from someone who apparently is opposed to racism.

This is how bad the discourse has become though, so unreal. We've seen vile rednecks proclaiming racism for merely commenting about their insane redneckism!

We see Muslims vomiting up nonsense about backlashes even though after terrorist attacks the media reports only on churches that have been attacked, usually burnt, occassionally shot at, always with harrassing calls by self-proclaimed Islamists beforehand.

The bulk of the Islamic community support Hilali, we saw this with the rally organised to support him, and how there are no boycotts of the Lakemba mosque, where his, and others, hateful xenophobia is preached to willing ears - a largely bigoted audience...

...We see it in never ending polls about how most Muslims want to live under the literally, evil laws that make up Sharia.

The Irfan's can't stand the Hirsi Ali's because she questions the fundamental beliefs of Muslims, how they are against democracy, the utter barbarity of child brides (and I've heard Muslims comment about paedophilia in the church! Muslims have sanctioned it!)
If Irfan was truly moderate he wouldn't be against this questioning, he'd be standing right next to her.

No matter how much you try to cover up discussions about how women are slaves in Islam, how Islam is nothing more than Arab imperialism -have to take an Arabic name upon becoming Muslim, have to bow to Arabia five times a day, and have to pray in Arabic, recite some Koranic passages in Arabic, and other backward aspects of Islam.

The prophet's life will continue to be examined, his actions of murder, paedophilia, robbery, will continue to be looked at by those brave enough to do so.

Everything you need to know about Muslims is revealed in the fact that even here in Australia, where Muslims make up less than 1%, one's life would be in danger if they spoke on such issues.

NEVER WITH ANY OTHER GROUP HAS THIS BEEN THE CASE. Muslims are so afraid to debate they resort to violence. But the worst part is that those like Irfan, which aren't radical, are so desperate to hold onto their values they join the herd, even though they know the values are wrong - shown by default of them moving to liberal western democracies built on yes, the JUDEO-CHRISTIAN values.

Muslim values have no part of a civilised country, and unless drastically reformed, can't.

I've noticed Irfan's writings here and wonder what his true stance is.

Can you tell us Irfan as it's rather confused. You sound angry and aggressive most of the time yet seem to claim religion as part of your life. How does that fit with what you write Irfan? Seriously, I'm asking.

I'm amazed though at some of your statements in this item. Firstly you claim that there are "media assaults on religious communities". Is it not appropriate that the media does focus on an area where zealots, fanatics and "nutters" accumulate?

Let's mention the Catholic church and their penchant for harbouring paedophiles. Anyone heard of the Spanish Inqusition? These are the methods used by these religions. Secrecy, torture, bullying and child sexual assaults. Now that's a real assault Irfan.

I'm also a believer in my own spiritual place in life but I don't feel the need to "assault" any group.

Over the last 2000 years all people have been continually bombarded by promises of heaven, enlightenment, nirvana, and all the rest of the promises. 2000 years of that assault Irfan. With no delivery at all. None.

It's time these religions were "assaulted" if you like to determine who is actually serious about their beliefs. When these religious groups start acting according to their preaching we might start listening. Until then....they are simply political groups. Nothing more.

Irfan wrote:

>>Religion and state separated after the Prophet Muhammad's passing.>>

Well that explains a lot. Now I understand why Europe became a stagnant theocratic excrement hole while the democratic Ottoman Empire went on to develop a scientific culture.

It is thanks to the work of the great Muslim scholars Nasir bin Koppernigk and Yahya bin Kepler that we learned that the Earth was a planet that moved around the sun in an ellipse. They overthrew the old geocentric cosmology. Their work was based on the observations of Taqi Al-Din whose observatory was not destroyed by Janissaries on order of the Mufti in the 1570s. In fact in the democratic free-thinking Ottoman Empire there was no such thing as Janissaries.

Of course they were helped by the Muslim scientist Galal bin Galilei who founded the science of physics and invented the astronomical telescope.

Your namesake, the aptly named Irfan bin Newton, built on the work of the great bin Galilei in giving us a rigorous theory of dynamics and a theory of gravity that lasted until Ali bin Einstein came up with general relativity.

Obviously only in a free thinking society where religion and state were separated could a great thinker like Khaled bin Darwin publish his Origin of the Species.

Now we understand why the Ottoman Empire was able to defeat the kafir Europeans, conquer North and South America and build the International Space Station in which they kindly allow a few kafirs to participate.

Now we truly understand why so many Arabs win science Nobels while hardly any Jews do. One of the most recent is the great Anwar Bin Fire whose discovery of RNA interference looks like giving rise to a whole new class of therapeutics. He works in the North American part of Dar-ul-Islam.

See:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2006/

He shared the prize with Khaled bin Mello.

BTW Irfan I have a collection of bridges for sale. The collection includes the Brooklyn Bridge, Sydney Harbour Bridge and Melbourne's Westgate & Bolte bridges. $20 million gets you the lot.

Interested?

Good one Stephany!
[rolling on the floor in laughter]

Actually it's not entirely beyond the realm of possibility , when you consider some of the things which are being passed off as "history” is some parts of non-kafir world

Stephany,

1.
>>Religion and state separated after the Prophet Muhammad's passing.>>

Irfan's comment highlights the difference between sunni and shiaa.
Not sure where were you the last 14 centuries, but Sunni/Shiaa conflict is about the system of governance where we (sunnis) believe the prophet
at his death refused to chose a successor but delegated it to muslims to chose a leader.
The following 4 capliphs followed the same system and were not related. Where shiaa muslims believe in the Imam's ali succership and the 'imams succession in general'.
The separation of religion and state is what caused Islamic enlightment to come 2.5 centuries after its appearance, while it took other european
religions 14-15 centuries to separate religion and state.
If you want to understand the dynamics of the sunni/shiaa conflict start by googling the farewell sermon of the prophet.

2. Muslims and science prizes: if you check the Nobel prize website there are at least 10 Muslim winners in the last 20 years (including 4 for peace and many more for chemistry, physics and philosophy).
I don't think we are doing bad given the Islamic culture is at rock bottom..we are still contributing :-)

Peace,

Horus

If you think my post is funny follow this link:

http://www.memritv.org/search.asp

In the box where it says Clip# ...... Search

Enter 1313

View the clip. It's what inspired my post.

WARNING:

The violent, uncontrollable mirth induced by watching this clip may be injurious to your health. Take care.

Fellow_Human

At least you, unlike most Muslims, are prepared to admit that Islamic culture is "at rock bottom." Now what do you do to get off the bottom?

Yes it is at rock bottom Pell however is close to that too.

People talk of Hirsi Ali suffering female circumcision.This term is really a euphemism for female castration.It is akin to the removal of both the testes and penis of men.They remove not only the labia but also the clitoris.This is the ultimate in the subjuation of women to that of men.To even entertain this facist religion of having any credibility in our enlightened times,makes a mockery of all the West has achieved in the last 200yrs.

We must keep all religions out of our political systems or end up like Malaysia,Sudan or Saudi Arabia.Just look at the track record of Islam around the world and smell the depraved reality.

Dear StevenLMeyer and 'poor' Bugsy :) (couldn't resist that Bugsy lest you think we are so injured by your scalliwagedness in dissing 'religion')

I can see how 'life' can be quite a zing without Christ.... yes..I really can.... in fact.. our dear sister Paris Hilton has taught us a great lesson there.. which is of course "You can get away with a lot, for a long time, but eventually.. justice catches up with us"

If the 2 alternatives of secularism and Faith(the Christian type) were..
a) Dark, morose, self hating,Priest fearing, guilt ridden misery....(The faith)
b) Joy, freedom, wonder, exhilaration, peace, purpose, direction, confidence, self control, etc.. (secularism)....

we might be mildly persuaded by your position.
But the reality is, Biblical Christians enjoy "b" and not 'a'.

Secularists 'think' Christians dwell in "a".. and that they themselves dwell in 'b'... but.. I have to disagree on many grounds.
Substitute 'Scientific Orthodoxy' for 'priest' in "a" and you have todays secular community.

The absense of God, unquestionably means an abandonment of all foundation of morality, which of course leads to the dark, mould encrusted, fearful, nightmare of existentialism. (A Clockwork Orange)
It doesn't mean the abandonment of 'morality'.. but its valid foundation. We are left with MIUAUG with zero limiting factor.

The only possible foundation for ANY kind of secular morality is.... 'existentialism'.. I think (act,feel pain, do things etc)..therefore, I 'am'. But I ask..am 'what'?

Your doubts about Jesus are shallow, flimzy and with little foundation when the evidence is scrutinized fairly. (i.e. by the same standards you may apply to similar historical figures)

All I hear from the 'adventurous secularists' is... froth and bubble in a swirling tank of meaningless philosophical green slime :) yes.. really.

FH who says the Shia are wrong and the Sunni right? After all, there are LOTS of Shia, now that must be a compelling argument right?

Irfan wrote;

'Religion and state separated after the Prophet Muhammad's passing.'

And

'In orthodox Sunni jurisprudence, the unification of religious and political authority will not take place until Christ returns to establish the Kingdom of God.'

You really should learn some more about your own religion Irfan. Mainstream Islamic theology has NEVER condoned the partition of Islam and the State. When partition does occur it is begrudgingly accepted until the appropriate time when Islamic political power is strong enough to assert itself.

This we are now seeing in Malaysia as evidenced by the infamous Lina Joy case. The fact that an ex-Muslim is forced to defer to a Sharia Court in order to get her marriage recognised under the law is an abuse of human rights. The fact that this Court legally opposes the marriage of female Muslims to male non-Muslims compounds Lina Joy's predicament and is an even greater abuse of human rights.

You cannot bluff us Irfan. The whole purpose of the Islamic 'meme' is to make itself the focal point of society rather than remain a religious subsiduary. In Islamic states the individual soon finds out that his private life is the public concern of the state via a battery of moralising legislature.

I don't believe that you are that simple or naive Irfan. And you cannot trick us with some slight-of-hand theology about the second-coming of Jesus - peace be upon him

.....The Islamic state was established on the basis of the Islamic system, which covers all aspects of life, religious and worldly. We also see that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was a conductor of the Divine Revelation, a legislator, a leader in prayer, a judge, and the commander of the army, and so were the Caliphs after him. With such integrity the Islamic nation was the greatest of all nations.

So, the notion of separating politics from religion and vice versa does not belong to Islam. It is taken from non-Muslim sources, i.e. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God’s”, as the famous quote goes."

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543762

Irfan, would you care to re-write your previous post for us. I think this forum needs some clarification or we will think that you are telling lies.

Irfan called Ayaan Hirsi Ali an ‘ex-Muslim’ just because she spoke out against the practices of some Muslims e.g. wife beating, female genital mutilation, honor killings. However, Catholics remain Catholics (e.g. keith) even though they disagree with the Pope on some issues.

So if a Muslim is not tolerant of fellow Muslims, how can they be tolerant of non-Muslims

TR...so glad to see you quoting the Lord Jesus Christ... "Give to Caesar..." etc..
He was asked that question to try to trick him into self condemnation... as you surely know.
The principle is consistent with his other saying "My kingdom is NOT 'of' this world" (not worldly in nature)

Sadly, the Catholic Church is closer to the Islamic approach, due basically to their interpetation of "Upon this rock... I will build my Church" understanding this to mean Peter...the first 'Pope' (shudder) but the morphing of Christendom into something resembling a Caliphate occurred purely by weight of numbers. When the society was predominantly Christian/(catholic) then it stood to reason for the Church to have a lotttt of say in public affairs. The Emperor or King would have secular power, but the Church was right behind, sniping or advising and holding the ultimate sanction of "If you don't obey the King of kings, its a longggg stint pergatory for you" kind of thing.

Fortunately, we have the Bible in its fullness today, and one and all can see that the Kingdom of God, in Christ is not of that nature.
Yes, we can advise, encourage, discourgage, plead, exhort our politicians.. very much so if they have been elected on the basis of a known Christian committment, to honour Christ in all things, including political decisions, but we have no earthly sanction except 'social/spiritual exclusion' if they take down a path of moral degradation of economic greed for a select few.

TR you are spot on about Islam, Irfy is playing the shell game with us but I don't think he is consciously or maliciously doing so, he is just struggling for his own bit of 'identity turf' :)

Nice one Steph,

However you forgot about the part played by Walid Wilbeforce and Ibrahim Lincoln in stamping out slavery. Thanks to their efforts there is no more slavery in Dar ul Islam.

Remember, it was at the urging of Walid Wilberforce that the Ottoman navy, that part of it that was not annihilated at Lepanto, was used to stop the Brits continuing with the slave trade.

IRFAN says the founders of the 4 major schools of Sunni jurisprudence avoided patronage of kings.

But they reserved to themselves the right to dictate the law. Having religious bodies set the law is not secularism and it is certainly not secular DEMOCRACY. Your argument is to say the least disingenuous. There is no separation of religion and state in Islam so long as religious jurisprudential bodies, not the people's elected representatives, set the law and appoint the judges.

Pell is not dictating the law. He is not threatening anybody with death. He is simply saying that if certain members of parliament are no longer able to agree with core teachings of his church they may not participate in some of his church's rituals.

The affected members of parliament are free to ignore Pell if they choose. Unlike Ayaan Hirsi Ali they need not fear death threats.

Just to make something clear, I have been an atheist for over 50 years. I am not and have never been a Catholic

Pell remains quite wrong, he and any leader of any faith has no right to tell people how to vote.
Man must not let his invented faiths divide him from other men.

Ok...lets see...

Political system is essentially a common person whom using his 'power' of their singular vote to produce a parliament that will bring about a society, its norms and governance that they want to live in...ie majority rules and hopefully most voters want an society of ordinary decent people...

Religious system is to help the follower get to know god and build that personal relationship...

so there seems to be very little common ground between these two areas when one looks at their pure purpose...

So we all should be concerned when religious societies start walking into political domain...it causes so much confusion and conflict from within and without...followers are troubled by their wish for a government that their religion they follow to know god is now giving them commands and control to force a behaviour....and politicians take notice and submit to a degree to this force wrongly if the religious group has substantial numbers...

it seems the first step is remove all 'religious leaders' whom are more interested in society control than god-person relationship...their purpose is on the face of it appears corrupted...and we have seen enough corruption in history and current world havent we...

Sam

Abu Boaz,

“FH who says the Shia are wrong and the Sunni right? After all, there are LOTS of Shia, now that must be a compelling argument right?”

Factual points about the shiaa Muslims:
- They are Muslims (ie follow teachings of the Quran and Islam).
- They represent approx 9% of all Muslims (not sure where you got LOTS from, but thought I will keep you honest).
- The sunni argument is in a simple statement: that if Imam Ali wanted it the governance to be for himself or imams structure, why did he wait and watched 3 other caliphs govern before him (including Caliph Omar who governed for 12 years).
Either way, there is no theological difference between us (sunni and Shiaa). We are the same.

Stephany,

Glad you accepted my argument.
“What I am doing about it”is lighting a candle such as contributing to this forum and many others, educating myself, family, friends and contacts. Help bringing understanding of Muslims to non-Muslims and voice versa. I am interested to know the answer if you ask yourself the same question: apart from ridiculing and mocking others efforts and opinions, anything else we should know?

Stephany

Thanks - I needed the laugh after wading through the rest of this.. that is the funniest thing I have read in a while :)

I was far from surprised to see the point of the original article lost admidst the usual name calling and 'my imaginary friend is better than yours' ranting from the usual suspects. I can only hope though, that as the sum total of human knowledge advances with time, through science and open enquiry - the very antithesis of religion - such topics will eventually be rendered utterly irrelevant.

I long for that world where public debate (be it stem cells or whatever..) is conducted in terms of objective analysis and reason, not thousand year old dogma. Long may the gradual slide into irrelevancy of ALL religions continue.

I am a Sudanese Refugee from Warrnambool Victoria Australian, I was wanting to open a bank account for my DSP payment. I am disabled, I can't walk properly becasue I was a War Crime victem. I went to St George Bank Warrnambool to open an account for my payments. The manager of St George Bank Warrnambool ask me to leave the bank. When I asked why, she said "dirty black n!ggers are not welcome here!". Now I have a mental illness and not aloud back to Sudan. Can anyone help me find a way back to Sudan, because I am not welcome here in Australia.

DB,

"Upon this rock... I will build my Church" understanding this to mean Peter...the first 'Pope' "

"... and that which is bound on Earth shall have been [exceptional present-past tense] bound in Heaven." It the basis for Papal infallibility. Catch is, the early Jesus cults were Jewish and the early Bishops Jews. Expanding that faith to the Gentiles had to do with being able re-enter the Holy Lands after the religious Jews were expelled by Rome. [Many settled in Pella] That Church could not have a Jewish leader.

Institutionalisation and standardisation of the J. cults was consolidated at Nicaea were creeds and doctrines of an organised religion were finalised by very human men.

Cathoilc or not Catholic Christian priesthoods and clergy are happy to wear the guise of "holymen" representing God, without any justification.

[If Herod wanted Jesus dead, he could have paid some thugs to kill him. Pilate would have been unlikely to have been involved as depicted in the Bible, and, if he were, there is no what he would risked a riot by crucifying three people on the Jewish Passover, in occupied lands.]

Jewish Messiahism was about resistence from occupation [Rome and Greeks before them]. Islam's unification of the Arabs was defence against political and religious encouchments.

Wow, Stephany, you really know how to stick to the topic. And great to see your knowledge of Muslim history only extends to the Ottoman period of decline.

So tell us, Stephany, why did Muslims decline? Obviously the topic at hand is too hard for you to discuss. You might as well share with us your expertise about the Ottomans who were the first Muslim empire to successfully institutionalise the ulama. And where did they get this idea from? Perhaps it was from the same Orthodox Christian world where they got their mosque architecture from.

I realise this is hard for you to believe, Stephany, but civilisations actually borrow from each other. Perhaps in your mind, one can separate and demarcate civilisations and peoples and legal traditions. But in the real world, things don't happen that way.

Anyway, I guess you'll be telling us all about some research project you're involved in to prove that all Imams this side of the milky way believe the earth is flat. Or perhaps some new conspiracy. It's become fashionable in some circles to find conspiracies wherever there are people with even an incidental link to Islam.

"I realise this is hard for you to believe, Stephany, but civilisations actually borrow from each other." - Irfan

Yes. I significant example was when Spain was under Western, Islamic and then Western again. The World's debt to Greeks comes via Islamic culture. Western theocracy gave the West its Dark Ages.

When cultures mix the superior knowledge doesn't always shine through. The Chinese tried unsuccessfully to show Christian missionaries the Earth was not the centre of the solar system [Christians belived in cycles and epicycles and heaven; the supernatural, was beyond the crystal sphere of the Moon.].

On the other hand, the Arabs and the Hindus shared knowledge and appreciated the signifance of "zero".

LOL Irfan, you are a card. You really are ;-)

Oliver,

There is a reason European astronomers clung to the geocentric system for so long. Klutzy, as it was, it worked. With it you could predict the trajectories of the stars across the heavens and of the sun, moon and planets through the constellations.

The problem with early attempts at a heliocentric system was that they did not work. You still had to ascribe complicated motions to the planets so there was no obvious advantage in switching from the well-understood albeit cumbersome geocentric system to the heliocentric one.

The breakthrough came when Johannes Kepler realized that planets followed elliptical, not circular, orbits. Kepler's three laws of planetary motion put the heliocentric theory on a sound mathematical footing. Thereafter it was adopted relatively quickly.

The Hindu invention of zero was one of the great breakthroughs in computation. It was brought to Europe by Arab merchants who also simplified the elaborate Hindu numerals. Hence, to this day, we use Arab numerals.

Incidentally it seems Hindu mathematicians discovered Pythagoras' theorem before Pythagoras.

For the differences between Chinese and European astronomy see:

http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/v6_issue2/liusc/liusc4.htm

By the time Christian missionaries arrived in China the heliocentric theory already had wide acceptance in Europe. The Chinese were still mainly at the flat-earth stage.

I don't know whence rose the myth that at the time of Christopher Columbus people thought the Earth was flat. By then most educated people knew the Earth was roughly spherical. The third century BC scholar, Eratosthenes, had arrived at an estimate of about 40,000 km for its circumference. That was 17 centuries before Columbus.

See: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Eratosthenes.html

I'm afraid the notion that the Muslims rescued Western scholarship by preserving Greek learning is a bit of early political correctness. By the time Greek learning had been "recovered" from the Muslims Western science had already surpassed it.

Now comes a question:

Where is Allah located?

Answer:

About 29 billion km from Earth.

How do I know:

See koran 32:5 and the link below:

http://www.speed-light.info/

LOL

This is slightly off topic but several posters have referred to the comparison of cultures and how cultures learn from each other, and Nobel prizes were mentioned.

My information that there are only 7 Nobels been granted to who were at one stage or another Muslims.

These are,Sadat,Arafat,Corey,Medawar,Mourad and one other. Of course Medawar, Corey and Mourad were christian and shouldnt be counted, but there are others. Does anyone know who is missing? I certainly can't get 10 as one poster has suggested exists.

