The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Darling of cultural warriors > Comments

Darling of cultural warriors : Comments

By Irfan Yusuf, published 29/6/2007

Can't the Islam-haters out there find a more credible 'insider' to promote their cause than Ayaan Hirsi Ali?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 17
  7. 18
  8. 19
  9. All
"Whatever one may think of her leaving Islam, Ayaan’s knowledge of the Muslim societies she condemns is certainly lacking...".

And we non-Muslims should take Irfan Yusuf's word for that, should we?

IY can make such claims to a non-Muslim audience because who among us is going to make a detailed study of Islam just to find out who is right and who is wrong.

While I have always made my feelings about Irfan Yusuf clear and now rarely bother to even read his articles - which are arrogant and intolerant of dissent - and I am sick and tired of the whole Muslim thing, I have to say that all we can do is judge Islam on its public appearance; and that is not a pretty sight
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 29 June 2007 10:19:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan,

First, people criticizing your religion are not doing it out of hatred - but LOVE.
A concept that is not existent in Islam. I don't expect you to grasp it just now.

Second, Islam refuses to engage in free open criticism. Just unsophisticated and primitive retaliation is what we get from questioning Islam.

Can you indicate to (us) how a healthy process of critiquing Islam (its books and laws) could take place without having to have a death threat for a reply?
Posted by coach, Friday, 29 June 2007 10:29:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find Irfan's contributions to be thorough and rigourous - even if I don't agree with him. His piece's are thought-provoking as is this one about Aayan.

However, what this piece doesn't actually do is engage in the substantive critique that Aayan has put forward in her writing and public commetary.

Namely, she rejects cultural relativism because it effectively excuses injustices and brutality (in her case in the Islamist cultures she has had exposure to). Aayan puts forward the classical view that there are universal human rights that extend across all borders and all religions and that Islam should not be exceptional in that regard. Moreover, she argues that those rights are inalienable for each individual - regardless of race, gender etc.

While Irfan has mostly discussed some of the quirks of Aayan's personal history and questioned her qualifications, he has not here addressed her central theme and intellectual aim. Sure, she's not perfect. Given her amazingly candid and revealing writing about her family, it's clear that she doesn't pretend to be.

Therefore question to Irfan: in the name of "tolerance", should we turn a blind eye to physical brutality that is committed under the auspices of any religion?
Posted by Peter Shmigel, Friday, 29 June 2007 10:35:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan,
In polite, civilised culture we enjoy the right to have our own beliefs and faiths and respect for those of others.
You know about as much about other religions as you do about Australian law and you could fit that knowledge on the back of a very small postage stamp. As for culture, the only culture you display is on the inside of last week's milk carton.
Do yourself a favour and get an education.
Posted by Goddess, Friday, 29 June 2007 11:43:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan,

I don't think you can see past your skin colour frankly. To attack Islam isn't racist, it's simply what westerners do.

We criticise, mock even, values and belief systems.

It is this process that has led to us to refine our values over the centuries, to the point now we have a system that is really good.

So good in fact that people from all over the world want to live in western countries.

Shouldn't you want Islamic countries to be the same as western countries?

With values of equality, free speech, and so on?

WHY IS THE DEBATE ON ISLAM ALWAYS WAYLAID BY THOSE LIKE YOU WHO ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH THE WAY IT'S BEING SAID THAN WHAT IS BEING SAID.

WHY DOES THE WHOLE DEBATE ON ISLAM HAVE TO BE DROWNED OUT BY YOUR SELFISHNESS, YOUR FEARS THAT ISLAM IS BEING MISINTERPRETED.

These concerns are valid, but come way down the list in regard to the fact that there are actually people in the world who do horrible things, they say, not us, because Islam commands them to.

And yet your leaders won't condemn them, the new Mufti won't even condemn Bin Laden he is such an immoral bigot.

You surely agree that Muslim leaders - and much of their flock, the world over are bigots, uncritical, intolerant, and racist.

Hirsi Ali wants to talk about those Muslims, not the 0.5% like you who mabye are tolerant, think Islam is self-critical, and think apostates deserve to remain living.

This is what needs to be debated.

You should praise Hirsi Ali for having the courage to talk about it, given how usually those like her are killed by the people who give your religion a bad name.

Do you not see that this your comments make westerners even more sceptical?

That, rather than acknowledge that Islam ruins lives, particularly of women and non-Muslims, all you care about is the image of Islam?

Irfan, Islam's image is shattered beyond repair. No one has a good image of it...
Posted by Benjamin, Friday, 29 June 2007 12:21:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have just finished reading 'The Infidel' and I was touched on many levels. Ayaan's description of the refugee community in Holland has parallels with the community here. Hopefully time will allow our Muslim brothers and sisters to become less separate.

I know of a refugee whose date of birth and name is diferent here in Australia but just as it was with Ayaan, it was a question of the circumstances at the time. It had no bearing on the claims for asylum. Which brings me to nitpicking, which is how I read Irfan's response. When you select words out of context, eg fraud, you allow for misinterpretation.

I appreciated Ayaan's book as a call for the end of oppression to women in the name of Islam - and oppression is more than just physical violence. All examples of oppression amongst Muslim women and girls, that I am aware through personal experience, is justified in the name of the Koran and Islam.

As one brought up in the Catholic faith, I recall vividly the disortions I was taught in the name of religion that permitted a subordinate role for women. I am keenly aware of the sexual exploitation, exposed in recent years and carried out by 'men of religion'. Many women have spoken and still speak up and out loud about wrongs but they are not subject to real death threats stuck by a knife onto the body of a murdered man, or delivered to her through her father. There is active and open debate about these matters, and changes do occur and have occurred in response to injustice within Catholicism. To attack the messenger as Irfan does by suggesting that Ayaan's book is a lie (a la Norma Khoury) is not debating the issue. Furthermore, honour killings and fear of honour killings are a present reality for many, even here.

As long as oppression of women is carried out in the name of Islam, or any other religion, my voice will join with others who condemn that injustice, after all it is my rights that are threatened.
Posted by Barbs, Friday, 29 June 2007 12:30:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, Peter, for your question. As I've written elsewhere, Hirsi Ali's great service to us all has been to highlight the gross human rights violations carried out against women in the name of religion.

Personally, I think that when it comes to human rights, there should be no cultural relativity. I think all faiths in their essence (including Hinduism which is often tarnished because of a caste system superimposed upon it) are united on human rights. Hence, followers of any religion have no excuses.

Cultural practises which involve violations of human rights must be eliminated. Whether this is done gradually or with a sledgehammer is a matter people can argue about.

FGM is outlawed in Australia, and so it should be. FGM is a cultural practice which in my opinion has no religious sanction, despite being practised on sub-Saharan women of all faiths.
Posted by Irfan, Friday, 29 June 2007 1:22:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh, don't take my word for it. Read Professor Ira Lapidus' encyclopaedic "History of Islamic Societies". You can find out more about Lapidus and his book by watching/listening here ...

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=9912

and

http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Lapidus/lapidus-con0.html
Posted by Irfan, Friday, 29 June 2007 1:25:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here we bloody well go again poor bloody irfan and poor bloody (as in gory) islam being persecuted once again.Ayaan is telling her story so she may have possibly accidently or even on purpose told a lie or two you know irfan and you know that you know your koran or the terrorist/suicide bomber's manual tells-nay-instructs moslems that it is quite okay to lie to pigs and monkeys that's Jews & Christians it is called "taqiyya" as well it is okay to break truces/treaties when islam has regained its strength this is called "hudna" so why should any alleged lie told to you or a lie about the wonderful,kind, peaceful religion (pagan) of peace upset you. Anyhow what small minded free, civilized, decent (in comparison with islamics)Australian whether pagan (other brand), atheist or Christian would have an arguement with peace loving, honest, wonderful islam. Perhaps it is the craven suicide bombers,or the head loppers, or perhaps it's the cowardly (dis)honour murderers or those of the religion of peace who in every country from Australia to Zanzibar cause problems. Perhaps it's your mad mullah's with their constant backing of terrorists or their preaching against Australian freedoms and democracy. Maybe it's the constant description of Christians and Jews as pigs and monkeys. Or even their - pagan islamics - constant bleatings about being mis-understood or being harrassed or persecuted.All I can say to you is wake up have a look at this world and see which religion causes the most strife and has 99.9% of bloody, gutless, barbaric,brutal, inhumane terrorists in their ranks.
NO! I do not hate moslems just their stinking, foul, obscene, misogynistic tribal pagan religion. Regards, numbat
Posted by numbat, Friday, 29 June 2007 3:22:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh, Coach, Goddess, Numbat.