On the other hand we do know that 14m people of the jewish faith in all its forms, have produced 129 Nobel Prize winners. A staggering dfference given the disparity in population

From that it is pretty clear who is making the better contribution to human kind. They have the added advantage also that they dont strap bombs onto themselves and their children, or fly planes into buildings.

Once again we see some athiests confused over the meaning od the 'separation' of church and state to mean the 'elimination' of the church. Hence we have cooments like ' it seems the first step is remove all 'religious leaders'. Pell (and anyone else) is clearly entitled in a secular democracy to remind members of the club what the club rules are, and also to ask club members to re consider their membership to the club if they advocate playing a different code.

It is interesting that people don't apply the same logic to the Union movement as they do the Catholic church. The unions now represent a small part of the workforce and have a strong political say largely because they prop up the Labour party

After an open slather on Israel and then Islam, the posters are now attacking the Catholic Church and Islam in one glorious swoop. Who is next?

Perhaps the Anglicans?

Quote Irfan Usef,"Far right lunatics like Van Gogh and Hirsi Ali,holding up scions of human rights." Well which is it Irfan?In one breath you say Hirsi Ali shows courage and is to be respected and in the next,she is a far right lunatic.

I think Irfan is finding a conflict of faith and logic.The reality I discovered long ago Irfan,is that religion is no substitute for logical thought.It is our own vanity that makes us cling to religion since we think that we are eternally important.The reality is some what different.We are all expendable and death is the great social leveller.

Your self described, "armchair nazis" await new insights into your new altered psyche.

Sudanese Refugee,
You should contact the Victorian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. It’s part of the Department of Justice in the Victorian Government. They will take your complaint seriously. Go to –

http://www.humanrightscommission.vic.gov.au/Home.asp

stevenlmeyer, you say -

"Pell is not dictating the law. He is not threatening anybody with death. He is simply saying that if certain members of parliament are no longer able to agree with core teachings of his church they may not participate in some of his church's rituals. The affected members of parliament are free to ignore Pell if they choose. Unlike Ayaan Hirsi Ali they need not fear death threats."

I think this distinction is correct, and so obvious that I'm not sure what to make of Irfan's failure to grasp it. Pell went too far, issuing threats, but he was talking to people for whom he has some responsibility, and over whom he has a kind of authority - unenforceable, of course - and I think they, if they are observant Catholics, would agree with this.

Pell is an occasional embarrassment, and this occasion makes me suspect that he's losing his grip a little, but he is no Hilaly. Hilaly loves to hate, and is out to do harm. Whether or not he is a typical Muslim .... time will tell.

Steven, as you present as an atheist, or at least not religious, it is very decent of you to point out the difference.

Pax,

Oliver, your question -

"God cannot forgive sin without Attonement. If so, It is not God." -

remains outstanding. Very hard to answer in a post. Note first, it is only "sin" that is forgiven.

Sin is a problem. Like wrongdoing and disobedience of one's kids: we parents like "the rules" (and ourselves) to be respected, but I suggest it is not our main focus. We are mainly interested to love, and in our kids' welfare and happiness. On the other hand, "welfare and happiness" probably include their learning a sense of responsibility.

I think God is called Father partly because He is in a similar fix. He seeks ways of being lenient without loss of a sense of responsibility. And He naturally would prefer to be loved and respected in return, rather than not (as happens often enough).

Reflex forgiveness would not teach responsibility, and would end up being permission rather than forgiveness. If wrongs were "forgiven" automatically, the sense of wrong, and then of right, would become meaningless.

Atonement is a means of ensuring that we escape with our lives - with our eternal prospects in excellent shape - but without us being able to pretend that it's a free lunch. So, while "off the hook", we are still motivated to live responsibly and ethically.

My own reaction, as a Christian, to this "arrangement" is very humble gratitude and a sense of relief. And, whether or not God the Father put the hard word on the Son, I'm very glad for my sake (but sad for His) that the Son was willing to stand in for me. As you are aware, the arrangement is on offer generally, and remains open for as long as you are capable of responding to it.

Pax,

Stephany,

In the Islamic faith god is not bound by location or time.
Have a read of Dr Maurice Bucaille book of Quran and science:
http://www.islam101.com/science/bucaille.html

Peace,

Both Pell and Halali have said sexist, racist and homophobic statements.

I am no defender of Pell.

Comparing Pell to Halali is just stupid. Halali does not have the same respect or position in the Islamic world as Pell does over the Catholic world.

Besides I have no sympathy for Halali after insulting our ancestors. I have a long memory. To say that Australians are just from convicts, therefore have less rights to our land than Islamic people is an insult to Australia in general.

For that insult, I think he deserved be deported. If he hates this country so much, he should leave.

My convict ancestor was a 12 year old boy who was wrongly accused of a crime which doesn't even exist any more. His harsh sentence was largely due to religious prejudice towards Quakers.

How can you judge our ancestors when most of their crimes we don't even recognise any more and they were just trumped up sentences.

Pell never went that far. He has never made an insulting remark towards Australian history.

Hilali was rightly forced to resign as he was so outrageously anti-Australian in his statements by just insulting the most vulnerable now, and in history.

Pell? Time for his medication. You know the Pope will never sack him, be real.

Sudanese Refugee.. go back to that bank, find the NAME of the person, and I'll RING her myself!

Quite a fertile discussion thread this one. Even see the Battle of Lepanto mentioned :) (everyone should google that)

Stephany.. great 2 c some creativity in posts:)

Sticky is in good form still I c

F.H. is in denial..whats new :)

Just one point. I'm not aware of Hilali actually 'telling' politicians how to vote.. did I miss it ?

I don't know why we bother to listen to Rabbis, Cardinals and Muftis on issues of Stem Cells and other complicated scientific pursuits. You may as well ask your local tax accountant, hair dresser or plumber for all its worth.

In fact I don't know why we defer any moral issue to any monotheistic theologian. Their source material is hopelessly flawed and they are manically parochial towards their own narrow creed.

There is something suspect about our Sudanese Refugee.For someone who is intellectually incapacitated and uses English as a second language the mistkes in spelling and sentence structure seem deliberately contrived.

People should not use forums like these if they have an axe to grind with business or individuals,since unsubstanciated claims could eventually seem forums like these be sued into oblivion and we will lose and avenue of free speech.

Hooray! Muslims have finally gotten rid of Hilali! I take it all back Irfan...just kidding.

Here is a letter I sent to the cowardly nihilistic media...

"It is utterly disgusting that the Islamic community’s leaders actually voted the racist, homophobic, misogynist that is, was, their leader, Sheik Taj Dene el-Hilali, back in for another term!

It’s only that he himself decided to step down that he isn’t still Mufti, although the damage is well and truly done.

If most Australians didn’t consider the Muslim community to be largely made up of intolerant bigots already, their new choice for Mufti - Melbourne Sheik Fehmi Naji el-Imam; is of such good character that in an interview with journalist Matt Price he refused to condemn Osama Bin Laden.

His reason, in the typical shady double-talk style we’ve come to expect from Islamic leaders – which says a lot in itself about their ethics, was that “I don't want to make any statement about Bin Laden because I don't know him”.

My question to the Islamic community is, are there any moderates? And to our government I say; if this is the calibre of those deemed worthy to represent Muslims, what are you going to do about such an open, obvious, rejection of the principles of tolerance Australians hold dear?"

...of course they won't put it in. The article I'm referring to was in the Australian on the 24/08/05, and yes, I keep such information in folders - to be used as evidence against multiculturalism in my PHD...

Good day all

'My question to the Islamic community is, are there any moderates?

Benjamin, the answer to your question is yes. The American experience of Islam indicates that there is cause for some optimism in Australia. When Muslims become Westernised they are significantly different to the 'pure strain' that occur in societies where Islam predominates. This aweful non-hybrid 'pure-strain' is currently manifesting itself in Malaysia and should be opposed by Australian society should it try and replicate itself here.

Having said all that, I now totally recommend this weeks 'Religion Report' on the ABC with Steve Crittenden. Listening to it is a half hour well spent;

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/default.htm

Here is the ABC's summation of the podcast;

'Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott says he never wanted to be 'Captain Catholic' and that his faith does not enter into his policy decisions as Health Minister. In Malaysia, Lina Joy loses a landmark case to have her conversion to Christianity recognised by the courts. And a major survey of American Muslims finds that they are middle class, assimilated and happy.'

It's all highly relevant to Irfan's essay and this thread.

A poem, by my Nanna
(& yr not sposed 2 rip it off)

*Annette Hazalea Ainsworth SCHOFIELD*
aged nearly a ton:

"Let Australia stand for liberty
Freedom, hope and unity
Destined now to be a nation
With a higher valuation
Of what life on earth should be
Not in social degradation of the weary and the weak
But with pledge in honour keeping
Giving to each human being
Human pride and dignity
Let us then a new world hasten
Work for peace to right each wrong
Treat all others as we would brothers
Heed not either creed or color
Sing our own dear country’s song
For the god of all creation
Waits the unity of nations in to one great family
Let Australia then the guide be
Beacon for the world to see
Australia!"

Adam's comment:
" ... *Browny* 4 Prez! Preference the *Greens!* ... "

The new mufti,and let us pray that he has a brain unlike the last one, stated that he hopes Australians would give muslims a fair go. We have been giving muslims a far fairer go than they have given us and no one can deny that.
If muslims stop demanding, threatening,being offensive and insulting[aka Hilali] they would feel far more welcome and far more 'at home'.
But while they see themselves as a separate tribe from the rest of us, that is how they will be treated.It is time they gave their host country something back in return for all they have received.
Australian laws are for ALL Australians and any who do not agree with them should not be here.
Australian laws do not vary for any religion.

Benjamin

"I keep such information in folders - to be used as evidence against multiculturalism in my PhD".

I certainly hope that you have an open mind and have not decided to condemn multiculturalism before you have even researched it.

Stephany,

Thanks. I had look at those interesting URLs.

The cosmological issue in Galileo's time was one of instrumentalism and hypothetical constructs. In the West, discoveries made by astronomers could not be held to be fact if in conflict with natural realm / supernatural realm doctrine of the Vatican. This came out Galileo's trial. The philosophical implications are discussed in Karl Popper's, "Conjectures and Refutations".

My source for the Chinese not being caught-uo with the epi-cycles thing is Joseph Needham's account of Matteo Ricci, wherein, Ricci notes, "foolish ideas are entertained by the Chinese, among which they do not believe in the solid crystaline spheres" [Needham 1981]. Needham adds -though- that Europe soon "gave up the idea themselves". Sinologists, like Needham, note the Chinese of the period were more into arthemetic an geometry. Chinese society has long ofbeing wary of theory. Usually, this was not good, but, by a strange twist of fate or deliberate choice, steered the Chinese away from Eudoxus and Ptolemy.

What you say about "zero" is true. Positional notation and zero together are very powerful indeed [e.g., 10,203].

The Great Divergence [c.1760] was when the West learned how to learn by applying theory to practice. The Greek foundation is Attic Greek, the Court Greek of Alexander. This educated Greek is more apt at handling the esoteric than Kione Greek used by Romans and today's theological colleges. In this way, Churches are feigning scholarship when these bodies use vulgar Latin and Koine Greek in discourse on say Mind and Body or Aristotle.

[Because the mass of the Earth is not a vacuum the speed of light is different depending on what ultra-fast particle is passing through the planet. The speed of light for a particle with mass will be less than for an massless exotic particle.]

goodthief,

Thank you for your reply and perspect on things.

I find terms like Father, Son and Lord, patrimonial and in context with the Hebrew tribalism of the period. Also, the theocrasia is not well distinguished from other [false] religions of the period and region.

How could a New Guinea Highlander living two thousand years ago be aware of the Atonement? Is her/she let of the hook, but one from the Tribe of Israel, not?

Why do these anti Muslim diatribes always end up in counting Nobel prizes? What is it that you guys have with Nobel prizes?

So the Jews have the most, considering their small numbers.The Christian nations made sure to keep the numbers of Jews down. Is that what made them so clever? Only the cleverest survived. Should we perhaps ask the Melbourne Jewish Lobby to govern us? Or are the Sydney Jews even smarter?

By the sounds of it Islam should just bypass Christianity and go straight to those of Jewish faith for discourse on spirituality, religion and obtaining Nobel prizes.

Did the Catholics get many Nobel prizes? Or did the Lutherans get more? Perhaps Pell should keep quiet because the Catholics didn't do too well in the Nobel prize stakes?

But then, the Catholic Church is the Christian church that is the oldest with the richest cache of philosphers compared to other Christian churches. So the Catholic Church wins in the Christian stakes. It is after all the one true church.

Besides, anybody who has spent a single sermon in a dour Protestant Church or a ridiculous American show happy clappers performance would run straight back to the beautiful Catholic services full of reverence.

Irfan, keep on stirring and pushing those buttons. It's funny to watch so many leap as if stung. Of course you make a valid point.

Fellow Human, please keep on with your posting. I admire your courtesy.

Irfan, just reread your original post up there. Seems to be mischief making- Don't know how you missed the bucketing Pell got in Sydney. In parliament and virtually all he media he was condemned and often ridiculed.
You actually produced one piece of evidence only to construct your rabble-rousing argument, the Oz editorial. Then you presume that others' silence equates with agreement.
Not one of your better efforts mate.
I'm curious about your assertion that in Islam church and state are separate. Can you tell us then why in nations from The Philippines to Africa, Moslems seem to think differently. There are separatist movements, revolutionary movements and church leaders throughout the Islamic world who seem to have it all wrong, and who state that they want Islamic states, usually with Sharia law.
Please enlighten me.

I find Cardinal Pell's remarks more frightening than those of Sheik Halali in that he is seeking to influence the decisions of our elected government by threat to their personal lives. In my view this amounts to blackmail. I would like to assume that any elected member of parliament is able to make decisions in the best interest of their electorate which will of course include many with differing religious views than themselves. Congratulations to those MP's who stood up to Cardinal Pell. I suspect a lot of people will be taking far more care in choosing who to vote for based on religious affiliations from now on. I know will be.

Yvonne
Actually it was Fellow Human who first mentioned Nobel Prizes in this discussion.
I suppose Nobel Prize winning is not necessarily a sign of intelligence, but it could be a sign that present-day Muslim fatalism, religious and social attitudes are harmful to the development of science.
After all, one would expect that 1.3 billion Muslims in the world (as they so tirelessly keep reminding us) being something over 20% of the world's population, would be somewhat better represented in the ranks of Nobel Prize winners.
I don't think FH's statement is correct, as you can easily check for yourself.

As an atheist I find it difficult to care much about what Pell says or doesn't say. However, rightly or wrongly, he is expressing the position of his church, which he has every right to do as its representative. How is that blackmail? No one is putting a gun to their head, after all. As someone who was raised Catholic, I find it difficult to see where he has erred in terms of church doctrine. Of course, all religions are struggling to keep up with the pace of scientific research so lines are blurred.

The question of course, for Catholic MPs (and other Catholics for that matter) is: if I don't believe what my leadership believes, if I think divorce should be permissible, that sex outside marriage is not a mortal sin, that homosexuals have a right to express themselves sexually and not feel guilty about it and that we should feel free to use embryos for research - then why am I a member of Pell's club and why do I label myself Catholic? When your views on morality start to bear little resemblance to those of the church, surely it is time to start assessing your affiliations.

sajo, "I would like to assume that any elected member of parliament is able to make decisions in the best interest of their electorate which will of course include many with differing religious views than themselves." - any who cannot do so should stand aside due to the conflict of interest involved.

The recent comments by bishops in mexico followed by an endorsement from the current pope should be of concern to all democracies with catholics in positions of power.

The catholic church has issued a clear and direct threat against the wellbeing of catholic politicians who do not toe the church line on what they call life issues (abortion). Whist the threat is imaginary one would have to assume that many catholics would see it as something much more serious.

Does Hillali (or his overseas superior) claim to represent Allah on earth? Do muslims regard the words of a mufti as being those of the prophet? Do muslims consider their salvation forfeit if they choose to act according to their conscience rather than by the dictates of the Hillali's of the world?

My guess is that catholics who take their faith seriously would face some very deep personal conflicts in choosing to publicly act against the expressed dictates of the pope and his subordinates.

R0bert

Oliver, you are concerned about the New Guinea Highlander and his/her access to the benefits of Atonement.

Notice I originally said the arrangement is on offer for as long as one is capable of responding. Paul (somewhere in his letters) refers to the significance of conscience for those who are situated like your Highlander. I believe that we are all given an opportunity to decide – for or against Christ. At some point. It may not even be while alive.

I don’t think the world can be counted on to provide this opportunity for everyone naturally, and I don’t think the Christian Church can be counted on to engineer it. Therefore, I don’t think God is really counting on these circumstances.

Rather, I believe God finds His own way to give everyone the choice - an informed choice. And we are then given what we choose. We can choose Christ (and subscribe to the Atonement) or not. Our choice will be respected (which sounds nice, but is actually quite hazardous).

Incidentally, I also believe Jesus came to show us how to live, not just to “Atone”.

I think I understand some of your reservations about the Father/Son nomenclature. As I’m sure you’re aware, we are limited to metaphor when talking about God. Besides, we Christians go with the best clues we have, and we believe Jesus referred to “the Father” and recommended that we do likewise. Comparing this language with that of the other big monotheisms, I'd say this is what God looks like up close, and the Christians say God has come close enough to be seen in this way. (I know you're not buying. I didn't miss "false" in your post. My aim here is to elucidate, not prevail.)

Pax,

Well the new Mufti of Aust has stated that Skeik Hilali has been taken out of context and misunderstood.Which part of uncovered meat that deserved to be raped by Islamic men did we not understand?

Even Irfan tries to defend Sheik Hilali by trying to give him level pegging with George Pell.Islam is just a total farce.

Yvonne,

Thanks for your comment. I am staying and contributing :)

Froggie,
"Actually it was Fellow Human who first mentioned Nobel Prizes in this discussion"
I am afraid this is not correct, I commented responding to Stephany's comment few posts above my comment (as you can verify).
Apart from my personal opinions, happy to be corrected if any of my comments were inaccurate.

Peace,

We seem to have 3 threads on the one event going?
I find no difference in Pell than the mad Mufti on this issue.

Hooray! Australia has a new Mufti!

While Irfan and all supposedly Hillali bashers put their empty Champagne bottles out, let’s not become complacent about the new “Moderate Imam” (An oxymoron by excellence)

Well at least he speaks English, prefers grey dresses to colour, and has more white hair. He is been longer in the country. And he admits that he loves Australia and will do his best to render it Islamic.

So who/what is a moderate Muslim?

My answer is:
1. A person who doesn’t care about Political Islam – The majority of Muslims I suspect – They follow the herd and enjoy secular freedoms.

OR,

2. Someone who knows how to hide their true motives. The poker faces of Islam.
That minority group causes all the trouble by their silence or pathetic lies. They know how to play the media and the gullible.

My heart goes to the first group, the true victims of Islam.

But it is the minority that is steering the herds. Fortunately for us, the Islamic ship has too many Captains, for Islam to ever reach its port.

[For yous who still don’t know, Islam is about “World Domination.”]

Since the fall of their last Ottoman Empire (1924), Islam has been on the receiving end:
1. The culmination of imperialistic controls,
2. The return of Jews to their native land Israel,
3. The subsequent lost wars 1948, 1967
4. The Palestinians dilemma
5. The Iranian Khomeini “Shia” revolution

The last point deserves more attention. Notice that is was a Shia revolution and not Sunni. Historically quiet and notoriously leadership passive people – blood thirsty nevertheless by Islamic virtue – the Shia revolution was a departure from the norm: leaving the the majority Sunni Islam – wether they agree on their brand of Islam or not – sooo envious but very unstable.

So if these Shia could do it – have their Islamic State and now even play with the atom – it is time for 90% Sunni Muslims to show off too.

9/11 was our wake up call… Iraq must be the decider.

Coach,

"My heart goes to the first group"

Great to know you have a 'heart' with all your Islam and muslims bashing. You are funny :)

Islam losing out?
Yes ...
That wld b fat ozzie p!gs full of p!ss, mushrooms & "Obat Gila"
taking advantage of often desperate & impoverished young Islamic girls with dependants.

*Banyuwangi*
In the case of "yang keras,"
well ...
That could b a "StrawBerry Jam" penalty poppets.

P.S.
& the CROWD ROARS!

Go 4 *GloryBushTurkey*

The "G Crime" & other "Crimes Against Humanity"

OBVIATE

sovereignty claims & or other occupation rights.
BOOHWAHWAHAHAHA!

...Adam...

Fellow Human

Please accept my apologies for the error about the "Nobel Prize". I have learnt at least one thing from it- only put one word at a time into the "word-finder"!!

However, I still think the rest of my comments can stand as they are.

Could you please list the Muslim Nobel Prize Winners you mentioned from the web site? I couldn't find them- I suppose they must have western names.

Hey Froggie,

No problems its bit confusing to search the site. Below is a list of Nobel prizes won by Muslims since 1978:

1. Ahmed Zweil 1999 (Chemistry - Egypt)
2. Naguib Mahfouz 1988 (Literature- Egypt)
3. Mohammes Unus 2006 (Peace - Bangladesh)
4. Mohammed El Baradei 2005 (Peace - Egypt)
5. Shirin Abbadi 2003 (Peace - Iran)
6. Anwar Sadat 1978 (Peace – Egypt)
7. Yasser Arafat 1994 (Peace - Palestine)
8. Orhan Pamuk 2006 (Literature - Turkey)
9. Ferid Murad 1998 (Medicine - Albania)
10. Abdus Salam 1979 (Physics - Pakistan)
11. Amartya Sen 1998 (Economics- Bangladesh)

5 in peace, 2 in literature, 1 in chemistry, 1 in physics, 1 in Medicine and 1 in Economics. Dr Ferid Murad is usually double counted as he is both an Albanian Muslim and was born in the US.

stickman, one doesn't have to drop his or her affiliation with the Church because ones personal viewpoint takes on the socially acceptable at a faster rate than the Institution of the Church. The Institution of the Church isn't there to keep up with society but, rather set a start line for societal thinking and behavior. Hopefully one goes to Church to get a different perspective on life and living, not to have the present social whim re-enforced as an absolute.
The Church is there to call her parishioners back from the amoral abyss. Not to stop the world going around.

Adam... J Brereton..?

what the heck drugs are you on mate ?

dropping incoherrant babblings, with a smattering of bahasa Malaysia in there which no one but yourself (presumably) and myself can understand...

Your post made zero sense... again..I feel like a little portion of my life has been made useless by reading it.. grrrrr...

obat gila ? you must have been drinking it urself, because it did make you 'gila'...

Go get some quick therapy and try again :)

Thanks Boaz for speaking out about that. That post was from another dimension! At first I thought my age precluded me from 'understanding' it. So I called my Uni son who is very up to date with 'chat speak' and the like to 'translate'. He laughed and said ROFL, that's weird!

Understanding the Bahasa didn't make it any clearer.

Just to call the bluff of the poker player:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/all/

One also needs to factor in the info, that a large number of the non-Western winners of science awards ( which in my opinion should be ranked well above such softies as ‘peace awards’) are/were actually tenured at Western institutions .

Horus,

These are verifiable facts about Muslims who won the Nobel prize. We are not here to second guess 'merits'or 'soft'prizes.
You appear to have a problem or a grudge against Islam and muslims but you should not let that cloud facts and reason.

Peace,

Fellow_Human,
You’re right I would probably have a problem with anyone identifying themselves first & foremost as a Muslim, though ( & I guess in keeping with the spirit of Nobel) I’d have absolutely no problem with some identity as a fellow-human.

Plus, you appeared to be raising on a weak hand in hopes that all other players would fold
Nawwartina!

I agree with one of Belly's comments. Pell is exactly the same as the ex Mufti. Just selfish men trying to bully people through their beliefs.

As to Muslims in Australia, there are many issues really. One of course is the freedom to pursue your own beliefs. That's excellent if it's practiced by anyone. As we all know it is not.

Australia is a Christian based country. Regardless of Irfan and others claiming the early settlers were actually hordes of Muslims etc most of us do know the facts. Muslims were rare in this country until recent years.

Today there are an increasing number of Muslims and many find more in Islam than Christian faiths. Their choice. I select neither. My "God" lives in me, nowhere else.

But when you get down to it there is one fact that must be highlighted.

That is that these two religions do not live together. You do recall they havbe been fighting for over 2000 years don't you? Over Jerusalem. Over a Jew named Jesus. Fighting over religion. A good look for peace, love and understanding. Not. That's all it is, there's no intent to spread peace and goodwill even though most followers of both do want that.

It's the minority that are extreme and as usual they run the show as the rest of us can't be bothered to oppose what they say and do.

Irfan appears to be one of the worst exponents of this and the fact that OLP prints his rants tells me that OLP too is a guilty party simply through trying to chase visitors to come here. OLP don't care that they are promoting violence and more. They just want visitors.

Horus,

Thanks for your response.
"you appeared to be raising on a weak hand in hopes that all other players would fold Nawwartina!"

If you followed my threads you will see above statement is far from true. I am contributing mainly in response to people who claim to follow your faith (Boaz, others)and all they are obssessed with it to mock or inspire fear and hate. You of all people should know but you chose to join the lynch mob with your silence.

I am an Australian muslim and proud to be so. I don't turn my back on my history or heritage. Like every culture I believe Arabic and / or Islamic cultures had its good and bad moments but I am not going to 'roll on the floor laughing' instead of contributing with educational facts and figures on whats positive. I am not here to judge you or others, you have the right the right to turn your back on your heritage but don't judge me and don't resent me for standing by my views and opinions.

Peace,

"If you followed my threads you will see above statement is far from true. I am contributing mainly in response to people who claim to follow your faith (Boaz, others)and all they are obssessed with it to mock or inspire fear and hate." - Fellow-Human

I have noticed this condition from BOAZ too. Also, I have asked him of several thread some very direct questions on theology and he just ignores these questions, content to pursuea quest rather than a fourm debate/interchange.

Fear and hate have long be the tools of Christianity especially between to fourth to eighteen centuries. There really was a lag from the Enlightenment. Possibly from the Dawkin to Dawkins there has been a counter movement against science by powerful religionists, trying to re-establish church hieracharies and the monopology over knowledge or should I say ignorance or counter-knowledge.

Irfan,
As an Australian not living in Australia, and as somebody who more or less liked all your OLO articles (until this one), could you please give me a link and exact quote of what you call “Dr Pell’s outburst”?

I found on the web all sorts of quotes and comments concerning Cardinal Pell and the embryonic stem cell research/legislation, but I could not identify that part of his public announcements a decent Muslim, that I hold you to be, could call an outburst.

Hey Oliver.. there is a story about this pastor.. after the sermon, he was standing outside, and the worshippers were coming out single file, and one of them criticized him.
Some years later, when the subject of criticism came up, he realized that he remembered that person, but forgot all the others:).. now.. I'm in anguish because you criticized me:).. what questions mate?

If I ignored you I certainly apologise as it was not deliberate. Your posts tend to be rather voluminous and closely spaced so I might have missed my name.

HERE I AM.. ask away.

YVONNE.. glad we agree on something :)
check this out mate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u0EanCr2UA&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD190HVYHUI&mode=related&search=
(You'll love Choudery's remarks about women)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfIUKmd20tc&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9otrfo1SZg&mode=related&search=
Take careful note of what the palestinian imam says about 'ruling the world'.
This is the closest thing to National Socialism rebranded I can see in the world today.

HAMAS/fatah. The events unfolding before our very eyes this day..HAMAS seeking full control of Gaza.... captured Fatah security compound. At the root of HAMAS is their charter.
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html
scroll to Part III, Article 11 have a read.

FH and IRF are rather irrelevant, tame... their mob will be running from the Hamas types who come to them by night with threats.
Slowly, the character of the Muslim community will morph...into......

B-D,

Thanks for your response. Just one for starters, it is midnight here and its been a long day. Incidently, more a case of "perceived" absence.

Were one to put aside Jesus' alleged end-game. Look at his like as a human. He was a pacificist, an excellent speaker onhiscause and died a martyr. If you were to read his story as a biography, why would he not be seen as a self-actualised preacher-healer and somehow caught up in politics and executed [I would dispute the Passover, but that is another story]. Many men and women have stood out from the crowd and paid the ultimat price. Divinity aside, what was extra-extra special about the historical Jesus? His human life?

Cheers,

O.

Fellow-Human,
1) None of my comments were intended as personal attack & it pains me that they have upset you. It is unfortunate that someone like yourself who I genuinely see a moderate & a good guy is all too often put in a position where they are portrayed as the defender of all that is Islam(ic).

The discussions on OLO are robust and to some, perhaps sometimes irreverent.But any creed which purports to lead/inspire humanity , must be able to answer such criticisms & cope with such satire.

2) Re the heritage question.
{& here I tread wary I may exacerbate the damage I tried to repair, above!}
There is a stream of thought that goes :
Indigenous Egyptian culture perished a millennium ago (& along with it Egypt’s greatness).The culture that exists today is less Egyptian than an imported, imposed culture with foreign roots.
The people who follow this line,also have great pride in their culture & their history.

Fellow_Human,

"I am an Australian muslim and proud to be so.”

I find this statement provocative – it is loaded with intent, you are creating a new value and then impose that value on the rest of us, with conceit.

First: is there such a thing as Australian-Muslim? Australian Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, Aborigine, Arab, or Scott …?

I thought we were ALL Australians, AS LONG AS we respect our laws, and abide to our common Australian values.

How you can consider yourself an Australian – AND proudly be a Muslim too? I am not talking about your right of worship but Politically, Legally, and Socially.

Having an Australian passport, speaking the lingo, and voting – don’t make you Australian – WHEN you secretely and openely harbour allegiance to ANTI-Australian values.

Why do you think the Australian government was trying to review our common values lately?

Answer: the surge of a new set of values (ISLAM) that is incompatible with the common “wealth “ of values.

Read the charter of any Islamic group or school, and you must agree that there is no place for Islam in our liberal democratic society.

So you being an Australian and a Muslim pose a problem for you and/or for Australia.

If you say you have no problem with being both – you are

1. lying to us
2. making a mockery of our Australian values and democratic laws
3. arrogantly ignoring how other people feel or think
4. believing that Islam must overcome and win anyway (Jihad)
5. hoping that Australia will continue to accommodate you and your customary laws
6. hoping that Australia will eventually see the light and become Islamic

Because there is no other way for Islam to survive in Australia unless it can have its own “State” – something that wont happen – (unless you model Aborigines' self-apartheid).

You must be thinking that - for why would you be so persistent in defending your ideologies when you must know that they won’t work in Australia? they never worked anywhere else.

Name one country where Islam is peaceful.

Horus,

No offence is taken you are actually one of few I enjoy interacting with on this forum because you are rational and reasonable.

" But any creed which purports to lead/inspire humanity , must be able to answer such criticisms"
Fully agree, I used to and still do criticise a lot of things about how we do things. Sometimes I get frustrated with the abusive or irrational tones of criticism but I cope with it and move into 'reason land' fairly quickly.

2. Re culture:

I think you just started a debate in its own rights here:-)
My view on culture is this: its a living thing, always evolving through knowledge transfer of sets of habits, values and life styles. Its influenced by social and economical standards and habits.

Nothing really 'perishes' as long as we have the knowledge of what it is and how it fit. The challenge of innovation and adoption have no expiry or use-by-date. As long as we keep the learnings we can innovate even at an individual or immediate communities levels.

Here is an example: in the field of medecine, an Egyptian doctor researched why the male pharaohs used copper bracelets around their left wrists and he decided to 'productise' as a male health and blood pressure product. Few years later its in all shops and pharmacies.
Please forgive the modesty of the example, but it illustrates that anyone can bring any part from any culture (let alone make money out of it). These cultural 'components' like toilets (Egyptian invention) is still living and used till today. People don't call it 'egyptian toilet' but never the less, its used.
But then again you may call me optimistic or too positive.
Thats my thoughts anyway.

Peace,

Coach

I am an Australian humanist and proud to be so.

I don’t find this statement provocative. It is not loaded with intent to create a new value and impose that value on the rest of Australia.

Among my friends are Australian-Muslims, Australian-Christian, Australian-Buddhists, Australian-Atheists, Australian-Aboriginals, Australian-Greeks etc (sometimes they prefer the tags around the other way, but what matter?).

I respect Australian laws. And so do they.

When you say “Having an Australian passport, speaking the lingo, and voting – don’t make you Australian – WHEN you secretely [sic] and openely [sic] harbour allegiance to ANTI-Australian values”, you beg the question not only that their values are anti-Australian, but also that pro-Australian values are universally known and agreed.

You ask: “Why do you think the Australian government was trying to review our common values lately?” Answer: they were (a) distracting attention away from currently unpopular policies; and (b) playing on people’s gullibility that abstract words like ‘Australian values’, ‘choice’, ‘decency’ and ‘unAustralian’ have simple agreed meanings that everyone shares; and (c) whistling up the dogs of fear and prejudice.

If you read David Marr’s book, ‘His Master’s Voice: the Corruption of Public Debate Under Howard’ (Quarterly Essay 2007), you could easily conclude that the Australian Government doesn’t believe in Australian values.

I have done as you suggest: read the charter of an Islamic group or school, and I must say that there is plenty of room for Islam and humanism in our liberal democratic society.

I have no problem with being both Australian and something else and I am NOT:

1. lying to you
2. making a mockery of our Australian values and democratic laws
3. arrogantly ignoring how other people feel or think
4. believing that Islam must overcome and win anyway (Jihad)
5. pessimistic that Australia will continue to accommodate me and my customary laws
6. hoping that Australia will eventually see the light and become Islamic or any other sort of religion, especially one as bigoted and repressive as fundamentalist Christianity.

You demand: “Name one country where Islam is peaceful.” Answer: Australia.

Careful, FrankGol, careful.

>>You demand: “Name one country where Islam is peaceful.” Answer: Australia.<<

You should be aware that there are some fairly significant rabble-rousers on this thread, who would dearly like this not to be true, and will not cease their striving until their wish is fulfilled.

Strangely, the vast majority of them are evangelical Christians, who can't wait to tell you how tolerant and peaceful is their own religion.

White Warlock (on face value)

You SAY the difference between you and those nasty people is you believe in 'liberal values'. Funny though, I don't get any sense in your writing that you are a liberal - neither in what you say nor the tone in which you say it. Liberals don't advocate bombing people in order that they change their religion.

Giving people liberty by bombing them and installing 'our way of life' seems hardly to be working in Iraq. Would you prefer to be living in 'liberated' Iraq or Vietnam which has, as you say, 'missed out on these benefits'?

By the way, did you mean to sign off twice? Which name do you prefer? (Or were you shouting at me in order to get some of the liberal sentiment off our chest?)

Coach,

I’m Dutch Australian and proud of it.

It is not loaded with intent to create new values.

I have family and friends who are Australian Buddhists, Australian agnostics, Australian Catholics, Australian Muslims, Australian Lutherans, Chinese Australians, Malaysian Australians, Australian women, Australian men, even Australian feminists.

We all respect Australian laws.

I have an Australian passport, speak the lingo, vote and love a good debate on OLO. I swore my allegiance to this nation and her laws: I am Australian.

I’m doubtful that the government knows what ‘Australian values’ are. There are many multi generational Australians who do not know what Australian values are either.

As to ‘arrogantly ignoring how people feel or think’; isn’t that what you are doing?

You demand: ‘name one country where Islam is peaceful’. As Frank said: Australia

For those still interested in the biological and/or ethical questions raised by Cardinal Pell’s public statements:

http://www.biotechnews.com.au/index.php/id;401382468;fp;4194304;fpid;1

or

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/science/07cell.html?ex=1182052800&en=e58547ac3be0bc33&ei=5070.

I empathize with Fellow Human. I myself am a male medium height Australian Jewish agnostic of Eastern European ancestry. The majority of Australians are Christian and the largest number are of English background. But this group often arrogantly asserts itself as the true Australian never mind the indigenous people.

We need a change in attitudes to accept that no group has a superior right to be here, or a superior right to its own background, except perhaps for the Aborigines and the Torres Straight Islanders. That to me is what multiculturalism is about.

Incidentally both my grandmothers were born in England and came here with their parents. Yet there are some who consider me slightly less of an Australian. This view is applied even to my brother-in-law who is descended from a (Jewish) convict.

Please back off and accept diversity in our land.

Thanks for the links George. I will have a read.

I think the problem for some is the intervention of the Church rather than the opnions of a man. Moreover, I think there has been a counter-revolution by religionism since the nineteenth century, wherein the Church is tring to keep knowledge from the masses and interpret morals on their behalf.

Given there philosophies, I am surprised Kuhn and Popper didn't stand in clear opposition to the Church consistent with the logic of heir posits. Even H.G. Wells when he told history-as-history was apologetic. Some might site Dawkins as a successful secularist, but really wish he would use specialist topic editors when outside his field. He bright but his not a Gell-Mann.

Besides, as I note elswhere, Jesus states that the Eucharist is is in memory of Him, not adherence to a Church creed. In fact, to honour the human, I see no reason why an anthiest could not eat bread in memory of that one first century Messiah.

First century Messiahishs were a defense against the Romans. Isalm was an Arab unifying agent against Christianity and Persia

Oliver, what do you mean by intervention? Am I intervening in this forum if I write a post saying what I find right and what wrong? Yes, I would be intervening if I had the power to force my opinion on others or to prevent them from presenting their own opinion.

Australia, as a democratic country, has to put up with all sorts of lobbies: nuclear and anti-nuclear, environmentalist, pro-tobacco, pro-choice and pro-life, anti-war and pro-American etc. And that is good so. Why should the Catholic Church be deprived of having their own lobby? Cardinal Pell has no power to force others to accept his moral criteria or prevent others from lobbying for their understanding of what is feasible and ethical.

I do not know why Pell had to say what he said - it was just a repetition of a rather well known position of the Catholic Church on an issue that is changing from day to day due to scientific progress - but even less do I understand why his speaking up should be called an “outburst”. Is it really true that Catholic MP-s in Australia have no free and informed conscience (Aquinas) of their own, that they can only either (sheepishly) accept or (loudly) reject ecclesiastical guidelines without taking into account other factors influencing the complicated situation and their position in it? And if they are like that, how come they were elected?

Coach,

You said you find my statement "I am an Australian muslim and proud to be so” to be provocative! thats interesting.

Australian is the land we all call home and live together and here is a short storÿ:

my next door neighbours are Irish, Greeks, 2 chinese families, a polish family and a russian couple. we are all australians, we look after each other, we work hard, we get together on wekends, our children play together. The ony 'new value'is I serve non alcolohic beer when we watch the football on weekends. They are OK with this new value and the 'other new value'of my wife serving lamb instead of ham.

I know you are an Arab Christian, you should have left your political baggage at the customs instead of bringing it in with you.
Its your choice but don't feed your hate to your kids, its un-australian.

Is lamb? Is good!!

George,

Pell has the write to express his personal opinion in a letter to his representive.

I don't wish to profiled by providing too much info. on myself. That said, fifteen years ago, I was the national manager of a functional division of major bank and even advised Bernie Fraser. I was not allowed [actually, I could have ignored the Board and been fired] to make comments on the Economy, because I set interest rates. I would watch Max Walsh try and guess me. In some jobs, one can't just say what one thinks. Same goes for Pell and he can move more than a stock market.

Oliver,
“Pell has the write to express his personal opinion in a letter to his representive.”
Is this all there is to freedom of speech, to write letters to one’s representatives? I know there are countries where you are entitled to your personal opinion as long as it either does not contradict the official line, or you keep it to yourself; you see, I grew up in a Stalinist country.

However, I thought that in Australia bishops (or anybody else for that matter) had not only the right but often also the obligation to speak on matters of public interest, the same as professional economists, political analysts, scientists, medical practitioners, even self-appointed moralists, etc. It is quite a different matter, whether what they say achieved what they intended to achieve, and how many MP-s accepted or ignored their advice.

“In some jobs, one can't just say what one thinks.“
I do not understand the relevance of your example, since Pell, at least to our knowledge, was not reprimanded by his “employer” nor criticised publicly by his colleagues. It is not for us to decide whether he harmed the Catholic Church (I personally think he did but who am I to pontificate on these matters).

Fellow_Human,

Too much halal beer mate... what made you think that I was an Arab or a Christian before coming to Australia?

>>I know you are an Arab Christian, you should have left your political baggage at the customs instead of bringing it in with you.<<

I was neither. Plus I had no political views about Islam before 9/11.

It is when I hold my grand children in my arms that I cry and worry about their future facing an increasingly violent world created by a hateful religion, that knows not love...

The source of that terror is a political system that is hiding behind the thin vales of a religion: Islam.

Your non-muslim neighboors have no intention to ISLAMISE Australia and impose a weird set of Islamic values. (Don't deny it, I hear and watch Islamic sermons and Islamic meetings...)

I see thousnads of angry looking males still flocking to hear the likes of Hillali - filling their brains with ANTI-AUSTRALIAN values... in the name of Allah.

And the likes of you do nothing about it - you must teach the same crap at home.

If not, you would have been more active about stopping the divide and the open Da'wa by your anti-western preachers, and local political leaders.

You follow a violent religion that refuses to change. Look at any country where a Mosque exists - and you will catalogue the violence.

This is 2007 - when is Islam going to change?

The Qur'an and Sunna say "NEVER".

What about you?

You must be very happy to see the divide created by your religion since you always defend its teachings.

Still waiting for your imput on previous posts BTW...

Unless you agree fully with my points.