Criticisms are fine, but I'm afraid I've yet to see anything substantial in your criticisms here. All are directed at the author and completely ignore the content of the article.

Leigh - if you're sick and tired of the whole 'muslim thing' then why comment? You don't seem so sick and tired when it's an article attacking muslims, but whenever someone has the temerity to highlight another side of the debate, you damn it.
Are you willing to concede there are elements of Islam that are acceptable? Are you willing to discuss them rationally? Or is the only acceptable option attacking it?

Coach - I agree that the reaction from some muslim quarters regarding matters such as Rushdie is totally unacceptable. There can be no apologetics for actions such as declaring fatwas or permitting violence. Yet, there are some criticisms of Islam - people line up to do it on OLO for almost every article.
As I said to Leigh - criticisms fine, but give it some substance.
Plus, I haven't seen Irfan defend these violent actions, though the way he's treated by some posters is as though he was an extremist.
Seems to me, some people have difficulty separating individuals from their religion.

Goddess - provide something to back that up. As it stands, it's utterly empty sledging.

Numbat - more generalisations about suicide bombings. It happens. Believe it or not, that's not what this is about, but hey, an opportunity for a swipe's fine right?

I disagree with Benjamin's post, but at least he's expressing himself with some reasons or backing. The rest of you are just shouting at muslims for the sake of it.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 29 June 2007 3:43:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Coach and like-minded,

"Islam refuses to engage in free open criticism"

There are increasing efforts by a number of Islamic scholars regarding modernisation of islamic thinking. here are a couple of examples:

www.free-minds.org
www.fethullahgulen.org.

Gulen (Turkish national) efforts in the last 2 decades attracted as many as 20 million muslims in Turkey alone to adopt new thinking.
There are many more example I can see on the web. Your comment may be correct to 'salafis' (salafis means = old & traditional) as yes they would not accept criticism and won't change their ways.

But why use a group of traditionalist to paint brush all muslims?

Peace,
Posted by Fellow_Human, Friday, 29 June 2007 4:47:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TLTR,

You've saved me having to write a post - you said it pretty much all for me.

Where does all this vitriol and vituperation come from? Where is the (supposed) Aussie value of a fair go - which I believe includes listening to what people say and not responding with a vindictive and puerile ad hominem argument.

I may not share Irfan's belief in a deity, but I do believe in his right to believe in one, and I applaud his willingness to cop the rubbish thrown at him by the quartet you mention.
Posted by Reynard, Friday, 29 June 2007 4:49:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
IRF... I appreciate that you are using the correct terminology now "Islam haters" rather than 'Muslim haters' *tick*

I went to that article you linked us to, and had a read.

I found this:

[Let's talk a little bit about politics and Islam. As one looks at your work, and looks at the sweep of Islamic history, it becomes very clear, again, that there have been different answers to this problem of whether to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's," or whether the two, that is, religion and the state, should be combined. So help us understand that diversity within Islam, and help us understand whether the faith itself points in one direction or another.]

He continues:

[There are really two options. One is the example of the prophet Muhammad, in which religious belief and practice, community affairs, and politics all go together. There's one leader. There's one authority. This is the life of a small, integrated community. That example goes on through the centuries in all parts of the Muslim world. And since the eighteenth century and right down to the present, it's invoked as an ideal model. This is the "just" society.

The other model is one in which there is a separation of state and religion]

Quality analysis of the above quotes is beyond the word limit of a post, but suffice to say, I don't know of any understanding of State/Mosque in Islamic history or law which suggests it can be anything other than 'The Prophet, his example and Sunnah' ie.. OPTION 1 only.

This man demonstrates a very defficient understanding of Islam, and a very 'generalized' approach to history, making observations of the symptoms rather than connecting them to the roots.

He is scary if he is taken seriously.

FH. those 'new scholars' will probably end up losing their heads if 'certain Muslims' currently in jail get their way. (or from some similar fundamentalist Muslim in the country they are in)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 29 June 2007 6:11:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan is male, enough said
Posted by Sarah101, Friday, 29 June 2007 6:20:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank your Irfan. Very polite. I will have a look
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 29 June 2007 8:44:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz,

“FH. those 'new scholars' will probably end up losing their heads if 'certain Muslims' currently in jail get their way”

It might but every reformist movement had its causalties.

Fethullah Gulen (fethullahgulen.org) have influenced 20 Millions in his country while someone like Amr Khaled influenced over 70 million Muslim youth. A handful of modern Islamic scholars have influenced over 200 Million Muslims over the last 2 decades. You will have to admire them and respect their efforts for staying the distance and looking the devil of terrorism in the eye.

That is group A. Group B, preferred to run away and hide in western countries and became ‘fatwa’ millionaires. In my view B are not worthy of licking A’s boots.

If it was your faith you would have no respect to group B, in fact modern Christian history values and honours priests who lost their lives for the Christian reforms. Its hypocrisy to ask Muslims to have any respect for the likes of Rushdie because you wouldn’t do it if you are in their shoes. Seems your hate for Islam is making you justify anything.
Posted by Fellow_Human, Friday, 29 June 2007 9:14:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan Yusuf, thanks for that.
Wanted to "know" Ayaan Hirsi Ali better, but not on the say-so of the usual peroxided, botoxed, xenophobic and pathological tabloid harpies. These exploited a complex and sad case, via their melodramatic eyewash, for submerged local political and ideological reasons rather than out of concern for women or any other people. This was basically the same sort of psychodrama that Australians were subjected to on a much larger scale with the Aboriginal "emergency" of this week
With Ayaan Hirsi Ali, truth proves stranger than fiction; more dramatic and more mundane; more complex, and "human" in its reality.
Posted by funguy, Friday, 29 June 2007 10:04:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi FH, How have you been? I'm still hanging in. Glad to see you are still fighting your battles, even if I can't say I agree with you (which you probably noticed!)

I am familiar with Gulan movement. I even went to their dinner, invited by mistake - Me and a bunch of Turks. There was no Q&A session, so no blood was shed. My table partners probably wondered who invited the crazy old man. They kindly gave me a book explaining Gulan.

The trouble with Gulan, as all Muslims, is denial and distortion. I quote: "political parties can operate freely if...they recognize Islam... as law and not act against it" (p108) and meaningless nothings such as "love is the key word in Gulen's dialog" (p121)or worse yet, outright lies like "The Quran declares that one that takes a life unjustly is as if took the lives of all mankind" (p109) .

The book is worthless. It is just sweet words for PC, multiculturalist infidels. I have read the Quran and hadath and this work is just what the Gulen would like you to believe, not what those writings say.

It is also not what exists in Islamic societies. If Islam is so wonderful, explain the violence and abuse that we find in them. Could it be that Islamic societies are what they are because they are ISLAMIC?

Show me an Islamic society that treats its religious minorities correctly and respects free speech. Please indicate one in which this old man would not be killed or imprisoned for his opinions.

I have given you and other Muslims links and references to hate, violence in the Quran and to vile actions by your dear prophet. Makes no difference, does it? Have I lied? Did I make things up?

Why should I trust Muslims when they refuse to be honest about their own writings? Why should I trust people that love a guy that murdered, lied, tortured, plundered, enslaved, raped and beat his 9yearold wife?

I think that is a fair question and one that deserves an answer.