"I am an Australian muslim and proud to be..."

The problem is not being Australian, or Chinese, French, Burmese or any nationality, or even most religions..

The problem is the "Muslim" part.

FH, You are a Muslim. You certainly love and respect Islam's dear prophet, Muhammad. You probably say "Praise be unto him" after his name.

The problem is that, according to your own writings, this man
killed and Brutally tortured people (Verse 261) http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html

Attacked villages by surprise and let his wen rape the women
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4321

murdered his critics, or blessed the murderers in this vile case: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/038.sat.html#038.4348.

beat his nine year old wife
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/004.smt.html#004.2127

denegrated women
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/006.sbt.html#001.006.301)

And so on... Hundreds and hundreds of immoral things, from every ancient and respected Islamic source. I have not even scratched the surface and the hate and violence in the ahadith and early biographies. Let mne say that the guy had a sense of humor, was an effective leader, and a good general, but somewhat brutal, but about the same as many other ancient personalities.

Worse than these things, however, in my opinion, are the denials and dishonesty of Muslims. The vile deeds are everywhere in Islamic writings.

Yet these things mean nothing to Muslims. Simple, clear facts are ignored.

Tell me, Muslims, according to the Quran, Muslims should crucify and torture people like me and others here that fight Islam (yes arguing against it qualifies) and/or make mischief (a stupid, imprecise concept, to say the least). Do you think me and others here deserve this? Would this make you happy? Or would you care to comment on what would happened to us in a Muslim society?

Hirsi Ali is just being honest about the facts. This is not a crime.
Can you be honest?

Kactus

Coach,

“Plus I had no political views about Islam before 9/11”

Your ignorance is not my problem, militant Islam existed since 1966 and taregted Muslims decades before 9/11. If you are so naïve to believe that it started on 9/11 and targeting Americans then you are suffering an overdose of FoxNews.

Hilali is out of office which I don’t see your mob capable of doing with Pell or Daniel for example (whether you are Catholic or Orthodox). You kiss their hands and beg for their blessings for God sake. Get a grip.

Kaktuz,

To warm you up a bit the question is: if the controversial hadith is true, then why then the message “(Quran) set a benchmark on freeing slaves, women rights (part4), charity, etc..? My findings were as follows:

- Hadith (sayings of the prophet) have a science for collection and verification (you can google the words) and one of the first rules is hadith cannot contradict the Quran or earlier hadith (word of God).
- All of the hadith was collected Most of the hadith was collected 1.5 to 2 centuries after the prophet’s death.
- Most of the controversial hadith came about the 9-10th century AD. The sourcres of these hadith included: Israelites and French missionaries.
- Muslims today only know and use 5% of the hadith. The hadith in circulation is consistent with the prophet and his message: the Quran.
- While hadith is not part of the Islamic faith, its needed to explain things like praying for example, spirituality of the prophet, etc..
You can read more on Islam in the following sources:
www.themodernreligion.com
www.readingislam.com

Back to Hirsi Ali, her personal experience was due to a lot of tribalism and somali culture that she tried to pin on religion. If you visit the BBC world website, you can see comments to this nature by other Muslim Somali females.

Thank you,

Fellow_Human you seem to want respect for yourself as a Muslim and for Islam in general on the basis that the Quran is the word of God. I'm sorry but what about us non-believers? There is no more evidence that the Quran is the word of God, than there is for oil-bearing pixies in my front garden. Or that the teapot on my stove is an oracle for domestic house spirits.

Why on Earth should we show your religion respect? As far as I am concerned both you and Boaz need locking up in a psychiatric institution. Permanently probably.

George,

"The imagination and the spitital strength of Shakespeare's evildoers [in Macbeth]stopped short at a dozen corpses. Because they had no ideology." - Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

In Moscow in December 1931 one very direct Lady Astor asked Stalin, "when will you stop killing people?". The interpret froze. Accordind to Anton Antonov-Oseyenko, Stalin replied, "the process will continue as long as necessary" [to establish communist society].

Mr. Pell has a right to express his views. Cardinal Pell should not leverage religious ideology against Iemma personally. Solzhenitsyn said, it is ideology which suspended the moral restraints which held back even Macbeth and Iago. Pell, breaching the separation of Chruch and State, is not offering his conviction, but leveraging Catholic ideology against the Australian political process.

Moreover, even to an antheist, the Eucharist is about "remembering the Life of Jesus", and, it is presumptous and arrogant of a man to mispresent what was in all likelihood meant to be a Jewish house rite celebrating Jesus, as a stick to enforce the doctrines of a Church formed centuries after Jesus had died.

Pell is saying, in effect, you risk the opportunity to celebrate the memory of Jesus, in my Church, if you oppose my ideology, and, as Stalin might add, "the process will continue as long as necessary".

Cheers,

O.

Snappy Tom,

You quote:
“Fellow_Human you seem to want respect for yourself as a Muslim and for Islam in general on the basis that the Quran is the word of God”

That s incorrect, all I expect is from the nutbags who are inciting fear and hatred on this forum to stop promoting disharmony and malicious interpretation of Islam. When did I ever force religious views on anyone on theses forums? I am merely responding to hateful comments by the same lunatics.
Did you see any muslim on OLO jumping on other’s faith like Boaz and his mob does?
Your criticism should be directed to the right people.

“what about us non-believers?”

What does that mean? We are all supposed to respect the law and the common values in the country we live in. We are not supposed to worry about who believes in what and who is a non-believer in what.

“Why on Earth should we show your religion respect?”
Interesting question, if you are not respectable of others, why demand respect from others? Aren’t you just another Boaz?

A poster said,'Muslims were rare in this country until recent years' and that was when our lives were more peaceful than they are now.
Muslims have not benefitted Australia,where ever Muslims go they stir up argument,trouble and even fear.
The new Mufti has all his sympathies with his silly predecessor so there will be little improvement in matters there.
At least in western countries, when a church man upsets the community, the community has no hesitation in telling him so.That is the way we like it.

Oliver,
you obviously never lived under a Stalinist dictatorship, and you probably understand very little about an educated Catholic’s informed (by rules of politics, electorate, scientific facts, faith, etc. in case of an MP) conscience. Also, the Catholic Church has the right to have its own interpretation of the Eucharist, irrespective of whether it agrees with yours (which I did not understand). So neither can you understand the reasons Pell referred to it in order to remind MP-s that they were about to make decisions on matters of unforeseeable, potentially dire, consequences.

In the US there were public voices by pastors of all sorts of denominations, supporting or condemning the invasion of Iraq, but as far as I know nobody suggested to silence them because they “breached the separation of Church and State”. As I know the Australian scene, which I still try to follow, the bone of contention for many militant secularists (unfortunately also for some Muslims of the Irfan ilk) in Australia is not separation of Church and State but the person of Cardinal Pell.

Let me repeat: EITHER freedom of speech applies to everybody - including Church dignitaries who do not toe the secularist line - OR there is no freedom of speech.

George,

Thank you for your reply. Put simply, I distinguish between Citizen Pell and Cardinal Pell. I have no personal feelings towards him and don't know him [I have met Cardinal Clancy.]. I do support free of speech. Historically, Christians have not. I was just reading about some Italian scientists (1690), who faced the Inquisition for saying the Adam was composed of atoms [preseumably the Greek concept of fundamental particles] that existed before Adam. Maybe, even very recently, JPII stacked the College of Cardinals.

As for the Catholic Church's interpretation of the Eucharist, one would need to check-up source documents. The purpose of Eucharist as a rite of rememberance would not be the same as the debate on the substance of the bread and wine. I thought Jesus said words to the effect of, "do this in rememberance of me". That is a rite, but not creed. If Jesus said this, a Church doesnot have the right to change the meaning like a barnyard wall in "1984". Jesus said what Jesus said.

My point with Stalin, perhaps poorly stated is, ideology can be very dangerous and its disciples can be persistent. If the Communists or a church-based ideology can see a crack, either party would be happy to force a wedge.

If we were talking of the US, I would say the same about the Late Billy Graham. With these US millionnaire evangelists, it is so common for the leadership become dynastic.

Also, as I send above, the State has now business telling the priest how times he should ring his bell.

KR,

O.

“Why on Earth should we show your religion respect?”
Interesting question, if you are not respectable of others, why demand respect from others? Aren’t you just another Boaz?
Posted by Fellow_Human, Sunday, 17 June 2007 3:25:54 PM

Hi Fellow_Human

I think you need to read what he posted. The statement was NOT that he does not respect you, it was that he doesn't respect your religion. They are very different things. I too respect your RIGHT to freedom of belief in whatever you choose to believe, but I have zero respect for your religion...

I think this is the core of the issue for many secular humanist types, the inability of many devout muslims to deal with criticism of their religion, c.f. the riots after the Danish cartoons publication. Those in the west who happen to be of a religious bent have been dealing with widespread healthy disrespect for religion and associated dogma since the French revolution and before.

Oliver,
Thank you for your reply. I think we again shall have to agree to disagree. In the meantime I was reading the article by Brian Holden (http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5986). Imagine what the reaction would be if Cardinal (or Citizen) Pell published a similarly vitriolic attack on his ideological opponents: I mean its FORM; not the content which has its point, although he unnecessarily simplifies a problem that is complicated both scientifically and ethically.

Thanks Stickman - exactly my point. People are quite entitled to believe what they like but don't expect me to "respect" it just because it is a religious belief.

I recall in the wash-up from the publication of the Danish cartoons that there was commentary from the Islamic world that they should have been protected from this "outrage" because their faith was more important to them, than faith was to other religious types. That is cartoons of Christ or Buddha (or the holy teapot) wouldn't have hurt these believers as much as the cartoons of Mohammed hurt Muslims. Which to me was just pure hogwash. If Fellow_Human wants to doubt that these articles existed, I will dig them up for him.

Hillali is still at Lakemba Mosque. He is still walking and talking. It is business as usual - except in front of the cameras.

His flock - all Sunnin Muslims - is still kissing his ring.

His replacement holds the same views about women in particular and Islam in general.

Different town - same garbage, and what does the majority of Sunni Muslims do...?

Cover up, and arrogantly dismiss the damage these clowns are doing. Why? Because they can't find faults in their teachings. Why? Because it is from the Qur'an and The Islamic LAW.

Why can't you speak up FH - I mean in the good Islamic bloody way. Is it fear for your safety or your life - or as I suspect you totally agree with their views - after all it's not their opinions but how they verbalise your Qur'an. (no ad-libing in Islam)

Just on the Pell thing - if what he said was against Islam for example we would have witnessed riots and torching of Church buildings ... or worse.

But since the subject is Stem Cells and Australian Moral Values - Islam is Silent!

Why? Because Islam has a different agenda, different plans for OZ - Islam follows a different drummer...

Islam is a supremacist religion - Islam must expand and conquer. Australia is just another frontier for Islam. Insha Allah!

Respect is earned my friend - Islam could never earn respect - it always took it by the sword... Or by Deception which is just another avenue for Jihad.

Back to you now, for another round of Personal attack (instead of dealing with your problems).

Hi Stickman & SnappyTom,

Two points you mentioned:

1. Dealing with/ Accepting criticism:
There are many forums where Islam is being criticised everyday by Muslims and non-Muslims. Muslims on this forum (myself included) have coped with different criticism whether substantiated or fabricated. Did you see an intolerant comment or response for over a year now?
The riots in reaction to the Danish cartoons were politically motivated as it happened in designated areas (Beirut for example) and occurred few months after the event. There was silent protests by American Muslims (8millions), British Muslims, Australian Muslims had little or no-reaction. The tribalism reaction in some African countries is not exclusive to muslims. Try and criticise Catholics in Nigeria or Rwanda, they respond with Machine guns.

2. Respect for individuals and not their beliefs:

Although I find it hard to believe how can one respect an individual without respecting their faith, I don’t believe myself or any other Muslim is seeking contents approval. None of my comments or interactions on this forum goes beyond clarifying mis-interpretations and merely explain why we believe in what we believe. I never asked someone else to adopt my beliefs or mocked someone else faith. All I am looking for is enough understanding to achieve harmony and integration. My contribution to this forum is my way of lighting a candle.

Coach,

You just miss Hilali don’t you?
Not a single muslim want to hear of Hilali anymore, face it Coachy, you are sad we kicked him out because you can’t use him any more.
PS: there is no clergy in Islam, Hilali was shown the door which is something you can’t do in your faith. Keep queuing for the blessings my son : - )

How did you find catholic MPs comment:
err..ummm, if we …the stem cells……can we..still.. get .. umm..communion… in the church…please?
Give me a break; you are right someone is trying to turn Australia into a religious state, but not Muslims. Speak up coach, or maybe you like the idea.

George,

Again we agree to disagree, my friend. But in closing, please consider:

http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-24.htm

I would posit that Jesus is adamant, that the meal "is" to be performed and a Church is not in the position to deny this direction, in fact or in rite. What I was saying about athiests remembering Jesus could be the light of respecting a self-actualised personality like Carl Rodgers or Elanor Roosevelt. Appreciate, that to a religious person the significance is greater.

Much of the debate I read in this Forum and elsewhere is between the Christian Church and Science, not Jesus and History

'Although I find it hard to believe how can one respect an individual without respecting their faith.'

Fellow-Human, this is not true. People with polar-opposite worldviews can respect eachother and be close friends.

One of my best friends, whom I have known for more than 20 years, is a happy clappy Pentecostal Christian. I consider Pentecostalism to be a complete load of nonsense best explained by basic neurobiology. However, this juxtapostion makes our late night drinking sessions something special as we thrash out some enjoyable metaphysics and the 'meaning of life'.

'None of my comments or interactions on this forum goes beyond clarifying mis-interpretations and merely explain why we believe in what we believe. I never asked someone else to adopt my beliefs or mocked someone else faith.'

Well good for you! But you still need to appreciate that Islam is a complete load of nonsense best explained by basic neurobiology. And I am here to reinforce that fundamental fact.

I'm glad you're on the forum Fellow-Human. You seem like an interesting person.

TR,

“But you still need to appreciate that Islam is a complete load of nonsense best explained by basic neurobiology”

Difference is the spice of life. I know that this is your personal view on all religions and I disagree but will defend your right to believe so.

“I'm glad you're on the forum Fellow-Human. You seem like an interesting person”

Thanks, you too. I follow your comments and they are challenging and usually sensible.
btw, I disgaree with your statement ‘science=truth’, science is a median of interpreting phenomenas and facts. It explains how a phenomena work, potential replication and usability but it never explains creates a phenomena and rarely can science explain why its happening. It’s a mean not an end.

Peace,

Fellow_Human,

Lucky for you that science and truth are incompatible... otherwise it would have been very interesting to watch science try to explain that human beings are formed by a CLOT - and that sperms originate in the ribs (not testicles).

Wasn't the Qur'an the direct word of the Muslim God ‘Allah’? Wasn't he supposed to know a thing or two about biology 101?

>>I disgaree with your statement ‘science=truth’, science is a median of interpreting phenomenas and facts.<<

Back to Hilali. You can't sweep over the fact that he is still preaching Anti-Australian values in his Lakemba mosque and to children in Islamic schools.

You agreed that the man has made inflammatory comments that are unacceptable, derogatory, and dangerous to our national security.

He gas violated every aspect of Australian values and decency - yet you keep him there as if nothing happened.

A few thousand people must love what he says – they still roll the red carpets and shower him with gifts. That to me is clergy ring kissing wouldn’t you say? He is not treated as equal – not one of the crowd.

He looks like clergy, he speaks like clergy, he must be clergy.

How dare you compare that scum of society to the nobility of Cardinal Pell – a highly educated pillar of our Australian society?

What contribution is Hilali making to our society?

What contribution is he making to Sunni Muslims?

He must be doing something right; he must speak the hatred Muslims like to hear – the music to their ears... from your holy book.

Coach,

Hilali was kicked out as a mufti and a spokesperson. Whatever he is saying now, its his personal views under the freedom of expression act. The same act that allows the ‘Jesus Taliban’ like your hateful mob to incite fear of Islam and Muslims on OLO.

Btw, your claim that “Hilali is preaching to children in Islamic schools” is false. I am not aware of any schools inviting Hilali to preach. Unless you have a proof, can we conclude that this allegation is from the creative voices in your head?

Cardinal Pell was threatening (or at least emotionally blackmailing) Catholic MPs to influence a political decision or merging ‘church and state’. If you can’t see that then please stay in the blessings queue and kiss the ring of the "lord of the rings".

As for your ignorance of the Quran and science, Google Dr Maurice Bucaille on a book called Quran and science. Perhaps you should explain to us why a 14 centuries old scripture clearly mentions that a pregnancy is 6-9 months calendar months. On second thoughts, perhaps you should not read and just keep parroting what you have been told in Sunday school.

Peace,

Coach, Fellow Human, why do you have to snap at each other to the amusement (and satisfaction) of those here, who can understand neither the Christian (in particular Catholic) nor the Muslim world views, both not alternatives but extensions (if properly interpreted) of what contemporary (not 18th century) science has to offer.

Coach,

Would you look at the link I shared with George.

http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-24.htm

It would seem to me that all the interpretaions say two things "the broken body" and more important to the Pell debate, rememberance of Jesus. Jesus, god or human, made a direct command. To me, for religionist [Pell] to run his own agenda is wrong and against the rite laid down by Jesus. My the Cardinal should back to Sunday School.

If a presumed God did instruct humans to perform a rite, it is not the place of an inferior human, Pell, to contravene that instruction for his personal ideology, against the presumably practising Catholic. That alledged god said "give the man water, Pell". But, the political Cardinal would threaten to deny him [Iemma] and not quench his thirst.

George & Oliver,

Good to read soothing and reasonable comments.
I will take the initiative:

My 'fellow human being' Coach,

Apologies if my last response to you offended you in any way, none intended. I would appreciate it if you put yourself in my shoes and stop mis-representing a faith that it is not yours. Its not an easy time for an average muslim today to be living in Australia and your efforts are not helping neither integration nor harmony.
Peace and best wishes,

Fellow Human, I think we could all benefit from your advise to “stop mis-representing a faith that is not ours”. Not only Christians/Catholics and Muslims, but also those who cannot undestand what religion is all about, and in their frustration mis-represent the world view of those they cannot understand.

Although a Catholic myself, I have to admit that I completely agree with the 100 Muslim scholars when they say in their letter to Pope (http://www.islamicamagazine.com/issue18/openletter18_lowres.pdf) that “a great part of the object of interreligious dialogue is to strive to listen to and consider the actual voices of those we are dialoguing with, and not merely those of our own persuasion.” I think this applies to any dialogue involving different world views. I also think the Pope understood, but I wonder how many of those discussing topics related to religion, can, or are willing to, understand this.

Fellow Human, I just thought you might also be interested in this: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0701356.htm.

George and Fellow-Human,

No-one wants misrepresentation. That said, the religions can be as objectivity studied as the refraction of light. Herein, the observer is justified in making tentitive posits based on observations and forensic evidence. It always good to maintain a null hythothesis to one's positive heuristic. That is why even Dawkins [like me]is only a 6.5 out of 7.0 atheist. Absolutism and belief in one'd infallibility is not on for me, religionist and atheist, alike.

Christianity was developed from before events. Islam was constructed
with a knowledge of the prophetic religions and to unify the Arabs. Both ultimately owe a debt to the OT [Abraham, Moses].

'As for your ignorance of the Quran and science, Google Dr Maurice Bucaille on a book called Quran and science. Perhaps you should explain to us why a 14 centuries old scripture clearly mentions that a pregnancy is 6-9 months calendar months.'

Fellow-Human, I've got Dr Maurice Bucaille's book on my shelf. Ironically, after reading it I decided that there is NO modern science in the Koran.

Indeed, the verses he used from the Koran to 'prove' the supernatural origins of the Koran reminded me of the daily Horoscope in the newspaper.

Like the Horoscope the Koranic verses cited are so broad and wishy-washy that you can make up just about any interpretation you like. Which of course is what Horoscope readers and Dr Buccaille do.

And let's face reality. Your observation that pregnancy takes '6-9 calendar months' according to the Koran is not exactly cutting edge obstetrics. Is it?

George,

Thanks very much for the links I visited the site and its quiet good.
There is much we can learn from each other.

Oliver,

Thanks for that, truth is a personal conviction, we can only dialogue and communicate to have a better future and a better world.

TR,

Dr Bucaille’s book was an attempt to scrutinise and compare a number of scriptures to science and the Quran was the closest. Among others, defining boundaries for human pregnancy between 6 to 9 months, that the earth is round, that light only exists in the lower hemisphere, that feeling is only on the outer layer of the skin, that the sun moves, that time is relative, that space is actually a substance, etc..you will probably agree its impressive for an illiterate monk wondering the Arabian desert 14 centuries ago to come up with all of that.

"after reading it I decided that there is NO modern science in the Koran"

lol, well thats why you are not a muslim and I am :-)
As previousley said: I totally disagree with your opinion but I will defend to death your right to it :-)
I wasn't always a muslim btw.

Peace my friend,

'Thanks, you too. I follow your comments and they are challenging and usually sensible.
btw, I disgaree with your statement ‘science=truth’, science is a median of interpreting phenomenas and facts. It explains how a phenomena work, potential replication and usability but it never explains creates a phenomena and rarely can science explain why its happening. It’s a mean not an end.'

Thanks for the kind words Fellow-Human.

Science doesn't claim to have THE truth, but is made up of many truths. In these truths we have a grand story that starts at the Big Bang 13-14 billion years ago. This story features the origin of the Solar System and our home, planet Earth. Most importantly, science tells the story of who I am. Namely an Old World ape who was formed from the biosphere. The Earth is my home.

As for what happens after death, well that's best answered by science and philosphy. Philosophy has taught me not to fear death. Death is merely returning to the same state I was in before I was born. Therefore, I can fear the pain of dieing, but not death itself which cannot hold any terrors.

Hi TR,

Good argument.

Science is a collection of methodologies (research, verification, etc) to prove a fact in a given point and time.
Methodologies change and in same cases alter the final result of what we knew as fact and many examples like that exist in physics, medical research and astrology for example. Science is a physical, reliable tool to prove a fact.

I totally agree that humans don’t need religion to distinguish right from wrong or to follow good morality.
Religion and science complement each other in most cases (or at least they should).
We all know the consequences of running the red light and most people will do. That’s science. Religion is another parallel confirmation or the ‘built-in’ red light camera. So for those who ponder with the idea of running the red light ‘it’s the what if’ you do wrong scenario. So bottom line, there are those who follow the laws out of love and conviction, and other who will follow out of fear of punishment. Religions ‘should’ cater for both.
My counter-argument is this: religion and science are or should be parallel roads to the same direction (truth and good morality), with one is physical and the other is spiritual. We can’t see our souls but we know they are there. Right?

Peace,

F-H,

Have the Christian Churches been spiritual or even moral? For me, the teachings of Jesus and moral humanists would seen to stand apart from the wars and politics and hierarchies in religion.

Priesthoods, which came from shamanism, also seem to stand apart from any posited god. Even via our path of history priesthoods existed before the Christian era. That institutional form seems to have taken over Jesus. Paul then Constintine then Augustine yudda, yudda, Vatican II for the Catholics, yadda, yadda... Many a clerics would like to wear the guise, they "stand-in" for their god. By contrast, the average aeronauutical engineer doesn't beleive he/she, themselves, can jump off a cliff and fly.

Fellow_Human,
“there are those who follow the laws out of love and conviction, and other who will follow out of fear of punishment. Religions ‘should’ cater for both.”
This I find interesting. Compare with the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” which recognises two kinds of contrition: a “perfect” (contrition of charity), when you are sorry because you have offended the loving God, and an “imperfect” (attrition) when you are sorry because you are afraid of punishment. And, again, both are acceptable.

It is also very interesting what you write about the relation between science and religion, that Einstein concisely expressed as “science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”. Quite a few research Centers have proliferated in the last decade or so, where scientists (and theologians) study exactly this relation (e.g. http://www.metanexus.net/Institute/ or http://www.ctns.org/ ). I personally prefer a qualified scientist with some degree in theology (the quantum physicist John Polkinghorne being my favourite) to a theologian speaking e.g. about the Big Bang without any understanding of the mathematics behind it. The religious background of most of these scientists is Christian (or Jewish), although V.V. Raman, studying the relation from a Hindu background is an important exception (see e.g. http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/tabid/143/Default.aspx?stid=24 or http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/tabid/tabid/72/Default.aspx?aid=6 ). And, of course, there is Fritjof Capra (The Tao of Physics) with his Buddhist approach.

I hope I shall soon have access to the material presented by Mahmoud Ayoub and other Muslim scholars at a recent Metanexus Conference (see http://www.metanexus.net/conference2007/agenda/ ). Do you yourself know of any accomplished (natural) scientists approaching this problem seriously from a Muslim background?

F-H & George,

“there are those who follow the laws out of love and conviction, and other who will follow out of fear of punishment. Religions ‘should’ cater for both.” - F-H "This I find interesting." - George

Lawrence Kolhberg's work on morality is interesting, wherein "fors" & "againsts" in moral dilemmas can be tiered, broadly, reward & punishment, law & order, postconventional.

I am unsure that OT and the NT would sit in the same tier. Perhaps, the teacher, Jesus was making this point about the Law in Hebrew tradition? If one wants to be a Christian religionist, I think the lessions rest in the first century, not the OT or the institutionalised Church.

Oliver,
I see ,you did not understand the point of my remark. I hope Fellow_Human, to whom it was addressed, did.

Nice to see where this thread is going.

FH may I concur with others in saying that you are a welcome presence on the boards as you are prepared to argue a case rationally. You, however, are not the kind of Muslim I was referring to in my previous posts, although you still seem to have an issue about other's 'respecting' your religion/beliefs/faith - I would repeat that I do not.

Seems to me that though faith may be perceived as a virtue by many, it is also a powerful tool of manipulation that can be (mis)used to have others strap explosives to their bodies in the (I hope you agree) misguided belief that they will be rewarded for their actions.

THIS is the kind of Islam, that I (and I am sure 99% of Australians and though I do not claim to speak for you, I would assume you do not condone this sort of stuff) have a big problem with:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/cut-off-his-head/2007/06/22/1182019314903.html

Rabid intolerance of the freedoms of expression that we take for granted in the secular world does not sit well with secular humanists who:

1. know how hard these freedoms were to win, and
2. know the benefits of living in societies that embrace these liberties - open-ness and transparency and NO sacred cows (so to speak)

So my questions to you are:

1. what do you think when you see these sorts of reactions to Rushdie's knighthood (let alone the now-rescinded fatwa)?
2. what is the source of such intolerance?
3. don't such responses, particularly those after the Danish cartoons, simply prove the point that the cartoons were out to make?

cheers

Hi George,

Scientist with a degree in theology in my preferred option. I have seen lots of theologists trying to tailor science to religion while it should not be the case.

There are many Muslim scientists with degree in theology and the one that come to mind is Dr. Zaghloul El Naggar, a geologist, you can google him or visit his website.

Dr Naggar started from the basic assumption that we should consider all the elements (science, religion and nature) as ‘invitations to think and reflect. If the source is one then they should all be parallel and do not conflict or contradict each other.
The end game form him was proving theology through science and science through theology.
Unfortunately only part of his work is translated to English. I will dig out more and send you links. His work is viewed by over 30 million muslims and non-muslims around the world.

Hi Stickman,

Thanks I enjoy interacting and debating with you too.
Firt let me define intolerance: it’s the expression of anger out of frustration (frustration is the gap between expectations and the status quo).
So by default intolerance can only be the result of a socio-economical environment, religion can only be a catalyst at best but not a cause.

Except for few, majority of Muslims countries are governed by authoritarian regimes. These regimes are dysfunctional/corrupt management of resources and control over the media.

So lets go through a scenario:
- A government X is sitting on a wealth of natural resources, and the people of country X are poor, unemployed, frustrated.
- The people of country X can’t change the regime, the regime controls the police, defence and media.
- The media manipulate the masses to support the regime.
- Or blame the ‘western conspiracy on why the population of country x though have all the sources of wealth are poor.

Bottomline, the dilemma we have today is a result of the success of the authoritarian regimes to ‘sell their version’ of the truth. Their ‘incompetence’ is the westerners fault and they sold that to their own people

George,

Thank you for your comments: I was primarily addressing the sentences I quoted. That said, contrition would be a higher tier attrition [reward] and punishment on Kohlberg's scale, The OT Hewbrew gods, I think would not do very well. A related concept from Kolhberg [and Ekikson and Piaget]is empathy. Contrition requires empathy, and, attrition fear. Empathy requires representation thought. In my youth, recall that Missions coming to the local church were really big on eternal torment, consistent with early Christian histories.

Einstein, like Dawkins, had a tendency to comment outside his field. To the best of my knowledge Einstein nor Dawkins were/is a cultural-anthropologist nor developmental psychologist. Einstein was an agnostic if I recall.

Going back on topic, Jewish Messiahism was a response to occupation. Christianity was the institutionalisation of earlier Jesus groups. Islam, was an Arab unification move, against brewing threats. Messiashism looked backwards [House of David?], Christianity was constructionist, and Islam was a defensive move.

'My counter-argument is this: religion and science are or should be parallel roads to the same direction (truth and good morality), with one is physical and the other is spiritual. We can’t see our souls but we know they are there. Right?'

Fellow-Human, I agree up to a point. If the Bible or Koran are read as philosophy then useful truths and insights to the 'meaning of life' can be gleaned. After all, there is no absolute rule that says we cannot learn valuable lessons from the lives of ancient men and women.

However, if the Bible or Koran are read literally, and the primitive tribalistic ideologies are not questioned, then delusional untruths can infect the reader.

So yes, the Bible and Koran does contain some truth and morality but we shouldn't make more of these books than logic and a sound mind dictate.

As for your other point about the soul. Well, your soul does exist but only within the many trillions of neural connections in your brain. Turn off your brain by death and your soul ceases to exist forever. The tangible brain and the intangible soul are inseparable. Lose one and you lose the other.

Fellow_Human,
Thank you for your reference to Dr. Zaghloul El Naggar. I looked at http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/769/profile.htm. I would not know how to understand many things written in the Koran, but I can certainly agree with practically everything El Naggar extracted from it about the relation between his belief in God “the compassionate the merciful” and his general scientific insights. I also agree with you that “science and religion do not contradict each other”, although one should not try “to tailor science to religion”. This I usually express as:

It is not true that religion and science are on a collision course.
It is not true that religion and science are mutually irrelevant.
It is true that some interpretations of religion and some interpretations of science are on a collision course.
It is true that "uninterpreted" religion and "uninterpreted" science are mutually irrelevant.

Oliver, thank you for calling my attention to Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. All I was concerned with was to point at some similarities between FH’s (and, as I see it, a general Muslims') approach and the Catholic approach. As I understand it, Kohlberg does not need the hypothesis of a God for his theory, the same as Laplace did not need it for his exposition of celestial mechanics to Napoleon. In both cases the existence of God behind the framework of the particular phenomena studied is neither proved nor disproved. Also, I am sorry for what the missionaries did to you but I do not think one should blame e.g. mathematics for having had a bad maths teacher.

“Christianity was the institutionalisation of earlier Jesus groups. Islam, was an Arab unification move, against brewing threats.” This might be true but does not nearly exhaust the essence of both religions (not the social movements underlying them) whose main purpose was to “point to Something higher”, beyond history and science. (ctd)

Oliver, you are right, Einstein was neither a cultural-anthropologist nor a developmental psychologist (I do not understand why this should be relevant), but that does not diminish his expertise as a cosmologist, and the following ability to have a technically better equipped insight than most of his contemporaries into what might exist beyond the material world. He believed in an Intelligence behind this world, though he did not subscribe to the Jewish (or Christian or Muslim) model of this Intelligence. Only in this sense may you call him an agnostic.

stickman, “… (faith) is also a powerful tool of manipulation that can be (mis)used to have others strap explosives to their bodies”. You are right, without Islam there would be no suicide bombers, without Christianity many other bad things would not have happened. Like without mathematics you would not have nuclear physics and without sex there would be no rapists. Nevertheless, one should not blame mathematics for the Hiroshima disaster nor sex for what some people do with it.

TR, this is a very tolerant description of an agnostic – I suppose – position, shared to a certain degree also by many Christians (or Muslims, but this is not for me to say) as a PART of their world view.

“Turn off your brain by death and your soul ceases to exist forever”
Destroy this computer on which I am writing this post, and my thoughts “cease to exist” forever. However, if I manage to send off the post before this computer is destroyed, they will continue to exist e.g. on your computer that I have no idea what it looks like. The Christian (and Muslim) believes, that the “software written and stored in my brain” is being sent off at death to a place (or embodiment) we have no idea of what it looks like. This, of course, is not a proof of afterlife, only an attempt to make the faith more palatable to a 21st century mind.

Muslim leader warns Gaza Christians

JERUSALEM June 19 -- An Islamic militant leader warned Gaza's Christians to be "ready for Islamic rule if they want to live in peace." Israel Today reported Tuesday that Gaza-based Muslim groups linked to Hamas and possibly Al Qaeda warned local Christians that Hamas' takeover of the Gaza Strip means they must submit to Islamic law, Catholic News reported Tuesday.

In an interview with WorldNetDaily, Sheikh Abu Saqer, leader of Jihadia Salafiya, said Gaza's Muslims "expect our Christian neighbors to understand the new Hamas rule means real changes. They must be ready for Islamic rule if they want to live in peace in Gaza." He said "missionary activity" will not be tolerated and those suspected of trying to convert local Muslims will be "harshly punished."

http://www.arcamax.com/religionandspirituality/s-204814-346029

Islam is against all other political systems and religions. When they are the majority, they would impose their views and will upon non-Muslims. If they are a minority they would talk about multi-culturalism, freedom to practice genital mutilation of both sexes, etc

Before a Muslim can be an extremist Muslim, he/she must first be a Muslim.

The West is being duped into thinking that Muslims believe in secular democracy. They don't. Recently they insulted democracy and free speech by protesting against the knighthood of Salman Rushdie. Yet there is almost complete silence from the Muslim world of Arabs killing black African Muslims in Darfur, Sudan

Philip Tang,

hmmm..Not sure if you read your own comment:

"In an interview with WorldNetDaily, Sheikh Abu Saqer, leader of Jihadia Salafiya"

So, the guy you are quoting is a self proclaimed leader of a salafi jihadi cult with his and your admission. How is that related to mainstream islam?

Can we be more specific about the term 'mainstream Islam'. That is, how do we define 'mainstream Islam'?

My guess is that there is no such thing as 'mainstream Islam'. And importantly this is a significant cause of Islamic discord, and violent unrest.

Both Sunni and Shia sects see themselves as the 'real' Islam and therefore bully eachother with cold war strategy. Unfortunately this cold war is currently entering into a hot phase due to the temporary rise of Iranian power in the Middle East.

Arab Muslims numerically outnumbered by Asian Muslims from countries like Indonesia feel threatened as their religio-racial hegemony slips into deep decline. This can only get worse as the political and economic power of the Asia-Pacific Rim grows.

Muslim countries from central Asia remain a back water and are dwarfed by the regions new superpower, India.

So, the Islamic civilisation struggles on to find its real cultural identity with no clear front runner. And competing groups cut eachother to pieces while holding up their own parochial ideal as being the 'One True Islam'.

Yet, as any irreligious secular person knows, no Islamic consensus can ever be met in a globalised and interconnected world because Islamic literature does not allow it.

Islamic literature, like other religious literature is confused, illogical and self-contradictory. Therfore, the 'real' or 'pure' Islam can never be elucidated or properly defined and will remain a source of violent and aggressive debate between competitors.

The plain advantage that the West has is the pre-eminence of science and the scientific method. In these we find logic, clarity and certainty. Without scientific thinking at the core of Western civilisation we will either return to barbarism or plummet into Islamic like termoil

Fellow_Human, may I ask as well, what you mean by “mainstream Islam”? Within Christianity e.g. Catholicism is clearly defined - irrespective of whether you call it mainstream Christianity or not - so for instance you cannot blame the Pope for what George Bush did to Iraq. I know, there is no “Muslim pope”, but still.

Can you name a stream or version of Islam, that you can identify with? I am just curious, because I liked your views expressed on this forum. Also, TR’s comment, as interesting as it is, is still the view of an outsider to religion, who, I suspect, does not distinguish between religion and its social and historical framework (like e.g. Christianity and Christendom). So I think much of the criticism of Islam is actually a criticism of “Islamdom”. Can you agree with this?

What is your personal opinion on the importance, for instance, of Said Nursi or Fethullah Gülen, and neo-Sufism in general (c.f. http://ncrcafe.org/node/1188)? I do not know how important is mysticism for this or that religion, but perhaps it could serve as some kind of a common denominator, the “biological” manifestations of which today even neuroscience cannot ignore.

TR / George,

Mainstream Islam have nothing to do with Shiaa, Sunnis or sufism. All Muslims have one Quran.

Mainstream Islam are those who follow the teachings of Islam:
- Belief in one God, all his prophets and Holy books.
- Pay the alms, fast Ramadan and pray.
- Follow the teachings of Islam: purify their heart, intent and actions (see purification of self).
- Do good, help the poor and those in need.
This apply to Sunnis, shiaa, sufism (which is over 90% of Muslims).

Groups like Salafi, Wahabi, etc.. are also muslims since they believe in the same scripture but they go for extreme and old interpretations (as you know salafi means 'old'or 'ancestry').

Hope I answered your question.

Peace,

George ,
The problem with your version of “religion” is it doesn’t sync with the facts.And, you don’t have to resort to rocket science to demonstrate it.

The instructions in the holy books you refer to are not generalised guidelines.The are largely specific ( though sometimes contradictory) rulings/instructions.
God is QUOTED -QUOTED -QUOTED :
-describing the creation of the world
-giving erroneous medical advice
-giving erroneous dietary advice
-ordering genocide .

Either the God got it wrong or his reporters got it wrong
( & whatever the answer - it will be devastating for your story)

I don’t see how, if you are going to be CONSISTENT you can cheery-pick.[Revising , "reinterpreting", back peddling, ironically to suit/incorporate secular norms ]
Eg The Creation Story:
- Because in light of the latest scientific research -we cant sustain that story anymore - we now ruled(3000+ years later) it wasn’t meant to be taken literally anyway OR,
Eg Genocide:
-Although it was Ok to kill men woman & children in cold blood in those days, ON GODS INSTRUCTIONS -it’s now out of fashion ( at least for the moment !) .

There is no doubt much that is positive in many of the holy books .
But its not good enough to say that there is a lot of good-if God is all powerful -all knowing It needs to be ALL GOOD.

Further pointing to wonders beyond current scientists understanding is not an argument against science Science (as opposed to some scientists) has no stake in the outcome -only, in how the outcome is determined.

Religions dilemma is, it needs to have an outcome that shows (i) not just that a God exists -but (ii) that that God meets the description laid out in the holy book - and I here to tell you, it is not looking too promising for the theists at this point in the match…

'TR / George,

Mainstream Islam have nothing to do with Shiaa, Sunnis or sufism.'

This statement is simply not true Fellow-Human.

Orthopraxis is central to the Islamic religion and therefore in Islam it really matters how Muslims conduct their day by day rituals. According to each of those three sects their version of orthopraxis is the 'true' orthopraxis. This is why Sunnis treat Shia with disdane and vice versa. Both Sunnis and Shia view Sufism with contempt.

I'm sorry but your casual observations don't hold up in the cold hard light of reality. In Saudi Arabia I worked with two Shia colleagues. Both were actively discriminated in the work place by the Sunni dominated administration because of their faith. I can assure you that there was a suspicious "US" and "THEM" mentality.

What's more, my anecdotal story is reinforced by the scrutiny of Islamic geo-politics. The clash between Hamas and Fatah springs to mind, as does the clash between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Indeed, the list goes on.

You may think that Imam Hussein's murder doesn't matter and its ritualised commemorations have no impact but millions of other Muslims disagree with you.

You may think that the sensual and mystical practices of Sufi's doesn't matter but millions of other Muslims disagree with you.

What's more they are willing to kill and persecute because of the differences even though 'officially' the differences between the three Islamic sects are all sweetness and light.

Orthopraxis DOES matter in Islam and you are throwing up a misleading smokescreen to say that it doesn't. In the tricotomy of Islam we see yet again the devisive 'tribalism' that is inate to monotheism.

George,

I am not aware of the term neo-sufism but I know of Fethullah Gullen, he is a great Islamic reformist. Have a look at his official website (his name.org)

TR,

“I'm sorry but your casual observations don't hold up in the cold hard light of reality. In Saudi Arabia I worked with two Shia colleagues. Both were actively discriminated in the work place by the Sunni dominated administration because of their faith"

we are talking about 2 different things:
Issue 1: Is there a conflict between Muslim Sunni and Shiaa? The answer is yes.
Issue 2: is there a theological difference between Sunni and Shiaa: ther answer is not really or trivial.
The causes underlying issue one is pure tribalism. Saudi example is a proof of that. The only difference between Shiaa and Sunnis is the system of governance which is political and not religious.

Shiaa Muslims believe in the Quran, the prophets, fasting, praying, pay the alms, etc..
The difference that they believe that the caliphates have used the prophets’ death to distort his sunna. For example, they believe that the caliphates banned rituals that the prophet allowed such as the Mutah marriage and other rituals. The difference is philosophical where Shiaa believe that these rituals were allowed as a ‘privilege’ while sunnis believe its only a ‘permit’.

“The clash between Hamas and Fatah springs to mind, as does the clash between Iran and Saudi Arabia”

Again these are manufactured political conflicts. Iran/ Saudi conflict is about the system of governance. Hamas was voted to power not because of religion but because the Palestinians had a gutful of the rich and corrupt fatah organisation.