Kactuz
Posted by kactuz, Saturday, 30 June 2007 6:57:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Many Muslims have attacked Ayaan for her ignorance of Islam"

According to Muslims, anybody that says anything critical of Islam is "ignorant", or is awarded the title of "So-called expert".

On the other had, saying nice things about Islam and ignoring the pain, violence, discrimination and hate in Islam and in Muslim societies makes a person "knowledgeable" like Karen Armstrong, a real blue ribbon expert.

The problem is that these experts somehow can't see the hate and violence in the Quran. The hundreds of evil deeds by MOhammed and his men, recorded in Islam's own traditions, mean nothing. They see no link between these and the state of Islamic societies or current events.

Take, for example Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). It seems tghat ms Ali Hirsi feels strongly about this. Winder why? I don't know how many times I have read on Islamic sites that it is a cultural practice, it is rare, not Islamic, bla bla bla. I took a few months off to read most of the hadiths and early biographies (including 30 volunes of Tabari) and guess what - FGM is very Islamic. In fact, it is recorded that when Islam's dear prophet saw it done, said to cut gently. Gently? Not only his endorsement is vile, but someone please tell me why he is looking at young girls private parts?

Now with the recent tragic death of a 12 yearold girl in Egypt, we find out how common this abomination is. Shame on Muslims. Shame on their prophet for the tens of millions of girls he helped mutilate.

Muslims are in denial, or dishonest. They say things that are totally untrue and pretend nobody notices. They make rules that don't apply to them (like Mohammad did!). They criticize others when their religion and societies are many times worse. Most of all, they blame others. It is never Islam's fault.

Hirsi Ali, if anything, is too kind.

Kactuz
Posted by kactuz, Saturday, 30 June 2007 7:39:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fellow_Human,

"There are increasing efforts by a number of Islamic scholars regarding modernisation of islamic thinking."

I'd love to believe and really hope that this is going to make a difference to the main thrust of world Islamism.

But when you are on your little pink cloud in the sky throwing friendship petals and good wishes on us from a mystical Islam, the militants Islamists and are still plotting and planting bombs in down town Dar-el-Harb.

the fundamentalists on the other hand, (Salafis, Wahabis,...) are systematically poluting your young minds and are BUYING their way into western education; from Kindergarten to Universities.

Unfortunately for your arguments, it’s the Bin-Ladens of Islam with the money and deep rooted Islamic theology that are speaking louder.

They are the voice of the new Islamic “revival”. Like it or not.

If you were fair dinkum FH you would have helped your Australian Government in cracking down on the filth that is being taught to your brothers and sisters, and children.

When I touched on Hillali’s teachings in Lakemba for example, you got all worked up as if it had nothing to do with you and your brand of Islam.

It should! You can’t come here and talk “Peace” when your community is still chanting hatred and revenge.

Well to us “unbelievers”, we can’t differentiate between one mosque and another. One group or another.

At the end they all gravitate to the same teachings.

Islam refers to the same one book and the same one prophet.

Your comments&#61514
Posted by coach, Saturday, 30 June 2007 8:59:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
F.H. the primary issue regarding Islam, is... sources and their meaning.
A "modern" person may seek to re-interpret Islam to a contemporary world, and to the extent that this produces peaceful, generous human beings it is to be commended on a purely human level.

I rather doubt that it would change the fundamentals of Islam, because when intelligent people evaluate a movement seriously, they will look at how the current movement compares to the foundation on which it is supposedly built.

If I may refer you, and all readers to this Saudi Cleric, you will notice that he is grappling with this very issue.

SAUDI CLERIC EDUCATING WORLD CONQUEST.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV28b1_6HGU&mode=related&search=

It's quite educational for us also.
His point is.. "Do we just choose a few Quranic verses which suit our purpose, or do we take all into account".... which is a fair and reasonable question.

Sheikh Kalid Mousselmani, Shia cleric in Australia, is another example of the dangers we are faced with. I regard him as so dangerous that I make a call for his arrest and deportation along with all of his followers. (see discussion threat about it 'Terrorism is alive and well in Australia')

Coming back to this topic.. I don't see why Irf makes so much of Hirsi Ali, she doesn't really rate high on the 'Things to use against Islam' scale.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 30 June 2007 9:13:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TRTL,

Your self-righteousness knows no bounds. How dare I and other targets of your pettiness express opinions which don't meet with your approval, eh?

What I say has no 'substance'. If I'm sick of the whole Muslim thing, why do I comment? Am I willing to do this? Am I willing to do that?

You really are an arrogant piece of work.

Reynard,

You are confused. You believe in the "Aussie value of a fair go" but only, it seems, if it is censored to your liking by the likes of TRTL.

Fortunately for the rest of us, Graham Young is the person who decides what's a fair thing on OLO.

I think Islam is the greatest threat to democracy and Western culture today. It is the antithesis of both.

I don’t hate Muslims themselves.

I think that Irfan Yusuf, Fellow Human and other Muslims have a mission to push their religion like a commodity, unlike most adherents of other religions who are content to live according to their beliefs but keep it private and in its place.

I really object to the presence of Islam in Australia.

I do not believe that there is a ‘moderate’ Islam.

However, these are just opinions and, unlike some, I accept that it is too late. The “Death of the West” is well under way. Perhaps I should, as an acquaintance of mine has done, say, “Islam has nothing to do with me. Muslims have nothing to do with me. They are not part of my life. I ignore them”.

That would suit people like TRTL and, at my age, nothing is going to hit the fan before I’m well and truly gone. I will live out my life pretty much as it is now.

It’s a pity about future generations, though
Posted by Leigh, Saturday, 30 June 2007 10:26:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To all? peace loving, kind, generous moslems please note! There has been found in London a large bomb this device was sited to cause massive damage and loss of life to any innocent male, woman, child and/or helpless baby who just happened to be there visiting or passing through. And we all know the stinking, foul, decadent, vile barbarous, uncivilized death loving psycopaths who set this bomb up eh! So now I am asking that the YWCA, the Salvation Army and the Presbyterian & Baptist Women's Guilds be run out of this country to stop these fiends doing the same in Oz. Oh hang on some are pointing their fingers at the religion of peace and compassion that's pagan moslems - more undeserved persecution aimed at these paragons of peace - how bloody sad eh? Regards, numbat
Posted by numbat, Saturday, 30 June 2007 11:56:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
well irfun, your view of islam might be a little diferent if your penis had been removed as a small boy.....
Posted by fullbore, Saturday, 30 June 2007 5:43:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The usual chicanery from a less than competent lawyer who resorts to argumentum ad hominem to blacken Hirsi Ali's reputation since he is unable to cerebrally construct any reasonable arguments against her. This is another intellectually discredited argument added to his long record.

But he can be amusing! Does Irfan expect Westerners to be "lovers of Islam" when they are not only the subjects of the infinite hate of the true believers of Islam, but whose lives are also in peril?

See for more:http://www.con.observationdeck.org
Posted by Themistocles, Saturday, 30 June 2007 6:57:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find most of the way we think of muslim fait as 7th cetury that wat is it .They still live in 7th century and its they religion .As faitful they belive all the propacanda ,the leaders will tel them .No matter what the results even war its only way they can control the population of they country .And way they do is only the top 10% of the islamic right wing of polotics is making the decisions and the rest are just like me and you folow the leder , they dont have any say in the prosess of law making or any ather say in law making .If we can aradicate the top imans of the islamic world we will be better of and have a chaenge of freeing the world of tyrany
Posted by kale, Saturday, 30 June 2007 8:14:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kaktuz, Coach and Boaz ‘brothers’

Thanks Kaktuz, ‘quitting’ is not in my dictionary : -)

My last 2 comments proved to yourselves that there are lots of scholars leading and influencing the modernization of Islamic teachings (such as Gulen that you, Kaktuz, admitted to have attended). About a dozen of scholars like Gulen and Amr Khaled have influenced close to 200 Million Muslims. The question is:

You claim to be concerned with ‘Islam modernization’ and religious harmony, prove it:

- why we don’t see you quoting or referring us to these thinkers and authors? there an Aussie Muslims organisation called Affinity:
www.affinity.org.au. Why aren’t you promoting their sites, assisting their efforts or donating for their causes?