“you are throwing up a misleading smokescreen to say that it doesn't””
No need to feel so hot under the collar you seem to know little about Islam and expect me to agree with your microwavable view.
The above statement is clear and I challenge you to bring me any theological difference (except for the political differences I mentioned above).

Peace,

Fellow_Human, thank you for your reply. What you described as “mainstream Muslim” are simply properties of a good Muslim – good in the eyes of not only other Muslims, but also Christians or secular humanists - and I agree that it does not matter whether such a good person is a Shiaa, Sunni or what. There are good people in any religion (or “non-religion”), and I also hope they are a vast majority, though they are usually not called “mainstream”.

Thank you for the info on Fethullah Gulen. Neo-Sufism seems to an outsider a promising development, and since Fethullah Gulen apparently counts as one of its representatives, I am glad, you agree. For instance, what one can find on http://www.fethullahgulenconference.org/ or http://en.m-fgulen.net/content/view/2090/1/ seems to me very promising.

Horus, I agree that my understanding of religion (that I do not remember having spelled out here) differs substantially from that adhered to by fundamentalists of both versions, religious and anti-religious. Also, I do not remember having referred to any holy book, except when I said that “I do not know how to understand many things written in the Koran.” There are many ancient texts, that I cannot read (do not understand) directly, and have to rely on interpretations of those who do, or claim to.

I think I can see (and understand) your frustration with people, including many professional scientists, who do not see any conflict between scientific facts/theories and their religious experience/beliefs related to ancient holy books. Perhaps you are forgetting that BOTH (not only science) have to be taken at a CONTEMPORARY, and not some medieval, levels of insights. This is often not easy: you cannot critically judge what physics tells you about the universe without having a good understanding of the symbolic language of mathematics. Perhaps something similar is true bout understanding the symbolic language of religions. My only advise would be that if you are upset with, say, (high school) algebra, because it contradicts the “fact” that one can add only numbers and not letters, ignore algebra but do not blame those who have no problems with it

Hi FH

Sorry slow reply, been a little busy with uni exams.

Thanks for your reply, although I can't say it bears much relation to the questions I posed to you. I utterly disagree with your definition of intolerance, appearing as it does to have been plucked from midair in order to suit your case.

Here is a better one, straight from an online dictionary:
"lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc." cf, demonstrations against Rushdie and against the Danish cartoons.

If you are to be fair-dunkum about free speech then you need to let authors and artists express themselves without fear of some lunatic issuing a death-warrant or your living in hiding until the storm blows over (which for Rushdie, it seems it still has not).

My issue with Islam is not that all Muslims agree with such disgraceful behaviour (do you?) but that Islam seems to give more comfort to those who would give violent expression to their opinions, than other religions.

Where is the chorus of "mainstream" Islamic opinion, sweeping aside this stone-age, Islamofascist ranting that erupts every time a Rushdie is knighted, a derogatory cartoon published (try being a Catholic - Catholicism has grown a thick skin from constantly being pilloried in the media for past and current transgressions) or van Gogh film made?

Seems to me that the problem is what passes for "mainstream" for most Muslims is decasdes, if not centuries behind the secular, democratised West.

TR - OK you point out the blindingly obvious, that nuclear weapons would not exist without knowledge of physics. My point is that while faith is a powerful tool of manipulation for "religious leaders," I would like for someone to point out to me its virtues? Or to phrase it slightly differently, as an atheist, what am I missing out on by having no "faith" in anything? In medicine these days, the buzz-phrase is "evidence-based". I like to think that we secular humanists indulge in "evidence-based living."

George and FH. The only type of "Muslim" we need concern ourselves with are those who say:

" He said "missionary activity" will not be tolerated and those suspected of trying to convert local Muslims will be "harshly punished."

TRUE COLORS UNVEILED. The above is absolutely what could be expected when:

a) Muslims as a political force gain sufficient power/influence to shape government policy (which could happen by controlling even 1 or 2 marginal seats)
b) Muslims control a country.

The time to act is NOW and BEFORE they are ever able to exert such influence.

To do this we need to understand:

-Truth about "Islam" (not the truth 'they want us' to believe)

ACTION:
-Raising public awareness about where Islamic influence will lead.

This can involve public actions, which may include a counter protest/at such events as any Palestine Solidarity Network activity, or.. at the Islamic prayer halls at RMIT or.. at Melbourne Uni, or, at Latrobe.

-The efficient and creative use of the Media to get the points across.

And for any bright spark who mumbles about 'stirring up hatred', I simply refer them to the reality of my opening sentence, which I long ago predicted would occur. That...is where the real hatred resides.
We call Muslims, Atheists, Humanists to repentance and to saving faith Christ.... but ALSO to social and political responsibility.....while you still have the chance.

Quote BOAZ_DAVID

"We call Muslims, Atheists, Humanists to repentance and to saving faith Christ.... but ALSO to social and political responsibility.....while you still have the chance. "

Why should I repent BOAZ? What did I do wrong?

Stickman,

Don't hold your breath, if you are expecting BOAZ to answer. Well, at least that is my experience.

In Christian [and Jewish?], a connected concept is LIMBUS INFANTIUM which states infants dying without personal sin go to Limbo. Limbo is denial/delay of beatic vision of God. Why, so? A deceased neonate has not felt the guilt of original sin.

When I was ten, I had to make-up sins for Confession, which I attended until I was thrown out of a confessional, becuase [genuninely] I could not remember, if had eaten meat of Friday. What made matters worse the priest gave me a dressing down in front of 10-12 of peers. I went to state school but the sisters would muster-up the catholics and take them to the church.

Thread,

One success of Islam was how quickly it spread with high adoption rates. The same cannot be said of Christianity, especially before Constantine. That said, it was helpful to Christianity that the Jews even from before the fall of the second temple [like before WWII] moved away from the centre of persecutions, establing a foundation for Christianity centuries later.

I would not like to over generalise, but perhaps the causes of the eraly schicisms were different between Christianity and Islam? With the former on doctrine and the latter succession from Mohammed.

BOAZ,

How are "we"? [Christians?] The Romans called the Christians "athiests", because they would not prayer for the good health of the Emperor nor burn incense to "their Christian god" in poly-religous temples. The Romans were very superstitious and made associations between non-observerance and natural catastrophies.

Also, [male?]Christians were seen to be antisocial louts. Louts because back then [c.200-400], there was a 2-3 year preparation period for Baptism. The Christians basically tore up the town, "before" taking on the serious duties of the religion [Tertullian]. Constantine had to deal with the catechumen problem too [Fox].

The Christian Church also promoted [virginity and] no second marriages. Roman authorities warned Christians away from preying [ahem] on widows for on-death bequests to the Church. It grew its own coffers.

Hi Stickman,

Hope your exams are going OK.
“Islam seems to give more comfort to those who would give violent expression to their opinions, than other religions”

Replace “Islam” with “Arabic culture” and the above statement will be correct.
There is no theological backing in Islam as a religion, for intolerance (I am talking about the (Quran which is what all Muslims agree that it’s the word of God). Arabic culture, being influenced by Bedouin culture has a ‘tit for tat’ definition to many aspects in their day to-day life. This is regardless of the individual religious conviction. A simple example few years ago in Egypt, a Christian priest was caught blackmailing women who confess and forcing them into having sex with him. When the story hit the news, there were riots in the streets of Egypt by Orthodox Christians to free the culprit and death threats sent to women who wanted justice. Its when people associate themselves with pure tribalism and have no respect to law or reason.

I can’t stop nutcases from issuing death threats to the likes of rushdi. I actually can't see why any muslim should be offended by his comments. As a believer in the Islamic faith, I would say let him insult God and his prophet(s) as much as he likes. Its not my funeral its his.

Boaz,

There are 3 types of missionaries in that region: those who peacefully preach and debate, those who force ‘jesus for food’ (in Africa) and finally those who carry ‘Jesus axe’. I welcome the first, pity the 2nd and wouldn’t want to be near any of the lunatic broo haaa haaa ‘repent or die’ mob : -)

Peace,

Fellow_Human,

I see a slight contradiction in your logic.

On the one hand you say people like Rushdi can insult your prophet and God all they want:

"As a believer in the Islamic faith, I would say let him insult God and his prophet(s) as much as he likes. Its not my funeral its his."

Salman mentioned that your prophet Mohammad personally admitted the influence of Satan in some Qur'anic revelation.

Then you say:

>>(Quran which is what all Muslims agree that it’s the word of God)<<

two questions:

1) How can Allah and Satan co-author your holy book?

2) How can you prove the Qur'an IS the exact words of God worthy of your Islamic defence?

When clearly:

- Many versions existed before they got heavily edited and burnt by Khalifa Othman.
- Non-Arabic words in it. (Example: ‘injil’ from Greek)
- Many grammatical mistakes, few personal names and no dates – make it incoherent.
- Other orators "apart from God" (including Mohammad personal additions), and of course the Satanic verses
- Many obvious contradictions to Biblical stories. (Jesus was never Crucified)
- Historically incorrect and/or unprovable (Kaaba built by Adam?? or Abraham adventure to Mecca??).
- Borrowed local fables including Christian and Jewish sects of Mohammad's time. (Jesus talking in his cradle and making live pigeons out of clay)
- Too many scientific anomalies and absurdities. Women also produce sperm)
- Dates discrepancy. Example Miriam (Mary) mother of Jesus is also the sister of Moses and Aron.

Common FH. Anyone can see the fraud of islam – why DON’t you? (this is an optional question – between you and God)

Islam will never attain religious respectability unless free thinking people have the balls to invite open, and independent inquiry into this absurd and dangerous faith called Islam.

Accepting a religion without substance or proof is suicide.

Forcing conversions on other people and religious cleansing is what I like to call in 2007: Religious Terrorism.

You are defending an aggressive cult FH, no matter how much you are able to sugar coat-it..

Fellow-Human wrote;

'we are talking about 2 different things:
Issue 1: Is there a conflict between Muslim Sunni and Shiaa? The answer is yes.
Issue 2: is there a theological difference between Sunni and Shiaa: ther answer is not really or trivial.
The causes underlying issue one is pure tribalism.'

'Tribalism' is the whole point Fellow-Human, and I'm glad that you admit that it is a problem.

What's more you appear to agree with Richard Dawkins when he writes;

'My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a 'they' as opposed to 'we' can be identified at all'

- 'A Devils Chaplain', p187.

Therefore, if we combine your words with those of Richard Dawkins we conclude that religion, especially monotheistic religion, is horribly devisive and a focal-point for violent intolerance. In short, monotheism is a recipe for tearing apart a society.

What is most frustrating is that monotheistic tribalism is completely unnecessary. None of the monotheistic texts are logical or coherent, and because they prattle on about quasi supernatural elements such as angles and jinn, utterly ridiculous.

Scientific naturalism combined with philosophy and humanism is far more beneficial to the individual than religious faith. There's a lot to be said for the liberating experience of discovering truth. It really does set you FREE.

TR,

“'Tribalism' is the whole point Fellow-Human, and I'm glad that you admit that it is a problem”
So we agree on this one : -) Tribalism is not related or connected to theism (mono or poly). Tribal war fare existed in Africa, Latin America, Europe way before theism of any sort appeared.

“ if we combine your words with those of Richard Dawkins we conclude that religion, especially monotheistic religion, is horribly divisive and a focal-point for violent intolerance”

Replace “we” with “I” (meaning you, TR). For some reason I don’t understand you want to pin all world’s problems on monotheism.
We will have to agree to disagree on that one.

Coach,

Your first question is answered here:

http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE&cid=1123996016412

As for your second question that s really surprising coming from you.
I believe in Islam not because I can prove it but because the story board makes a natural sense to me, just like you believe God is incapable of forgiving and had to re-incarnate a son for blood sacrifice and just like TR here who believes everything around us is a gazillion random incidents with no single source coming from no where and going no where.

There are no proofs whatsoever on anything spiritual otherwise one would have been proven and we will be living in a boring mono-belief world.
We believe simply because we want to believe.
There are no ‘documented video tapes’ on Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or even atheism.

Peace,

Oliver,
“When I was ten, I had to make-up sins for Confession, … gave me a dressing down in front of 10-12 of peers.”
Now, I think, I can better understand your sentiments, and feel very sorry for what happened to you. The argument “do not blame mathematics for a bad maths teacher” still holds, but abuse of religion, especially when the person is very young, goes much deeper than any “abuse” of maths.

You see, I had an experience in exactly the opposite direction. Growing up in a communist country had many disadvantages, but one advantage was that priests like the one you describe (or the Egyptian priest mentioned by FH) were immediately blackmailed by the authorities into cooperation (if they did not cooperate already voluntarily). They were known as “patriotic priests”, and people could easily identify them by the way they behaved or preached. The rest were held in very high esteem by the population, not only Catholics. Many were jailed as “Vatican spies”. However, only old people could communicate with “non-patriotic” priests on a personal basis (except for the impersonal confessional); for the rest it was safer, for both the priest and the layman, not to be seen as having personal contacts. So for us, Christians, faith became a spiritual (or psychological, if you like) source of mental resistance to the ubiquitous public brain washing. I think something similar would be true about Islam for Muslims in some former Soviet republics.

I have to accept that you are finding confirmations for your “unfaith” (or just “un-Catholicism”?) in history and anthropology, the same as I am finding confirmations for my faith in (philosophy of) science and (the symbolic relation to reality of) mathematics, where I feel at home. Also, I think, you therefore sympathise with anti-religious sentiments expressed on this forum, although you probably would not subscribe to all of them. The same as I a priori sympathise with the Muslim faith as expressed here by FH, although we probably differ in some details of what – or rather how - we believe. (ctd)

(ctd) About one kilometer from where I now live in Cologne, a big mosque (and Muslim cultural centre) with two minarets 50m tall (the Cologne Cathedral/Dom is 157m tall), the largest in Germany, is going to be built for the 100,000 (10% of Cologne’s population) Muslims in Cologne, mostly Turks or of Turkish descent. I am looking forward to visiting it on one of their open days.

I think there are already more Muslims in Cologne attending weekly their improvised mosques, than there are Christians attending church every Sunday. Whoever is to blame for the religious vacuum in (Western) Europe – this includes some of the most vociferous opponents of the new mosque - it is certainly not the Muslims, and I think we cannot blame them for moving into this vacuum. I also think that this will give the “secular humanist” majority a jolt, though it will take a generation or two for the implications to seep in. I am not sure to what extent can this be applied to present-day Australia.

stickman,
“as an atheist, what am I missing out on by having no "faith" in anything?”
Faith, very roughly speaking. is belief plus trust. You do not have “no "faith" in anything”: you trust for instance, your parents, and you believe that the material world that science studies “is there and was there” before anybody studied it.

You actually ask what you miss out by having no religious faith, i.e. in a Something beyond what is classically called material world. I got the impression that you study medicine, or something related, so may I recommend you a book I just finished reading, which though not giving you an answer to your question, throws some light on “spiritual awareness” from the perspective of a professional biologist. He is open to a religious interpretation but does not force it upon you through a misuse of science. The book is David Hay, Something There: The Biology of the Human Spirit, Templeton Foundation Press, 2006 (paperback 2007).

George,

Thank you for your thoughtful words. At the moment, I aim involved in some data collection on tight timeframe. I will come back to you soon. As a mature adult, I do realise that many clerics would not have approved of my parish priest's zeal and that apart from the wicked needs performed by the Church against other religions and to control the political/monarchical process, there have many brave, moral believers, including in the Church itself.

Regardless, of whether one is a Christian, Jew, Muslim or other faith, or, agnostic, or, atheist; I do feel Jesus is best studied from the first century, before doctrinal accretions clouded events.

O.

Fellow_Human,

Referring me to a cleverly written site will not hide the FACT that such verses exist in your holy book and are a cause of embarrassment to Islamic scholars.

I will save you more humiliation and not publish the verses here.

Remaining the fact that Mohammad or some missinformed person wrote the Qur'an - judging from all the gaffes mentioned above.

More surprising are your statements:

“There are no proofs whatsoever on anything spiritual otherwise one would have been proven and we will be living in a boring mono-belief world.”

And

“We believe simply because we want to believe”

You can definitely speak for your way of “believing”. You believe just because the prophet said it no questions asked. Allah knows best.

After all Mohammad received all the enlightenment from his imaginary god and his angel and jinns..but who is going to challenge that - certainly not you FH.

Well this is clearly the difference between a cult (Islam) and a true belief like Christianity based on provable historical and archeolical FACTS.

Time to go back to the Bible FH – the only reference to things “spiritual”.

God did not NEED to do anything for us by He did it out of LOVE and compassion for you and me.

He didn't just send a recipe BOOK - but He came himself to save us.

Can Allah match that? Can Allah save you?

Coach,

“ Referring me to a cleverly written site will not hide the FACT that such verses exist in your holy book and are a cause of embarrassment to Islamic scholars “

Incorrect, these claims are not in the Holy book. Please learn a bit more about the topic.

Just forget about ‘my God is better than yours’ crap and be positive. Did you go and watch the Islamic art museum?
http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/sub/islam/index.html

Also, and speaking of modernisation of Islam, here are efforts by modern philosophers that I just shared with Danielle:

The ‘spiritual/ mystic’ group: lead by Fethullah Gullen (www.fethullahgullen.org). He is into mystic spirituality of Islam.

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

Don’t you think these are positive steps?

Also, the Shalom organisation in the US started moderating interfaith dialogue. Have a look:
http://www.shalomctr.org/taxonomy/term/102

Peace my friend and please chill,

'In his contribution Prof. Hanafi tries to view the theme of progress and religion in its cultural plurality. Therefore he sums up different examples which should demonstrate the fact that long before the so-called “Western” concept of progress there were already others – among them also religious – concepts which aimed at some kind of progress. Hanafi also assumes that “progress contains in itself regression” and therefore is a dynamic process which can move to its contrary – regress – too, if there is not at least some kind of controlling force. This force can be religion, because it is not concentrated on material, but on spiritual progress. And: there is also some kind of inner-religious progress. Hanafi tries to describe this from a historical point of view and finds an upward-movement from Judaism over Christianity to Islam.'

http://www.goethe.de/ins/vb/prj/fort/fur/hah/enindex.htm
http://www.goethe.de/mmo/priv/888262-STANDARD.pdf

Fellow-Human, I don't like the sound of Hassan Hanafi. He sounds just like every other card carrying Muslim fundamentalist to me. What makes him different is that he appears to promote his religious dogma by stealth rather than by force.

A true Islamic reformist would take the bit between his teeth and admit that the human race HAS to move out the bronze age, ditch monotheism altogther and embrace an idealology based on scientific naturalism.

For Hasan Hanafi to claim that Islam is the obvious 'upward movement' over Judaism and Christianity is to rattle off the same old boring Islamic cliches. The plain fact is that all three montheistic sects are worn out and due for the scrap heap. None of them is particularly outstanding.

What's more, as science and the scientific method based on scepticism seep into hitherto closed Islamic cultures via globalisation and the internet we will find that the hardcore assertions of Islam will begin to whither.

I can hear the 10 year olds now, "Daddy, do angels REALLY exist? Aren't they made up just like the tooth fairy?"

And all of a sudden theologians like Hasan Hanafi are as about as relevant as the old fashioned witch-doctor.

TR,
If you feel that “scientific naturalism combined with philosophy and humanism is far more beneficial to” you “than religious faith”, good on you. But please accept that for some other people religious faith combined with science, philosophy and humanism is far more beneficial to them than short-sighted scientific naturalism. Indeed, for both kinds of individuals, “there's a lot to be said for the liberating experience of discovering (what they are convinced is) truth”. Therefore a good psychotherapist (even a good priest) will not force on you his understanding of truth and/or ridicule the alternative. He/she will only encourage you to discover it for yourself.

coach,
aggressive language used against a fellow human (pun intended) of a different religion he tries to proclaim peacefully is not only unpolite, unchristian, but also counterproductive. Theologians/scholars of both these great religions will eventually settle on what they can agree upon, and on what we have to agree to disagree. However, we, ordinary Christians should not make the dialogue harder by emotionally (and unscholarly) pitting our beliefs against those of the Muslims. And vice versa.

Felow_Human,
“just like you believe God is incapable of forgiving and had to re-incarnate a son for blood sacrifice”
I can understand that you got upset by coach because he spoke disrespectfully of your religion, confusing it with the actions of some fanatics of whom there are still too many in any religion. Nevertheless, I am disappointed to see you react in a similar way. I hope you agree that mutual respect for the foundation elements, persons, facts, symbols, myths, etc. of the others’ religion is one of the basic preconditions for a peaceful coexistence of Christians and Muslims in a country where both are in fact a minority. For this I respect you and through you also your religion. You will remember that e.g. the official representative of Vatican was among the most outspoken non-Muslim critics of the Mohamed caricatures offense. Of the many so-called Western values, the “right to offend” is not one that Christians identify with. And, I am sure, neither do Muslims.