To keep quoting the Saudi version of teachings is an oxy-Moran. Wahabism is a 10-15millions at best around the world; they are loud because they are very well funded not because they are popular.

- while you are concerned with the Wahabis, what are you doing about the 'nutters in your backyard' like the Christian Zionism?
Aren’t they as funded and as dangerous with the 20,000 nukes and praying for Jesus to let them ‘push the button for Armageddon’?
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/106/story_10687_1.html

I can’t speak for other audience, but for me you proved to be a bunch of haters sitting in a cave with candles and matches and instead the three of you are sitting yakking and cursing the dark.

Leigh,

“I think that Irfan Yusuf, Fellow Human and other Muslims have a mission to push their religion like a commodity, unlike most adherents of other religions who are content to live according to their beliefs but keep it private and in its place”

Over the last 2 years on OLO, I have never pushed my faith on you or anyone as you claim. I only comment when addressed, misquoted or to correct a mis-representation. You are free to object to Islam in Australia as you claim, but it’s unfair to accuse me of something I haven’t done to you or others.

Peace as always,
Posted by Fellow_Human, Saturday, 30 June 2007 11:19:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The imortality of Islam is a lie, just like the Christian version.The only thing that really matters is survival in the context of our present state of consciousness.Where were you before birth? Death is like pre-birth and most of us don't have the capacity to accept it.

The reality is the urgency of our own survival and religion is the drug of those who find the present reality too unpalitable.

Pay homage to the new god called science and technology,because it is only the true and faithful religion that has freed us from ignorance and poverty.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 30 June 2007 11:24:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I think that Irfan Yusuf, Fellow Human and other Muslims have a mission to push their religion like a commodity ..."

Yes, Leigh, we are part of the big gigantic Islamic conspiracy to convert you. We know where you live, and we follow you everywhere. We will use every opportunity to push our devious sinister agenda down your throat. You'd better grab that fridge magnet Mr Howard gave you and call the hotline to dob us in. Otherwise, our conspiracy will succeed.

There is, of course, another option. You can take those pills you have been prescribed and get some much-needed rest.
Posted by Irfan, Sunday, 1 July 2007 1:39:09 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
FH. I had to smile when you said a) "I have not promoted my faith" ... and then the deuzy b) "I only speak to correct misconceptions" kind of thing.

This is Australia mate... you cannot put 2 shovels against a fence and say 'take your pick' and expect us to look cofused. By doing 'b', you are in fact doing 'a'.

I contend that your 'correcting misconceptions' is in fact sanitizing a faith, and trying to make it less repulsive and more acceptable.

You could have searched out yourself, the diamonds of spiritual truth in Jesus of Nazereth "Before Abraham was.. I AM" and when He uttered these words.. a claim to divinity no less, the Jews tried to stone him for blasphemy.
I assume you have read this in Johns Gospel, but have for reasons known only to yourself 'rejected' it. Ahmad deedat and Zakir Naik don't reject the words, they don't claim they are 'corrupted' scriptures, they in fact use them, but claim a different understanding, or interpretation which is altered by an Islamic filter. ie. they reject the plain and obvious truth, on dogmatic grounds not evidential.

Jesus response to you, the Jews, Deedat and Naik is the same:

John 10:37

"Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

We don't need Hirsi Ali. We have Jesus of Nazareth. Son of God, God the Son.

It might not make sense to your logical mind (or mine) but as the blind man healed said "As to whether this man is a sinner, I don't know, but one thing I know, once I was blind, but now....I see"
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 1 July 2007 7:41:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh,

Don't give up mate. That is exactly what the islamic machine wants us to do. They know that sooner or later they can outrun us if they stay in the race longer. Islam has the numbers (life is cheap) to outgrow any population, regime, or opression.

Do it for our future generation. Don't let it happen to Australia.

Do it for the poor souls in bondage of their satanic verses.

Fellow_Human,

Isn't defending your faith the same as promoting it?

We “the people of the book” know that Islam is wrong at its core and our hope and prayer is that some intelligent people (we thought you were) could see the error they are promoting. But alas.

How many good militant Islamist does it take to create another 9/11.

And the source of their hatred is? Where do they get their teaching and inspiration from?

Your holy Qur’an Fellow_Human – your holy book.

Now can you see our frustration with you and the fat man?
Posted by coach, Sunday, 1 July 2007 8:13:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz and Coach,

You ignored my 2 simple questions above. I won’t hold my breath seems that your understanding of Islam modernization is to replace it with your faith : - )
It won’t happen.

Boaz:
“FH. I had to smile when you said a) "I have not promoted my faith"

Well, show me a single comment of me or any other Muslim on this forum saying “you must accept Islam”. On the contrary, every second thread of you or Coach urges others to accept your faith. I wouldn’t even need to comment if it wasn’t for your mob speaking ill of my beliefs. Here is an idea: why not just promote your faith without bagging others?

Coach:

“Isn't defending your faith the same as promoting it?”
Nope. It means I simply explained it as I understand it and practice it. According to our faith a Muslim can be saved by his / her own actions, deeds and intent. He/ she are not responsible for others and can only save himself. This is why you have hundreds of thousands of missionaries and we don’t. It is also why Muslims who preach non-muslims call it “Dawa” (Arabic for “invite to”) and not “on a mission to convert” like in other religious beliefs.

Do you find it fair that you spend all your time on OLO bashing a faith that it is not yours and dare to attack followers of the faith you are bashing for responding?
Do you see me doing that to your faith? Your understanding of ‘fair dinkum’ needs revision mate.

The difference between Islam and Christianity is hair thin. We both believe in Jesus (pbuh). Our disagreement on who he is should bring us closer together and not inspire animosity.

Peace as always,
Posted by Fellow_Human, Sunday, 1 July 2007 9:59:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan,

I wondered how long it would take you to get back to sarcasm and silliness. I might, perhaps, be able to concede that the ‘conspiratorial’ Muslims are the Arabs. But there is still no excuse for the existence of Islam, particularly in the Western world, and most particularly in Australia.

Fellow Human,

David Boaz has, I believe, dealt with your protest very well indeed.

Coach,

Your are right, of course. Do what we can while we can. One of the biggest problems is that those of us who value what we stand to lose in Australia have one hand tied behind our backs by those many Australians who are naïve, wet-left, fifth columnists or whatever best describes people who are determined to connive in the demise of their own culture and way of life.
Posted by Leigh, Sunday, 1 July 2007 10:09:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan - I agree with you this time, so read it!

You're right on FGM being a cultural thing.

I think many are too willing to say it's an Islamic practice, when it actually IS cultural.

There is definitely a religious aspect to it that is important, however unwarranted, as you would know.

I'm glad Egypt has just banned it, I didn't know 97% of women there have had the operation.

Pay attention to the Mullah's in Egypt Irfan as they WILL make religious arguments for it in the coming weeks.

I don't know where I heard this, mabye you can enlighten me, but I have heard there IS a reference to FGM in a hadithe somewhere, although the Prophet didn't really like the idea apparently.

So, rest assured, when I talk to people about Islam I do correct any who think FGM is a religious requirement, although unlike many on the 'other side', I do point out that there are some Muslims who think it is an Islamic practice.

On another point which you would know but others might not, the burqa is also NOT an Islamic requirement, although the veil is?

And I have in the past accused you of not saying enough against Islamic terrorism, which isn't fair.

However, you must agree that the fact there hasn't been a mass protest by Muslims against Islamic terrorism doesn't look good?