George,

You are right. Coach aggression is no justification of the way I commented. I tried to fix it in my second comment.

Also accept my apologies and remember that I started interacting on this forum 10/6/2005. I have coped with a lot from a mob (Coach, Boaz) who claim to follow your faith. Disrespect was the 'least honourable' quality I have seen and I did my best not to mirror their behaviour. I persisted and stayed when every other muslim almost just gave up and walked away with whatever impressions of Australian culture or your faith.

You are one of few I respect on this forum and it upsets me to offend you. Please forgive me.

Sincerely, FH

Coach,

Hope you learn from George and you might become a real christian one day.

TR,

I quoted a number of philosophers (see my post to Danielle).
I am not 'recommending' one or the other I am just saying these are schools of thought.

Dr Hanahfi have a 'competitive' approach as its his personal view that Christian reform should be used as a benchmark. He was one of few top scholars to question our understanding of Islam, re-interpret hadith for modern time and question historical understanding of the Quran.
See his comments on free-minds.org

Peace,

Quote Oliver:
Stickman,

"Don't hold your breath, if you are expecting BOAZ to answer. Well, at least that is my experience."

I should have listened to you mate, I am now a nice shade of deep blue... ;) I hope that put an end to the unwanted proselytism!

Quote FH:
“Islam seems to give more comfort to those who would give violent expression to their opinions, than other religions”

Replace “Islam” with “Arabic culture” and the above statement will be correct."

Yes but in what way are Arabic culture and Islam separable? They are so deeply intertwined that any attempt to make such a differentiation seems a little disingenuous to me.

And thanks, the exams went well!

Quote FH:
"We believe simply because we want to believe."

FH, thank you for the very refreshing honesty. I think this goes to the root of what I believe to be the psychological origins of religious belief, but that is a whole other topic.

Quote George:
stickman,
“as an atheist, what am I missing out on by having no "faith" in anything?”
Faith, very roughly speaking. is belief plus trust. You do not have “no "faith" in anything”: you trust for instance, your parents, and you believe that the material world that science studies “is there and was there” before anybody studied it."

Thanks George for the interesting perspective. I must respectfully disagree though, I trust my parents (many don't for good reason) because, empirically, I know they are worthy of it. I believe that the material world was there before I was, because scientists carbon-date it to x-billions of years etc.

Thanks for the book tip, I might chase it up (anything that steers clear of the odious fraud known as intelligent design sounds good). I tend to prefer my science straight though, a la Dawkins - call it a reaction to 15 years of Catholic indoctrination! Your story is interesting, did you grow up in the GDR?

I am indeed studying medicine - halfway through the course this month :)

Stickman,

:-)

George,

I will keep a look out for the book. I know of the Templeton Foundation. I have about six yet to be read books stacked-up. That said, I am interested in acquiring a book you recommend. Thanks.

Hi Stickman,

"in what way are Arabic culture and Islam separable? They are so deeply intertwined that any attempt to make such a differentiation seems a little disingenuous to me"

Actually Arabic culture and Islam has been on a separation course for the last 2 centuries. Arabic culture was the sole influencer over the Islamic faith when Muslims were manily arabs (Arabs used to be 80% of Muslims).
Arabs today represent as little as 16% of the total Muslims population and most forecats shows they will settle at 8-9% in the next few decades.
With the decline of the Arab cultural influence, there is rising influences you can see today mainly Asian and European. I think Islamic culture in 20-30 years will look vastly different than today.

Peace,

Fellow_Human,
thank you for your warm words. My feelings towards you are similar, hence my irritation. However, rest assured I was not offended. Worse things are being said by atheists all the time, and Christians in the West would have to live in a state of permanent offense had they not grown immune to that. Sometimes I think Muslims should try to develop a similar thick skin: think about legitimate criticism and simply ignore insults. These insults bear testimony to nothing related to your faith only to the offender's arrogance and ignorance.

What I wanted to emphasise in my post was that - to put it simply - if somebody steps on my toe (these things happen), it is decent of him to apologise, and it is decent of me to accept his apology. What is not decent is to claim that he has “the right” to step on my toe.

George,

The catch for traditional Islam is ruling politics is a commandment in that it is conduit to ensure the Law of god [Armstrong]. Separation of church and state is a contradiction to many Muslims. In a similar way, some conserative Jews see the occupation of the Holy Lands as much a divine command as a right.

[aside:It must have been hard to grow-up in the aftermouth of Stalin.]

Have a good day.

O.

stickman,
of course, my examples of non-religious trust and belief were very rough. Nevertheless I think they can help us to understand that things are not as simple as fundamentalists - both “religious” (if you do not believe in my version of God you will go to hell) and “anti-religious” (if you do not accept my way of seeing things you are illogical, irrational, anti-scientific etc.) - see them.

You know empirically that your parents are worthy of trust and since they are nice people, others who know them will agree. But there is still something additional in your life-long experience of them, that an outsider cannot share. Something like this is faith (more exactly the emotional, irrational part of it): an insider experience, mostly life-long. Hence the Judaeo-Christian model of God as a Father, where Christianity, especially its Catholic version, has Mary as our “Mother”, apparently to compensate for a yin-yang balance in our psychological need. The rational part of faith, sometimes called “intellectual consent” draws on philosophy, and is harder to describe in a few words.

Scientists cannot carbon-date the Big Bang, neither can science prove (like you prove a mathematical formula) the existence of electrons, photons, quarks, or perhaps just strings, that they study; they have only evidence of their interaction with our senses or instruments. This impossibility, very roughly speaking, was the essense of “science wars” in the 1990s - between scientists and post-modernist “social constructivists” – triggered by the Sokal hoax (see e.g. http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/boghossian/papers/bog_tls.html). Here all scientists, believers in God, atheists or agnostics, “fought” on the same side, and one of the best arguments for the belief in a truth that the scientist can persue, and is independent of any “social construct”, was written by atheists and agnostics, Sokal included. You belonged to one or the other “camp” not according to your belief or unbelief in God, but whether you understood (or wanted to accept the word of a working specialist) what mathematical physics and ist epistemological function was all about, or not.

And no, the country I grew up in was Czechoslovakia.

Hi George,

Thanks for your comment it’s a relief. I think my skin is getting thicker specially my feet (my toes being stepped on for 2 years with no apologies). Thanks for ‘coach’ing me (pun intended: -)).

Oliver,

“The catch for traditional Islam is ruling politics is a commandment in that it is conduit to ensure the Law of god. Separation of church and state is a contradiction to many Muslims”

The statement is actual mythology.
Most Islamic modernists examine the Islamic history and conclude that (see earlier comments to Danielle) ‘combining church and state’ was a political promotion.
.
Modernists used the farewell sermon of the prophet to confirm that the prophet asked the people to ‘chose their leaders’ which is against ‘mixing church and state’.
In fact, the first 4 leaders of the Muslim empire were ‘chosen by the people’ and not related to each other. They had good leadersip qualities and were the poorest of Muslims (except for the 1 and 3 who had some assets). Religion got mingled into politics starting with Ummayyad to give legitimacy to their newly founded monarchies.
Further http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Farewell_Sermon

Peace,

So, Fellow-Human, would you agree that any given state or ethnic group should NOT have an official state religion?

Do you also agree that the Legislative Assemblies representing the people should NOT give deference to any particularly religion or god and that monotheistic texts should NOT be quoted or utilised in Legislative debates, nor the divine mentioned in any form.

What about thinly veiled threats made by Rabbis, Cardinals and Sheiks? Do you feel that political lobbying by religious leaders is unwarranated, devisive and irreligious?

Fellow-Human, when you talk about the 'separation' of monotheism and the State what do you actually mean by that?

Hi George,

1. Scientists will test their theories and posit null hypotheses. Pride and obstinance aside, scientists will switch paradigms, more readily than a theist. The existence / non existence of the gravitional constant will depend on prevailing evidence; not so with the "evidence/indications for" the existence of god. If memory serves, Einstein need to be won over to QM. But he did so, in the end?

2. Yin and Yang are actually quite complex concepts. The traditional Chinese believe that much good must be complemented my much bad. Hence, seek order instead.

Posts will be short. Still busy.

TR,
What did a Cardinal recently threaten you with? (Cardinal Richelieu, could threaten people but he has been dead for over three centuries.) If you do not believe in hell, what CAN a cardinal threaten you with today? (If you believe in hell you also must believe that you will be judged on whether you followed your own, and not somebody else’s, conscience.) If you are an MP, how come you cannot make a conscience vote - after having assessed a couple of contradicting outside infos/ifluences by lobbyists, cardinals or not - without having to complain about “thinly veiled threats”?

Hi Oliver,
Thank you for the attention you paid my remark addressed to stickman. I am not sure whom you call “theist” but there are indeed people with both scientific and theological qualifications, and, of course they use different methods to study those two different kinds of knowledge.

How can the gravitational constant (or any other constant) cease to “exist”? Atheists claim the non-existence of (the monotheist version of) God but I have never heard of anybody denying the existence of numbers.

Also, I never claimed that the complementarity yin-yang (dark-light, female-male, passive-active, content-form etc.) was not complex, though I doubt many Chinese philosophers would like you to call them concepts (As far as I know, Chang Tung Sun wrote a long treatise on conception and perception, but that is 20th century, and he cites Kant explicitly). However, since the seventies, also in the West has ying-yang become a standard way of refering to this polarity, that in Western philosophy existed under several guises. I do not know whom you mean by “traditional Chinese”, I hope not Lao Tzu.

Thanks for the material for my mind to chew on.

TR,

“Fellow-Human, when you talk about the 'separation' of monotheism and the State what do you actually mean by that?”
There are many good examples of separation of church and state. A good example like the Vatican, Saudi Arabia (just kidding: -).
Good examples are Australia, US, Turkey, Emirates, Egypt, etc..

I agree with all your statements above except for this one:
“Legislative assemblies should not quote or mention the divine in any form”

Lets define what secularism is: Its to respect everyone freedom to express themselves or their beliefs provided that they don’t infringe or discriminate against the others. So if am MP in the senate have a political view based on his religious beliefs (like the Catholic MPs and stemcells) we should respect their individuality. The same goes for religious symbols: veils, skull caps, rose rings, pink hair should not be triggers of discrimination but a trigger of respect for diversity.

What I am hearing you promoting is ‘militant secularism’ or ‘anti-religious’ (ie the Capitalist version of the soviet union which ironically look like where France is heading.)
Please clarify if I mis-understood what you are asking me.

“What about thinly veiled threats made by Rabbis, Cardinals and Sheiks? Do you feel that political lobbying by religious leaders is unwarranated, devisive and irreligious?”
True, although I think its like a radio broadcast, only those who follow it should care.
In saying that, I believe scholars should focus on educating their beliefs only. If they are keen on creating ‘the other” they should reach to touch points and not discrepancies. I don’t judge as according to my beliefs ‘judgement’ is reserved to the creator and not for humans to practice

George,

“…. there are indeed people with both scientific and theological qualifications, and, of course they use different methods to study those two different kinds of knowledge”.

Definitely Newton was a [Christian] theist experiencing the early days of true science. He was also Protestant at odds with the established universal Christian Church. He had problems with the Trinity and didn’t believe it. He was a scientist, who did not only believe in God, but also Christianity’s god. Newton had broken from the Mother Church and didn’t believe in the fourth century creed of the Trinity. Was he an [early] scientist? I think was. Was he a theist?… yes A Christian theist?…yes A denominationalist? That is a bit fuzzy… mainly.

The value of pi does not change. That said, historically, not all societies have had the same ability to measure the upper and lower limits of pi. That value changes according to how developed is the society.

Zero and positional notation in a plutonic sense have always existed, but have not always been to known to us. Numbers [5, XIV] as used mathematicians are symbols. These conform to the psycholinguistic rules too, 12 and 21 having different meanings. Linguists call this “productivity”, which in English is syntax. Symbols do change and when used merely represent a latent underlying entity.

A true scientist would hold any constant as testable and a forever to be tested posit. A scientist would try to disprove that posit. Does it work on Mars? Theistic scientists I have read tend to keep the two domains under two umbrellas. The exception might be pantheistic mathematicians, where the universe is self-sustained owing to its underlying proportions and mathematic rules. Whether he would admit it or not, maybe, Penrose is headed in this direction.

My point with Ying and Yang was that with religious concepts and oppositional concepts, there is more to it than the opposing forces. With good and evil, increasing one would be said to increase the other. Creating insight into god’s mission, would increase doubt too. Ratchet one thing and you increase measure of its opposite.

Cheers.

Fellow-Human wrote,

'There are many good examples of separation of church and state. A good example like the Vatican, Saudi Arabia (just kidding: -).
Good examples are Australia, US, Turkey, Emirates, Egypt, etc..'

Egypt?? You have got to be kidding Fellow-Human. As a reminder here is Article 2 from the Egyptian constitution;

'Art.2*: Islam is the Religion of the State. Arabic is its official language, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).'

http://www.egypt.gov.eg/english/laws/Constitution/chp_one/part_one.asp

For a country to nominate a particular religion as its State religion is completely unacceptable. Why? Because it reinforces bigotry within society and gives the clerical oligarchies a voice in society that they should not have. Here is a good reason why Rabbis, Cardinals and Sheiks should be removed for the centre of public debate;

'Egyptian writer on trial over religion

An Egyptian writer who described the Koran as a book of ignorance and blamed Islam for underdevelopment in Muslim countries has gone on trial in Cairo.

The writer, Salaheddin Mohsen, has been charged with offending religion.

The Egyptian Organisation for Human Rights, which is monitoring the trial, says Mr Mohsen has confessed to the charge.

He could face several years in jail.....'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/795456.stm

And then there is the well documented on going fiasco with people of the Bahai faith in Egypt;

'The Bahá'í in Egypt also face persecution; on December 16, 2006, the Supreme Administrative Council of Egypt ruled the government may not recognize the Bahá'í Faith in official identification numbers.[76] Consequently, Egyptian Bahá'ís are unable to obtain government documents, including ID cards, birth, death, marriage or divorce certificates, or passports, all of which require a person's religion to be listed. They also cannot be employed, educated, treated in hospitals or vote, among other things.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1'%C3%AD_Faith
http://www.bahai.org/persecution/egypt/update

There are good reasons why sceptical secularists like myself get on our high-horse when the issue of mixing State politics and monotheism comes up. Monotheism makes cohesion within a multi-faith society impossible. It's all to do with an overly jealous and vindictive sky-god from the Bronze Age.

Oliver,
Newton belongs to 18th century and we are in the 21st when both physics/science and theology/religion have gained more sophisticated insights. I was surprised at your doubt about the EXISTENCE of numbers not about values which indeed can be constant by their very nature, or empirically constant (or assumed as such within a physical theory), or variable. The yin-yang polarity is seldom applied to Platonic transcendentals, i.e. to good-bad, true-untrue, beautiful-ugly.

TR,
“It's all to do with an overly jealous and vindictive sky-god from the Bronze Age.”
You have got a point here which is something like one half of Arnold Toynbee’s observation:

“Christianity and Judaism has one vision of God as being self-sacrificing love – God the merciful, the compassionate, according to the Islamic formula – and another vision of God as being a jealous God. … The jealous God’s chosen people easily fall into becoming intolerant persecutors. … Perhaps the two visions of God, which I have called irreconcilable in the Judaic group of higher religions, have their roots in nature-worship and in man-worship respectively.”

There is a quote from Toynbee’s Study of History that could also be relevant to our discussions:

“The subordination of higher religions to states or other secular institutions is a relapse into an ancient dispensation under which religion was an integral part of the total culture of some pre-civilisational society or early civilisation, limited in spiritual and geographical sense.

But the higher religions will always be bound to strive to keep themselves disengaged from secular social and cultural trammels, because this is an indispensable condition for the fulfillment of their true missions.

This mission is not concerned directly with human beings’ social or cultural relations with each other: its concern is the relation between each individual human being and the trans-human spiritual presence of which the higher religions offer a new vision.”

I know, many people disagree with Toynbee’s interpretation of history but I was just wondering, among other things, whether such a vision (of Islam) would be acceptable e.g. to Fellow_Human.

Thanks TR for the following

Egypt?? You have got to be kidding Fellow-Human. As a reminder here is Article 2 from the Egyptian constitution;
Art.2*: Islam is the Religion of the State. Arabic is its official language, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).'

Many of the Islamist apologists seem to be speaking through their rectum.

Quote George:

"Thank you for the attention you paid my remark addressed to stickman. I am not sure whom you call “theist” but there are indeed people with both scientific and theological qualifications, and, of course they use different methods to study those two different kinds of knowledge. "

Thanks George, sorry been tied up again. Oliver has already addressed this one more eloquently that I could, but suffice it to say that I find the disctinction between scientific and theological knowledge utterly arbitrary and false. There is just 'knowledge,' surely? Why should theological matters be afforded different treatment?

Quote George:

"Atheists claim the non-existence of (the monotheist version of) God but I have never heard of anybody denying the existence of numbers."

Be very careful how you characterise atheism - an extreme, 'radical' atheist position may deny the possibility of God, but I (and I suspect the majority of people who identify as atheist) deny not the possibility of God, but that there is sufficient evidence for him.. it.. whatever.

Atheism for most, is more the absence of belief in the unprovable than a claim of anything... a subtle distinction but an important one.

"Newton belongs to 18th century and we are in the 21st when both physics/science and theology/religion have gained more sophisticated insights. I was surprised at your doubt about the EXISTENCE of numbers not about values which indeed can be constant by their very nature, or empirically constant (or assumed as such within a physical theory), or variable. The yin-yang polarity is seldom applied to Platonic transcendentals, i.e. to good-bad, true-untrue, beautiful-ugly." - George

From the 21st we also better insights into the first century than we did in Newton's time. In several threads my position has been in regards to Christian religion one need's to look at the period, not three hundred years later, when post Jesus house-groups became an institutionalised religion [Nicaea]. Someone like Richard Leakey can tell you more about Adam & Eve than an eighteen century theologian. Yet, we have Creationist Parks in the US.

I do believe an equation is a representation of a latent variable, which is, that is, the latent variable is, more fundamental than than numbers used to describe it. The numbers exist but these are merely symbols used for manipulation. We can classify say rationals and irrationals using symbols, but there are deeper entities.

Plato would have played with Mind-Body, i.e., immaterial-material.

stickman,
I certainly appreciate that you can find time to communicate with an “old man” (I am going to be 70 next Sunday) who certainly has more time for this than a student. Remember, you asked first “as an atheist, what am I missing out” so forgive me if I continue trying to explain the wider visions that philosophy can offer, without, I hope, sounding too condescending. As I say, my hope is not to make you change your perspective but rather to widen it.

“I find the distinction between scientific and theological knowledge utterly arbitrary and false.”
You are referring to my concise reaction to Oliver’s reaction to what I addressed as a response to your question. I find this a very strong statement about an abstract concept (knowledge) that philosophers argue about: Funny you mention Oliver, because it was he who reminded me (in another thread) of Michael Polanyi who dedicated a book (Personal Knowledge) exactly to this concept.

Well, my mathematical knowledge is certainly different from what a scientist would call knowledge in his/her field. I did research just by “exercising my brain cells”, and writing down what I found, whereas e.g. a medical researcher has to do the same PLUS confront his thought constructions with physical reality (laboratory, patients, etc.). Humanity learned mathematics (and I or you as a child) through sensual contacts with physical reality, but (pure) mathematics as such has its own justification and “existence”, symbolic if you like, independent of physical reality. It is being said that yesterday’s pure maths is tomorrow’s applied math. So mathematical knowledge can be seen as something different from a knowledge of facts or laws from the material world, though non-mathematicians have often problems understanding this distinction.

Maybe something similar can be said about theology, and what is seen as knowledge in its context, but here I am not an expert. (ctd)

(ctd) Can it be that it simply offers models of a reality beyond the physical, (actually a whole lot of them if you do not restrict yourself to Christian theology) like mathematical physics – and its more naive predecessors, often intertwined with religion - offers models of the physical reality?

Well, nobody doubts the existence of physical reality, though you have to know quite a lot of mathematics to understand the discussion about its essence (string theory, loop quantum gravity, etc). The existence of a spiritual world is more in doubt, here the distinction between objective and subjective is more blurred than in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, and certainly no mathematics is helpful.

Nevertheless, you are probably right that I expressed myself too concisely, and should have said that the difference is in the way science and theology investigate their subject which is best illustrated on scientists with a degree in theology (like the physicists Ian Barbour and John Polkinghorne, or the biochemist Arthur Peacocke). Roughly speaking, there are many Christian scientists – I think the majority of them - who claim that you should do research in science “as if God did not exist” (called methodological atheism that I also subscribe to). And there are secular (agnostic or atheist) sociologists – though certainly not all - who claim the best way to organise a society is “as if God existed”. Theologians, of course, have to do their research “as if God existed”.