TurnRightThanLeft,

I thank you for your kind words. Perhaps some of you others that attack me ought to actually read my posts. Disagree with them if you want, as TRTL did - but attack my reasons.
Posted by Benjamin, Sunday, 1 July 2007 10:31:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To think that one apostate has discommoded Islam and muslims so much is risible. What happened to that robust ‘we have 1.2 billion’ adherents blague? Is Islam just a house of cards after all, unable to withstand scrutiny?
Posted by Sage, Sunday, 1 July 2007 10:49:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fellow_ H: And here's me thinking that you knew the Bible (a little) and you knew about your own pagan belief."The difference between pagan islam and Christianity is hair thin - we both believe in Jesus" What a load of rubbish mate and you know it is! The Christian Christ is the Son of God and there's over 300 prophecies about Him in the Old Testament, all fulfilled. Your pathetic jesus is only a (false) prophet he is not the same bloke. The real Jesus in human form was a JEW! And there's another constant recurring lie from you mob mainly that islam built a great civilisation in Spain, wonderful buildings and public works etc. Then these clever islamics went back to North Africa - well they were tossed out actually - and using their skills built a wonderful civilisation in North Africa which completely overshadowed the one they built in Spain. Oh! hang-on they didn't build anything at all that was outstanding did they so did they use pigs and monkeys to build what they left in Spain as some horibles who "persecute islam?" say.And now you are trying to claim Jesus the one time Jew. Regards, numbat
Posted by numbat, Sunday, 1 July 2007 11:21:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems to be mostly the Muslims doing all the hating.More bombs for the British in todays news.

Islam is basically a flawed system of thinking and Hirsti Ali must tour the world with an inadaquate security system,knowing full well that time is on the side of the Islamic Facists.One day they will get her and Irfan and his true believers will not shed a tear.It is the will of Allah.
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 1 July 2007 2:10:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I will try to condense this article. A Christian High School teacher, in Nigeria, on this day was supervising a class sitting for their final exams. So she in accordance with school procedures to prevent cheating collected all papers, books and bags and placed them in the front of the class. One of the girls began to cry she said she had a copy of the koran in her bag and now that the teacher had touched the bag she had desecrated the koran. Other students began shouting "allahu akhbar" (god is great)as these idiots are want to do. The entire school was in an uproar by now and moslem extremists came in from outside dragged this teacher out and clubbed, beat and stoned her to death. The copy of the supposed desecrated koran was not produced.
So again the brave and fearless warriors of allah/islam all together slew a defenceless woman. The question - If one of us Australian pigs or monkeys should find a lost koran and we pick it up would this terrorist's/suicide bomber's manual become desecrated and would/could we be killed by some psychotic insane pagan moslem. {the article is from a brochure printed by 'Open Doors' a Christian (monkey)organisation. Regards, numbat
Posted by numbat, Sunday, 1 July 2007 3:05:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
numbat writes: "The entire school was in an uproar by now and moslem extremists came in from outside dragged this teacher out and clubbed, beat and stoned her to death. The copy of the supposed desecrated koran was not produced."

Neither produced in numbat's report was the Muslim principal who hid the teacher in his office and was himself almost clubbed to death for protecting her. Who is more representative of religion and common sense? The teacher? or the headmaster?

When there was a bullying scandal at a Canberra Catholic school, who was regarded as more representative of Catholicism? The kids who did the bullying? Or the management who tried to stop it?

Some people are just determined to see a giant Islamist conspiracy even where one doesn't exist. Hence they'll link a Somali-born athiest who believes in locking up people who teach creation science to a teacher in Nigeria clubbed to death by fanatical students.

It doesn't take much intelligence to hate.
Posted by Irfan, Sunday, 1 July 2007 4:45:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay: "It seems to be mostly the Muslims doing all the hating"

From what I read daily here on OLO that is a patently untrue statement. We have a small number of very reasonable Muslims who write articles and comments here that attempt to explain aspects of their faith as it relates to various issues - e.g. the Hirsi Ali 'roadshow'.

On the other hand we have numerous people - usually commentators rather than article authors - who take every opportunity to jump on moderate Muslims with various degrees of vitriol and warped reasoning, and to vilify Islam in frequently obnoxious terms.

Personally, from the relatively superficial understanding I have of them, of the monotheistic religions I find Islam even more objectionable than, for example, Christianity or Judaism. But not by much in substantive terms - they are all ultimately hocus pocus, if fabulously allegorical and meaningful to their adherents.

It's when the activities of the faithful impinge upon the rest of us that religions are at their worst, and I think that internationally Islam seems to be causing more problems than Christianity lately. Judaism seems relatively benign except for when it's combined with Zionism.

Hirsi Ali could possibly make a useful poster girl for secular humanism, except that she's just as likely to become a Buddhist or Scientologist next. Who knows, perhaps she can reinvent her past yet again? It's possible that she was abducted by Aliens from Somalia and deposited in the Netherlands, with implanted false memories...

I know - she's actually a female Messiah! Wouldn't that make a good movie?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 1 July 2007 5:51:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
coach

"Isn't defending your faith the same as promoting it?" Of course not, what makes you think that?

numbat

"The Christian Christ is the Son of God and there's over 300 prophecies about Him in the Old Testament, all fulfilled. " There are no such prophecies although the Church tried hard to mistranslate the OT to pretend that there were.

Perhaps Moses didn't speak to God either. Religion is a personal thing, when F-H tells us that Islam is starting to undergo a reformation, why not extend to him the courtesy to explain and present his point? The Islamic faith did have a golden period, OK you can find faults with it but human progress is slow and Islam was once in the vanguard. Why can it not do it again?

Muslims are humans. be ready to differentiate between the good and bad in any group. And I have met FH and he is no idealist in a cloud, he is a successful businessman.
Posted by logic, Sunday, 1 July 2007 9:29:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan has just proven yet again that Islam is by definition sexist.

What really irritates Irfan is that a women has shown real individualism and asserted her rights as a free women over the religion of Islam.

It is bad enough to Irfan that Hirsi Ali is an apostate, but a women apostate! To the Islamic mind this is unthinkable, even to someone as Westernised as Irfan.

Get used to it Irfan. Women can think, and think intellectually. Indeed, the leap from Islam to atheism shows great intellect, and honest intellect at that. Most Muslims, like yourself, are dishonest cowards and won't admit that Islam, and monotheism generally, are the greatest intellectual frauds ever burdened on humanity.

I hope that Hirsi Ali serves as an example to every Muslim who knows in their heart that Islam is NOT true and wants to do something about it. This perhaps will be her true legacy.
Posted by TR, Sunday, 1 July 2007 9:41:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Most Muslims, like yourself, are dishonest cowards and won't admit that Islam, and monotheism generally, are the greatest intellectual frauds ever burdened on humanity."

What about polytheism? Btw, tone down the Muslim hate. Islam is an incredible religion. You just reveal your ignorance in slandering it. All it is is a little more conservative than what you are used to. What's ironic is the recent history of Australia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_suffrage#Australia
"However, the Commonwealth legislation excluded all Aboriginal men and women from the Commonwealth franchise, which in theory some of them had enjoyed in 1901 (state Parliaments generally had property qualifications for the franchise, which in practice few Aboriginals would have met). This was not corrected until 1962"

1962

By contrast New Zealand,
"In New Zealand politics, the Maori Seats, a special category of electorate, give reserved positions to representatives of Maori in the New Zealand Parliament. That parliament first set up Maori Seats in 1867, after Britain established Westminster-style parliamentary government in New Zealand in 1852."

1867
Posted by Steel, Monday, 2 July 2007 1:12:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What's the connection between Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Islam and culture warriors. Is Islam now being inferred by Irfan to be a culture?
And why in Irfans mind is Ms. Hirsi Ali not a credible witness to her own experience with Islam? I'm afraid the whole thing smells of burnt offerings. Somebodies God or prophet needs a fresh sacrifice. Throw another one on the old OLO barbie Irfan.
Posted by aqvarivs, Monday, 2 July 2007 9:06:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh - my point was, the article's about the fact that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is held up as a conservative poster child for anti-muslim sentiment.

In your attacks on the author, I didn't see you mention Ali once. Nor have many posters here, come to think of it.

My post may have been self-righteous, but I'm of the opinion that once you start attacking people for who they are instead of what they say and do, you're no longer part of the debate - just another screeching voice. I quite frequently see Irfan criticised, yet I never hear reasons - the content of his articles are often left unanalysed in favour of attacking the author, simply because he speaks out on behalf of muslims.
Sometimes other reasons are offered, but I never see anything but the most spurious reasoning behind it. If you've got something constructive, something similar to the assessment Irfan has offered of Ali to base your estimation of the author on, by all means, post it, but I'm somewhat sceptical.

Yes - extremist Islam is indeed a threat, but will refusing to listen help the situation?

You can claim I'm just suppressing your view all you want, but the truth is you haven't provided anything here but empty rantings, so I feel fine about it.

As for Ali - it's an interesting analysis, and I find it quite odd that her background hasn't been held up for closer scrutiny... if this article is true, it does indicate that Islam is perhaps in need of a conservative spokesperson that is more accurate, but perhaps a little less aggressive...
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 2 July 2007 10:31:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steel,
You are correct in stating that Islam is an incredible religion. Unbelievable is probably more apt.
Conservative? Better to say prehistoric, in outlook, if not age.
There is no place for "self" in Islam. Man exists to serve Allah. Not as an individual mind you but as one of a mindless collective whose soul purpose is to convert or kill unbelievers. (Witness the persecution and killing of the Chaldeans and Assyrians, the true indigenous people of Iraq by both sunnis and shias right now!) They even have months set aside for it!
Women are viewed as chattels and subjugated. All equal in the eyes of allah,huh. Hmmmmm.....
Islam is not a religion at all. It is a political entity. Anyone who thinks different is fooling no-one but themselves.
Any, and I mean ANY, person purporting to be a muslim and not following the commands of the koran TO THE LETTER is NOT a muslim.
Do not kid yourself Steel. There is no xenophobia in what I say. I'm repeating islamic teaching principles. Read the koran objectively. Check out Mohammed. He started as a failed illiterate wannabe and resorted to the sword when his brain and mouth proved ineffective.

Irfan, you are still a wombat. Like most students of law, you cherry pick that which you can best twist to your advantage and you hope to deceive the majority. There are still a surprising number of people a lot smarter than you, and me. And if I'm not deceived, then neither will they be.
Berate this woman all you like. It doesn't change the truth about islam, does it? Your usual lack of response will confirm your acquiesence.
Posted by tRAKKA, Monday, 2 July 2007 10:38:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan:I did state that I had condensed the story the headmaster did well, that is he acted like a sane responsible human being.
I cannot just work out what you are getting at here: "Who is more representative of religion and common sense, the teacher or h/master?"
Are you inferring that the teacher lacked religion and common sense that's the one beaten to death by the brave islamic warriors? Then you go on about bullying at a Catholic school then ask:" Who is more etc (read irfan's post) I may have it are you saying that this brave headmaster is more a representative of islam than the gutless savage islamic murderers? If so then looking at the world and seeing craven islamic bombers/terrorists in every nation these pagans have settled in I would have to say that that these murderous, gutless moslem psychopaths are the true representatives of bloody, as in gory, islam.
Again I am perplexed by your Somali-born atheist -what has that to do with anything. "Some people are just determined to see a giant islamist conspiracy"- err yes irfan. Especially when your rat-bag imans preach against Australian values, call all non-moslems infidels or pigs and monkeys, call for Oz to be made a moslem nation that is have the freedoms of other islamic nations,plant bombs continually. Of course these bombs are solely to cause fear and panic and kill innocent atheists, Christians, Jews and fellow moslems whether they be men,women,children or even babies so long as there are many killed and wounded. Yes irfan I do think that there is a conspiracy by brutal,lying pagan islam to conquer this world. You finish off with: "It doesn't take much inteligence to hate" Your islamic brothers and sisters hate the west and are for ever planting bombs so you are correct. regards, numbat PS You didn't answer: would a pig or monkey or even an atheist be in danger of being beaten to death if he/she handled a koran here in the fair land of Oz?
Posted by numbat, Monday, 2 July 2007 1:19:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steel, you mentioned polytheism. What about it? Why should belief in multiple gods be any less credible than a belief in one god? Same dog different leg as they say. I think that you are blinkered against polytheism because that is how you have been brainwashed.

Let's face reality Steel. The mythologies at the core of Islam are just as infantile as polytheistic mythologies. As a child I used to believe that Santa could travel around the globe in ONE night to deliver presents. Most Muslims believe that Mohammed travelled to Jerusalem from Mecca then to heaven in ONE night on a winged donkey thing called al-Buraq. Santa has Rudolf, Muhammad has al-Buraq. Same thing really.

Hirsi Ali has rightly pointed out that Islam dresses itself up in a cloak of serious academic scholarship but in reality Islam is just a bunch of infantile stories strung together by 1st century AH Muslims. And having considered the mythological 'Night Journey' with its Rudolf the red nosed Buraq I would tend to agree.

In short Steel, Hirsi Ali has far more credibility than any of the nonsensical stories found in the Islamic canon. Next you'll be telling me that angels exist and have names like Gabriel.
Posted by TR, Monday, 2 July 2007 1:32:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author begs the question -"I left the interview feeling sympathy -for her, after all the terrible suffering she went through as a child, but more so for all the Islam-haters out there who could not find a more credible “insider” to promote their cause."

Irf is 100% correct - this lady is for idiots when there is the case of Lina Joy in our own backyard!

What say you, Irf et al, on this 'credible insider?'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6703155.stm
Posted by Reality Check, Monday, 2 July 2007 2:48:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some good points are raised by Irfan. Perhaps Hirsi
Ali does in fact have some flaws in her arguments. I
don't see that as an issue however, as the more debate,
the better for all of us, as issues are thrashed out.

The problem is not the Irfans of this world. The
problem is that with just about any religion, we
seem to have a hard core of extremists, who lose
all ability to reason and wander off to the deep end.
Muslim extremists are worse, because it seems that they
are more violent then others. In the West, secular forces
eventually reigned in Xtian extremists. The same needs to
happen in Islamic countries.

Irfan, there are some great critics of Islam, perhaps
you have read "23 Years" by Ali Dashti. He would have
known more about Islam then you do. He waited until
after his death, until his book was published in English.
Meantime he still died in Kohmeini's jails. So speaking
out about Islam is not an option for most people who live
in Islamic countries. Countries like Pakistan and others
still carry out the death sentence for apostates etc.

So you are fortunate to live in a secular state, where you
can say what you think. That option does not apply in many
Islamic countries and that is the crux of the problem.
If people were not threatened with constant death, for saying
what they think, there would be many more and perhaps
more talented Hirsi Alis. So its your religion that is once
again the problem. Perhaps you should become a Buddhist :)
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 2 July 2007 2:50:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TR: "What really irritates Irfan is that a women has shown real individualism and asserted her rights as a free women over the religion of Islam."

Actually, I have no problems with AHA expressing her views and abandoning her ancestral faith. Further, I agree with numerous things she has to say.

For instance, I agree with her that the conservative Christian teaching of absolutely prohibiting abortion is wrong and a danger to women. While abortion shouldn't be treated as a contraceptive, it should and must be made available to women for whom pregnancy would mean almost certain death.

Further, I agree with her that Creation science should not be taught in schools alongside evolution theory. However, I disagree with her when she claims that people who teach Creation science should be put in jail.

I also cannot find fault with her in principal on the separation of religion from state.

Now could all the Islam-bashers please advise where they sit in relation to Creation science and abortion?
Posted by Irfan, Monday, 2 July 2007 2:53:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benjamin,

I heard by a Moslem friend that the Burqa can only be worn by a woman who is FULLY circumcised (infibulation not just clitoral and labial mutilation).

The other point about FGM being cultural or Islamic - in Islam what is not forbidden is therefore allowed - as long as the male sexual appetite is fully satisfied. Women are not supposed to enjoy sex as much as making sure her male partner is always fulfilled.

Great recruiting tool for men I guess.