I referred to atheism only in context of Oliver’s ideas about maths and constants. Classically, an atheist is the one who is convinced that there is no God (usually the Christian model of Him), an agnostic is one who is not convinced one way or the other. Usually belief in God and religion is vigorously attacked by the former, not by the latter. … Unfortunately I am not allowed to write more, so you will have to wait 24 hours for the conclusion.

George,

1. I suspect we may have the same belief in the existence of numbers / latent valiables, but use nomenclature. I see H20, restated, H-2-0, as a model, not water. Same 1, 2, 3 0r I, II, III. Pure mathematics might precede applied mathemenatics, but the would be an infinite domain of mathemeatics unknown to pure mathematics, for which, symbols and models are yet to be created.

2. Two powerful concepts I take from Polanyi are "indwelling" and the coeffecient nature of explicit and tacit knowledge. The former relates to performance and the latter personal knowledge. Collectively, these concepts would suggest how an audience understands and expereinces Macbeth or an An Wednesday mass.

3. The hypostases of the Trinity could be said to have become creed from 325 CE. Actually, the debates went on for few generations after Nicaea. When things settled-down, creed became the script for the performance into which parishioners and congregations indwell, for affirmation. In this way, religious confirmation is different to scientific testing of the forensic nature, of the kind I feel Sells [other thtreads] should use.

4. Mathematics can be used to better understand the Cosmos, as you say. Philosophically the debate over the existence of god seems perpetual. Yet, history, anthropology and the behaviural sciences "do" give insights into how a multitude of religions operate. Commonalities can be observed, as with the elementary particles on the Periodic Table. The benefit of such research lies being able to "map" one's god, given the overall architecture of gods/godheads known. It permits a bird's eye view into power, politics and socialisation, not merely [limited] faith.

Cheers.

stickman, (ctd) I do not know what you mean by “possibility of God” unless you refer to some obscure scholastic terminology. If you claim that “there is not sufficient evidence for the existence” of a God (as presented in the Judaic religions), then I will agree with you provided by evidence you mean evidence accepted by contemporary science. If there were scientific evidence for His existence (like there is for the existence of galaxies or bacteria), He would not be God as understood by e.g. Christians, because there would not be any point for Him to reward those who believe in Him. Please note, I am not describing facts that you have to accept, I am just describing the Christian (or Muslim) MODEL of God. In other words, the question “why can’t you find scientific evidence for the existence of God” resembles the question “why is the Pope Catholic”: he could not be Pope if he were not Catholic and God would not be God if you could find scientific evidence for His existence.

So evidence-no evidence, either
(a) there is no God as Christians etc. believe (just a figment of their imagination), or
(b) there is one (providing those who believe in Him with some rewards, at least psychological), but BY HIS VERY NATURE His existence cannot be “verified” like that of Alpha Centauri or mitochondria.

Coming back to your original question “as an atheist, what am I missing out”, the answer is “nothing” if you keep to the realm that science can understand. What do you miss out if you speak only English? Nothing, because you can express in English everything you want to express. Nevertheless, understanding of foreign languages widens your horizon, and the same is true about understanding other world view perspectives (instead of calling them “irrational nonsense” as some do).

There is only one thing I’d like you to accept: both among those who believe in God and among those who don’t there are clever people and stupid people, educated people and uneducated people, good people and bad people, tolerant people and intolerant people.

Oliver,
“Mathematics can be used to better understand the Cosmos”. It goes deeper than that, though I am not sure how many people here would follow the distinction. Nevertheless, let me try.

Mathematics can be used to better understand (the working of) many things, i.e. this computer, where mathematics helps you to extend or deepen your intuitive understanding. When you want to understand what matter as such (or the Cosmos if you like) is, or “consists of” you need mathematics to start with. (Those who do not understand this ask silly questions like “what was before the Bing Bang?”):

Scientists first thought of atoms as small balls, then small planetary systems, then further deepened their knowledge until they hit the wall with quantum mechanic’s wave-particle dualism which is mathematically clear but no intuition helps. More importantly, in string theory nobody observed some tiny strings and then looked for mathematics to explain their workings. It was the other way around, they arrived through mathematical (and physics) considerations at a certain mathematical model of matter. True, this model is still in its stage of verification (Oliver, I know that only recently many serious doubts have been raised), and even the very mathematics it uses needs further research. The word string was attached to this theory only afterwards in order to have a name for the theory, and - perhaps more importantly - to explain to the general public what they mean. The reason for the choice of the name was that the mathematics of the model somehow resembles the mathematics of the workings of a string that everybody understands what it is

George,

Thank you. Interesting comment.

George, haven't you heard - 70 is the new 50!

You are right, I obviously haven't had as much time to read up on all of this as you have. I am intrigued by philosophy though, I was studying it at a basic level before starting med. Maybe I can go back and finish the degree one day.. here's hoping; after all there is plenty of room for it in medicine these days in bio-ethics etc.

So anyway, I won't try and cross swords with you, you have given me some interesting perspectives to read up on. Thanks.

From time to time in this thread I've read the term 'religious vacuum'. This I find annoying as there is no such thing as a 'religious vacuum'.

This phrase is used by Muslims and Christians because they arrogantly assume in their tiny minds that non-religious people live a life that is completely empty. I can assure them that this is not the case. Life is bigger, better, more fruitful, and more moral without having to carry around the burden of religious superstition.

Hence, we can also say that Muslims do NOT fill the religious space supposedly left by a secularised Western society. What Muslims have done in Western societies is introduce a superfluous foreign 'meme'. This 'meme', or mind-virus, demands that those who are infected spend lots of money to build lots of Mosques in order to perpetuate the mind-virus. This way the mind-virus ensures that the infection spreads to the next generation.

It is the job of enlightened free-thinking individuals to ensure that the minds of the public are inoculated against this incursion of more religious viruses as one brand of monotheistic virus, namely Christianity, is already more than a civilised society can bear.

TR, “This I find annoying as there is no such thing as a 'religious vacuum'. … Muslims and Christians … arrogantly assume in their tiny minds…”

Don’t you think that there are people on this forum – Christians, Muslims, secular humanists, those who would agree with what you are trying to say, as well as those who disagree – who find the WAY you express yourself about others’ world views also annoying?

Otherwise, thank you for providing evidence for my remark to stickamn, that there are intolerant people not only among Christians and Muslims, but also among those who do not see themselves associated with any religion.

George,

Greetings.

"The reason for the choice of the name [string] was that the mathematics of the model somehow resembles the mathematics of the workings of a string that everybody understands what it is."

A model of a model. :)

Appreciate that a model is not always correct first time, as with your example of the atom. Likewise, I have read an interesting essay [Olivier Darrigol] on the Einstein-Poincare connection*, wherein some posit Henri Poincare's [1898-1900] contribution to understanding Relativity is not fully appreciated, perhaps, being held-back by Poincare maintaining the idea of the "ether".

[*Both assumed the speed of light constant measured in different inertial frames and both argued the different inertial systems were related through Lorentz transformations.]


Crossing-over to a paradigm [Kuhn]is hard: Actually, its a never ending investigation, towards which, commitment can be made, but always held with forensic suspicion. As has been said before, on the topic of quantum chromodynamics, "the last word is not Whitten" :).

With religions, if I were a theologian, I would worry about syncretions and accretions. I not a theologian, and I am

Dear George,

Before 9/11 I wouldn't have dreamed of being overly critical of religion. However, the rules of engagement have changed. In fact everything has changed since 9/11.

It is now of vital importance for sceptics to hold religion to account. Indeed, monotheism MUST be lampooned, criticised, ridiculed, and kicked in the shins at every available opportunity. It is for the long-term good of society.

Lest we all be slowly strangled to death by the literalists and the fundementalists

TR,

I noticed you got stuck on my comment above ignoring other examples I gave like Turkey.
I would agree with George is his last comment: if the conquest is for people to become better human beings then their beliefs are tools of guidance to get them there. A follower of Islam or christianity who dispises others is no different than an atheist acting in the same manner.
Which beliefs you follow are your business. What matter is if it getting you where you want to go: a better human being that is.

Peace as always,

Dear TR,
I am sure it would not be a hard exercise for you to replace just a few words in your post to get a “justification” for an islamist’s anti-Western (instead of anti-religious) fanaticism. Most Christians, Muslims, or non-religious will share your feelings about 9/11, but do you really think you can exorcise fanaticism through fanaticism? Do you think the only way to fight rape is to “lampoon, criticise, ridicule, and kick in the shins” sex just because without sex there would be no rapists?

Oliver, thank you for commenting further. So after all, I did not express myself clearly enough. What I was saying was that the (pure) mathematics explaining the working of a string (like the one on your violin or guitar) resembles the mathematics of the new, “string theory” situation they were exploring. Thus “similarity of two mathematical models” and not "A model of a model. :)”.

Also, one does not speak of correct or incorrect models: the relation to truth (about our physical world) is much more complicated. One can only compare two models of the same set of phenomena as to which one is “more correct”, or “more useful” etc. When talking about our galaxy, the model of Earth as a geometric point is more useful than that of a rotational ellipsoid, which is also less useful than the flat Earth model when dealing with a local only map. In these trivial examples the question of correctness is simple; not so when talking about fundamental properties of matter, gravity, space-time etc. If there is ever a ToE, it should be “more correct” than any other model of our physical world, but probably useful only in very extreme situations.

Here Kuhn is of interest mainly as a view from the “outside”, by a historian or social scientist. He is the “innocent” father (and Polanyi perhaps an even more innocent grandfather) of the “social constructivist” views of science, leading to “science wars” I referred to before.

Hello George,

No concerns able your explanation. You are an very able writer. More likely any misunderstandings are mine. However, on this occasion, our views might not be so far apart. That is, the guitar sting is a metaphor (a model) of the equation (a further model) of a deeper reality or quasi-reality.

Also,I agree concurrent models do exist and one needs to pick and choose, according to one's goal. A medical doctor treating a burn is prabably not concerned with the chemical reaction creating the burn.

Any ToE, I posit, requires a mental model of change:

At the macro-level, we need to appreciate, if we wind back time, there are changes in the effects of thermodyndamics and enthropy. Atoms that commonly exist now, could not have existed under the ultra-excitation states near the creation.

At the micro-level, quantun uncertainties have implications for contra determinant and indeterminant realms.

The solution to the ToE cannot exist in today's observable physics.

Moreover, the ToE solution, if within our intellectual capacity or constructionist's reach (if there is enough evidence), is outside the space-time that serves us so very well in today's domain of reality [our senses, our size), and, the ToE now can only exist (subsist?) as a model [mathematical/geometric?) created via our intellectual or another intellect's [A future species or ETs] mental model. Trying not be anthropomorphic, here. :).

Else stated, if some orginal design/state(s) caused cosmological events and quantum events to converge, it could prove futile to search in the here and now.

Herein, particle accelerators might be biased, as to domain, not being able to similtaneouly create cosmological and quantum states. Also "today's "accelerator itself intrudes, as a moderator/observer, to past-time experiment.

Original design is elusive, perhaps, meaningless to this universe. Where the universe came from has maybe as much meaning as asking, into what does the universe expand? We might see the blurr of the first state, but its precursor. What is the before causation? This is a problematic question.

Oliver, thank you for your interest (and comments on matters that are, I am afraid, beyond both of us).

“the guitar sting is a metaphor (a model) of the equation (a further model) of a deeper reality or quasi-reality.”
I think we have two different understandings of the term “model”: The miniature thing on your desk representing the actual building you want to study (or build) is a model of that real thing, not the other way around. Like a piece of self-contained mathematics (often containing equations but an equation on its own cannot be a model) that you can study sitting at your desk can be a model of some “real thing”, not the other way around. The real thing is a realisation of your model. [One should not confuse this with the use of model in mathematical logic]

So mathematics can model reality, for instance,
(a) the vibrations of your guitar string: you can study them using a suitable mathematical model, however you can also see the string or touch it with your finger, and you do not need mathematics for that;
(b) the basic “building blocks” of matter: you can neither see nor “touch” them, so you need mathematics not only to study them but to be able to say anything about them.

However, I think we have already deviated too much from the article we were supposed to comment on

Else stated, if some orginal design/state(s) caused cosmological events and quantum events to ---converge---, it could prove futile to search in the here and now. OOps. Diverge. Sorry. Changes the meaning somewhat.

George,

I will read and have a think about your comments and come back. I think Marvin Minsky looked at Mental Models

MODELS

George,

I don't disagree with you, but suspect you disagree with me. Strange? Not really, I suspect I have a wider accemptance about what I will call a model, a reproduction [a miniture], a representation [an architect's model of a building, a posit [conceptual model, or, a simulation [using a wind to test (a) a car and (b) the ability to achieve a low coefficient of aerodynamic penetration.

Jurgen Renn of the Max Planck Institute applied Minsky's mental models to modelling [ahem] how Einstein bridge Special Relativity to General Relatity. The former interpreted from classic physics and the latter requiring the resoluion of three paradoxes:

- Missing knowledge
- Deceitful heuristics
- Discontinous progress

Too complex [space] for the Fourum but the essay deals questions such as "how could have Einstein formulated the criteria for a gravitational field equation years before finding a soloution? Herein, a metal model allows for the "simulation of anticipation of real models despite the lack of full and unequivocal information".

The internal architecture of has "terminals" open for specifying the model via accepting supplemental information stuctured into a "frame", which maintain the entities of internal structure. Herein, the model has default settings [later changable) in response to new information...

/CONT.

George
If I can just interrupt you metaphysical tai chi routine for a moment.

Initially I found it incredible to hear you sermonizing to TR re fanaticism, considering your stance firming in the monotheistic camp. Then I remembered ! Monotheism was not just historically
the leading exponent of fanaticism, it has for millennium also been the leading exponent of revisionism –boldly re-writing history to suit its ‘revelations’& excuse itself –whenever it thought it could get away with it ( Comrade Joe owed a lot to formative years spent in a theological college !)

I suggest that monotheism’s new found commitment to peace & reconciliation has more to do with dominant 20-21st century secular memes, that anything within the fruit cake of propositions found in monotheistic codes.

And, as for your butchering of ‘models’ & ‘truth’ concepts:
A better approach would be, different degrees of certainty .
Science as opposed to individual scientists, relies on trial & error, places methodology above authority & it would rarely pronounce anything 100% certain- even ‘trivial’ things .
Monotheism on the other-hand purports to stem from divine authority –which by definition cannot be faulted, its apologists only defence is to duck & weave around issues of ‘interpretation’, but it quickly becomes apparent to free thinkers that monotheism has no clothes- and no future.

…/

Here, I feel religionists and fundamentalist atheists become stuck on their default settings not letting new challenges in. If a Sells-like [another thread] attitude were Einstein’s, Einstein may have built Special Relativity from classical mechanics, but could not have accepted the challenge of adjusting the settings leading to changing the entities that stupefied classical mechanics, within alternative domains. In religion, Sells-like absolutes do not allow one to change the default settings [faith is problematic]:

If there is geological evidence Earth is over 6,000 years old or there were several Jewish Messiahs during the Greek and Roman occupation, “a Sells” will not adjust defaults.

Renn gives examples of how Einstein, between 1907 and 1912, uses the Lorentz Model of field equations to change mental model terminals [the differential operator] representative of the source of the field "describing how the source generates the field”. The differential operator could be incorporated into the equivalence principle, suggesting "co-variants such as the Riemann tensor as the starting point".

Thus, the shift from Special Relativity to General Relativity could not be crisply established from the traditional Lorentz model, yet it could be reshaped via progressive heuristics. Likewise, the architecture of God's presence or allusion can modelled from the triangulating relevant sciences and histographies: e.g., the architecture of theocracies. But one has to let defaults to change. Else, we are left arrested.

Instead, create a traditional model of the Bible and change the default settings based on other knowledge. Keep the Bible, but be prepared to stupefy [not in an insulting sense] it. Identify the Bible’s terminals to conjoin with valid external probes. To iterate, the idea is not to establish opposition, rather to modify the terminals of the traditional [Biblical] model to create new knowledge.

[Above is very simplified and slight tangent owing to space limits]

Best wishes for your 70th.

BACK ON TOPIC NEXT TIME

Oliver,
I agree that we do not disgree that much on the concept of model. I was thinking of its epistemological function in science: understanding “what things are” rather than just “how they work” as is the case with e.g. computer simulations of “real” procedures), though in literature by mathematical models one usually means the latter, technical, application of mathematics.

I am really grateful to you for calling my attention to Jürgen Renn: he seems to be relevant to my ideas about mathematical (and religious) models, though his approach is more historical. For instance, the relation between General and Special Relativity is – retrospectively seen - rather simple (like the relation of a manifold to its tangent space), whatever went on in Eisntein’s mind while passing from SR to GR. You are probably referring to http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ISIS/journal/issues/v95n4/950406/950406.web.pdf, which I am certainly going to read. The distinction between mental models and real models seems to be most interesting, though I did not know it was related to Minski’s Society of Mind. For this I am also thankful to you.

I agree with you if by religionist you mean the fundamentalist version, though I think Sells is more subtle than that. I also agree in principle with your ideas about religious “new knowledge” except that I think one should EXTEND the “old knowledge”, build on it, rather than “modify its terminals”. You see, from a mathematician’s point of view Einstein did not modify Newton but extended his “knowledge”, i.e. model of physical reality. Also, thanks for the birthday wishes.

Horus,
I feel sorry for you, you must have been really hurt by a Christian, or Muslim, or perhaps a priest, that I cannot tell. What I can tell is that you indeed need help, but you can hardly find it on a forum where one is supposed to discuss rationally, and with due respect to alternate world views, different approaches to politics, philosophy, religion, science etc. You can see that even when we occasionally deviate into what you call “metaphysics” (like Oliver and I) we can do it in a civilised, polite manner.

Don’t cry for me Argentina-George!
Cry for those everywhere, cowering under the yoke of monotheistic creeds
And cry for humanity's lost opportunities

George,

You are spot on. I subscribe to ISIS via my membership of the History of Science Society. Caught up with my own research at the moment but will reflect on your valuable comments and will reply next week. Again, have a a great birthday!

Kind wishes,

O.

It is of course no surprise 2 me that the like's of
*Boaz et al*
choose 2 attack style in advance of commenting on substance.

Though I must admit that it surprises me that the bigotry can extend to what could easily b construed as a "Heartless" attitude towards the scores upon scores of desperate young Islamic girls who find themselves in the clutches of a consortium allegedly comprising elements of the Balinese Mafia, Local Police & Military, in a sordid cocktail of prostitution, drugs & corruption, fuelled in no small part by filthy australian "sex tourist" pigs.

In fact, I write the way I do for a specific reason & for a specific audience, though flushing out the likes of *Boaz* & his wannabe political construct mates is always on the agenda.

In other places, we all use multiple languages & translation problems are easily overcome by on-line translators. For the considerate thinkers on this forum, I am sure that this is nothing new.

Whilst I feel very safe & secure in my new 2nd home of
*White Tiger Village*
in staunchly Islamic East Indonesia, I often enquire as to people's views on the Bali Bombings. The latest such interview was with a senior police INTEL officer who had cause to drop by "home" on an unrelated matter.

In addition, I have spoken to the *Haj People* both b4 & after their most recent trip to *Mecca* & invariably, straight off the bat usually, the word used is "Maksiat."

My dictionary defines it as:
in violation of God's Law, immoral (esp.sexually immoral)

...Adam...

Whilst the moderates bemoan the fact that there is little to no social security in the country, it would appear now wouldn't it that the
"HardLiners" (yang keras)
feel that additional "therapy" is required for some of "us."
(The strawberry jam penalty)

Additionly, I pointed out to a Federal Agent friend that the port into Bali from Jawa is virtually insecure
(@ least from the perspective of a lay person such as mySelf)
& his belated reply was simply:
"Yes, we know."

Individuals who prefer political correctness & "war games" with kopussus over the security of those "good people" from Australia who for reasons perhaps that

*GodO*

alone knows, are very likely to get caught up in another attack, as the hard liners continue on their *Jihad* 2 rid Bali of what they refer to as

"Anjing Najis" or dogsh!t,

which if touched, and this is the real point from their point of view, makes U unfit for prayer,
r worthy of contempt in my view.

My friends in the local Banyuwangi constabularly though have been very considerate and provided us with a "free" armed escort last ferry crossing, after an earlier episode where the "Balinese" port police refused to assist after we were robbed on a local bus, full of illegal kayu jati (teak) logs & boxes piled to the roof.

...Adam...

You sure know how to get their "gander up" Ifran. 223 posts and counting! gan·der
QUOTE:-
gan·der [gánd&#601;r]
(plural gan·ders)
n
1. male goose: an adult male goose. See also goose n.2

2. offensive term: an offensive term for somebody who is thought to be unserious and frivolous (informal insult)

3. look: a look or glance at somebody or something (informal)

[Old English gandra . Ultimately from an Indo-European word meaning “goose” that is also the ancestor of English goose, gannet, and gunsel.]
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

YES, It is meaning 2/ I find apt for this Discussion.
And they take you so seriously.