FEllow_Human,

Here is Jesus’ Da’wa to you FH. Jesus has died on the cross to save you. He is standing at your door and asking you to invite Him in. Why are you so stubborn and prefer to try to save yourself and continue to ignore God's saving grace?

There is no valid reason this side of the cross to revert to self-help law-obeying religious mumbo-jumbo.

That is what is so frustrating and unbelievably insulting to Jesus who died for you.

Jesus, the same Jesus talked about in your holy books, has fulfilled ALL the requirements of the law.

Mohammad was misinformed, (to give him the benefit of the doubt), and has taken post Crucifixion Arabs back to the Law of Moses. Tragic act of Spiritual Terrorism and Biblical vandalism.

Mohammad had access to Bibles, to Christians, and to Jews. But like you, he preferred to ignore the facts and go for fables.

Islamic Da’wa is alive and kicking in Australia – the entrapping of innocent unbelievers into the Islamic web is continuing – mostly unchallenged “yet” by the Authorities.

So please revise your misleading notion: “The difference between Islam and Christianity is hair thin.”

Islam is the spirit of the Anti-Christ. Islam rejects everything God has done through His Son Jesus.

How can this not aspire to animosity?

You want PEACE? Stop following a religion which holy texts incite hatred of other religions, namely Christians and Jews.
Posted by coach, Monday, 2 July 2007 2:58:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@coach our western culture carries out MGM against defenseless children, so when you use FGM to show how barbaric Islam is, it's hypocritical and ironic.
Posted by Steel, Monday, 2 July 2007 3:04:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steel argues,

"@coach our western culture carries out MGM against defenseless children, so when you use FGM to show how barbaric Islam is, it's hypocritical and ironic."

MGM is hardly the same as FGM. Please read more about it my friend.

I do not condone MGM either... unless for rare medical reasons.

MGM is NOT a Christian requirement. Un-circumcised Christian males are allowed to touch / swear on the Bible, hold a Government Ministerial position, and even become preachers.

Not in Islam. Oh No!

What's good for Mohammad, his friends, his wives, slaves, and concubines must become therefore LAW for all his followers.

All males MUST be clipped on the 8th day (to be different from the 7th day for Jews) after birth.

It's the Islamic LAW.

Back to the subject at hand is FGM.

But then again for someone who believes Islam is so wonderful - maybe you should move to Iran or Pakistan... or just hang around and watch the previews at a mosque near you.
Posted by coach, Monday, 2 July 2007 4:00:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Coach,

"You want PEACE? Stop following a religion which holy texts incite hatred of other religions"

That's what the Taliban Mullahs and Islamist militants say.
Over and out, Mullah Coach.

Peace as always,
Posted by Fellow_Human, Monday, 2 July 2007 4:49:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fellow Human and others would have us believe it is the Salvos who are planting bombs around LOndon. In Islams favour it is the fundamentalist humanist who are responsible for more hatred, murder and violence over the last couple of hundred years than anyone else. Thank God for Jesus who can change hearts.
Posted by runner, Monday, 2 July 2007 5:38:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Doesn't Christianity teach that it is necessary to believe in Jesus to enter heaven? Isn't that a bit of a call to incitements against other faiths?
Posted by logic, Monday, 2 July 2007 8:05:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Logic

John: 10:36. Do you say of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world: Thou blasphemest; because I said: I am the Son of God?

10:37. If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

10:38. But if I do, though you will not believe me, believe the works:
that you may know and believe that the Father is in me and I in the
Father.

14:6. Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.

14:10. Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works.
Posted by aqvarivs, Tuesday, 3 July 2007 8:43:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think all Ayaan wants is religious freedom. There is no religious freedom in Islam.
Moslims who don't agree with their religion find it extremely difficult to bring this out into the open; not only do they have to deal with rejection by loved ones, but leaving islam can mean a threat to their lives as well.

I know that for some time there was an underground ex-muslim group in Amsterdam which, with support of local atheists, have now come out. A Labour council member and ex-muslim is the initiator of the Central Committee of Ex-Muslims in the Netherlands and made the announcement last month.

Ex-Muslims from at least six European countries will come to Amsterdam to sign the declaration of Freedom of belief.
And I think that this is fantastic progress.

I dare say that Ayaan's influence has helped some Muslims to criticise and leave their faith; and this was her main purpose; not to totally destroy Islam but to reform it and make it possible for Muslims to leave their faith.

This is the only article in English I have found about it:
http://www.nisnews.nl/public/210607_2.htm
Posted by Celivia, Tuesday, 3 July 2007 9:21:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"14:6. Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me."

Looks like God is practicing incitement against other faiths. I prefer the Jewish and Buddhist teachings on that subject
Posted by logic, Tuesday, 3 July 2007 4:05:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"MGM is hardly the same as FGM. Please read more about it my friend.
I do not condone MGM either... unless for rare medical reasons."

How presumptuous. You read more about it. Here is a discussion topic that I participated in. Take care to read my responses through,
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=443
Posted by Steel, Tuesday, 3 July 2007 4:23:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan wrote;
'Actually, I have no problems with AHA expressing her views and abandoning her ancestral faith. Further, I agree with numerous things she has to say.'

This is good to hear Irfan.

But I was was wondering. Since you are obviously an open minded and intelligent man do you ever entertain doubts about your faith? That is, on a sliding scale of 1-100 with 100 being absolute certainty, what numerical value do you assign to your faith?

I have lived in the Middle East for 3 1/2 years and have spent the last 11 years researching the theology and history of the Islamic religion. I also have close friends who are Muslims but find no compelling reason to embrace Islam. I need good reasons to believe that Mohammed literally talked to an angel called Gabriel but find the evidence lacking.

I have a feeling that Muslims like yourself remain Muslims because of social and peer pressures. In other words when push comes to shove it's just too damned difficult to 'come out' like Hirsi Ali and confess apostasy/leave the 'tribe'. Or have I got it wrong. You really do find the historical evidence for Mohammed's supernatural revelations water-tight and are therefore intellectually satisfied.

Irfan, would you ever have the guts to do a 'Hirsi Ali'?

(Note: If you choose to answer my questions Irfan then I will not reply with any negatives. I think that it is important to be hyper-critical of religion generically, but insulting someones personal expressions of faith is completely unacceptable.)
Posted by TR, Tuesday, 3 July 2007 8:29:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The nice thing about there being a multiple of choice is that we get to have a preference. Though I don't see any logic in suggesting that God in sending us an example of righteous behavior is inciting against anyone regardless of faith. As Jesus said, If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though you will not believe me, believe the works: that you may know and believe that the Father is in me and I in the Father.
It's important to note that Jesus is speaking with his people, fellow Jews, and leaves the deciding vote in their hands. They could carry on in their exclusionary tribal thinking or make some changes and start to consider the broader neighbourhood of God and bring the gentiles and others into the fold. The Jews chose to make no changes and from that developed Christianity. Islam didn't exist for another 650 years. So really, your argument of incitement becomes one of incitement itself. Remember, God also sent us His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Who himself speaks against exclusionary practices.
Posted by aqvarivs, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 12:09:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
logic

I would of thought truth was more important than your preference!
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 12:41:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The so called exclusiveness of Jews is in no small part caused by Christians and Muslims who at times in history forbade them to take in converts. It is possible to convert to Judaism, and DNA testing of Jews has in fact shown that that has happened to a significant level. I would have thought that the fact that Jews will share their faith but accept that others, including Atheists can still receive the same benefits of a deity is a significant advantage. Our non-believers will certainly share that view.

There are many truths, some Jews believe that Jesus, Mohamed, Suddharta were all approached by the same deity and given different forms of the truth, some would hold that we are all looking for something that is hidden.

That is called tolerance, and may be why in Israel Muslims, Christians, Baha'i, Druze etc are all given equal rights in law and can have representatives in parliament. It took a long time for Christian nations took this step, and some Islamic nations have not yet made it.
Posted by logic, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 8:35:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Logic

...actually its called SYNCRETISM :)

Have a look at my recent post on this link

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=785#13722

The information from the hadith of Abu Dawud is a total revelation to me. (R u female ?)

cheers.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 9:06:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since Israel wasn't given form by the League of Nations/United Nations until 1948 it is a bit disingenuous to suggest "It took a long time for Christian nations took this step," as if Israel preceded other nations in giving religions equal rights under law.
Not that I begrudge you pitching for your team but, a curve ball is still a curve ball all teams aside.

I don't know how I stumbled onto this site but found a few interesting bits. Especially on conversion, learning Arab, and more so on the question of 'Do I tell my parents?' Those who want to read it I leave to your own perception.
http://www.islamicinvitationcentre.com/FAQ/converts/FAQ_converts.html
Posted by aqvarivs, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 9:11:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Logic,

The answer to your trivia lies in one question: Who do you think Jesus really is?

Your choices:

a) Liar
b) Lunatic
c) Lord of All

On the basis of 'a' and 'b', you could continue to compare Him with other good teachers, gurus, prophets, etc...

But once you examine the evidence of His claims, analyse His character, study Jewish history, biblical and prophetic accounts, etc... You must come to one honest conclusion that Jesus is The Messiah who's Name is above all names; in fact Jesus is Lord of ALL, part of the Triune Jehovah God Himself.

Yes, Christianity is unique and should not be compared with the smorgasbord of man-made beliefs, and superstitions out there.

Christianity is based on a loving God intimately relating with His creation. And not an invisible force out there programming people to worship him with a bunch of rules, superstitions, and religious principles.

If you want to put the good old PC “intolerant” label on that, it's your choice, but I prefer to call it "incomparable".

I encourage you to seek the 'singular' truth in this matter and not rely on your own Logic. The stakes are too high to be trivialised.
Posted by coach, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 11:41:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Coach, why only three choices?

Indeed, you have forgotten to mention the bleeding obvious fourth choice. That is, the Gospels are not historical accounts but are in fact mythological accounts. The Gospels are not factual histories but Jewish fable telling done Greco-Roman style.

The same applies to early Islamic history. Separating real history from myth and fable is virtually impossible when the Hadith and Ibn Ishaq are viewed objectively.

In short, the monotheistic texts are founded on gross distortion of the facts. This gross distortion may be well meaning or accidental, but a gross distortion none-the-less.
Posted by TR, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 12:05:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aqvarivs,

Judaism formed this enlightened view in ancient Israel BEFORE the birth of Jesus when the Jews had their own land. I believe the Buddhists always held this opinion, also long BC.

coach

TR has put forward his views. I think that Jesus was probably a Jewish scholar with a sound understanding of Jewish principles of the time, but the Gospels are either distorted or plain wrong.

How much of Christianity was changed at Nicea?
Posted by logic, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 6:26:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What about

D. Just a Naughty Boy.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 7:06:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most likely E.

Just another case of schizophrenia, as we now know it, a
fairly common mental disorder.

Hearing voices used to be linked to being prophetic, today
we understand a bit more about it. But then the same
applies to thunder, lightening etc, they all played a
role in various religions, until we understood a bit
more about them. Gods of the gaps have been around for
a long time and make evolutionary sense in terms of
brain function.

Believing in perceived certainty helps deal with anxiety
for some, assisting in homeostasis of brain chemistry,
which is crucial. Whether its actually true or not,
really does not matter, thats another issue.

As they say "whatever gets you through the night" :)
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 8:32:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Or:

F. Jesus never existed (he could've been someone's imaginary friend).

Lol, Yabby- if all these so-called "prophets" had been medicated we'd probably be all atheists.
Posted by Celivia, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 8:57:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia, if you think about it, most of the religious nuts
on here, are in fact atheists bar one.

I take a bit of an agnostic position. Any so called
god is free to write his commandments on the face of the
moon, for all of us to see. None has ever bothered.

If one ever does, I'm sure we will all pay attention.

Until then, I'd say its far more probable that the
normal criteria apply. Deluded humans are a dime a
dozen... No wonder that selling snake oil is such
a thriving business!
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 11:03:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Cilvia,why are there no modern prophets or messiahs?The answer is that modern science would soon reveal the lie.

Religion is the dummy from which we feeble humans must suckle from to comfort our inadaquate feelings.

We can have ethical courageous people without all the fantacy of the religious dogma.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 11:04:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Something I read recently:

“He was impaled by that same single-mindedness which is a form of tunnel vision.Buddhism was too subtle for him then as it is today… To the evolved mind of the Gautama Buddha any desire was obscene, even the desire for God”
Posted by Horus, Thursday, 5 July 2007 5:45:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Logic, first you said Israel and secondly you certainly have a different take on pre-Roman mid-east history. It was one of tribal infighting and religious sect wars. And social and religious tolerance would not have had the Romans seeing the area ripe for their version of law and order.
Posted by aqvarivs, Thursday, 5 July 2007 8:35:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All your answers show how unsettled you all become when confronted with the person of Jesus.

Humour is a natural response to dodge the question; so is sarcasm and personal attack.

TR suggests:
“… the Gospels are not historical accounts but are in fact mythological accounts.

Which particular book? Give us some specifics.

Logic asks:
How much of Christianity was changed at Nicea?

None.
My understanding is that Nicea settled different views and emerging new philosophies that arose post Gospel accounts. Not one word was changed from the life, death, resurrection, and future coming of Jesus.

The trinity concept of God for example is present throughout the Old and New Testaments; from Genesis to Revelation. It was a matter for the newly formed Church to grasp that.

Same goes with the deity of Christ. Some said He was just human, others insistyed He was totally divine; the reality has always been that He was both: "God incarnate". But they had to come to that consensus.

So is Christianity a human invention? The answer is definitely NO.

Celivia suggests,

“Most likely E.
Just another case of schizophrenia”

Hard to prove but an honest answer. Similar to option b) Lunatic


Yabby,
When you look in a mirror what do you see? A modern monkey with a more developed brain?

Arjay,
“…why are there no modern prophets or messiahs?”

Historically speaking there has been and are hundreds if not thousands of false ones.

But only one Jesus.

Can science prove Him wrong?
Posted by coach, Thursday, 5 July 2007 11:12:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The point is coach, science can't prove him right either.

And if you're going to therefore blast science, perhaps you'd better suggest another means of proceeding with discovery, or I can only assume you're advocating humanity remain in the dark ages.

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the concept of 'Occam's Razor.'
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 5 July 2007 12:49:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah Coachy, you are confused lol. Monkeys have tails, us primates
don't and we are classified as primates, the same as chimps,
orangs, bonobos and gorillas.

Yup, going way back, you are related to those other primates, like
it or not. You share 98% of your dna with say chimps or bonobos,
which is genetically closer then say chimps are to gorillas.

Your haemoglobin is identical to that of bonobos, in all 287 units.
There is no part of the brain that you have, that they don't have,
its just a question of some bits being larger or smaller.

They have eyes, ears, noses, mouths, legs, arms, etc, much like
you have.

http://www.friendsofbonobos.org/

Have a look at the young fella on this URL, he's problably
just as cute as your grandchild :)
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 5 July 2007 8:48:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is ridiculous.

That there is even a debate about which system to live under, which values are better, is laughable.

People are fleeing their cultural value systems to get to the superior western world.

When one looks at the sides fighting it is clear who is right and who is wrong. It is Muslim societies that don't allow their people to have freedom, to speak freely and openly, it is Muslim societies that either ban the bible and kill Christians, or at the very least subjugate them under the sick, twisted, immoral filth that is Sharia.

The debate is way over, long over.

What should happen now is that the superior, civilised west, should crush barbarism once and for all. Islamic values are utter filth, nobody can deny that.

All the Irfan's and Waleed Ali's do is play racist games with each other, as Irfan said recently on TV. The Turkish Mustafa Ali said '3000 potential terrorists in Sydney alone' because he's a Turk and has his own brand of Islam.

He hates Wahabi's, so does Irfan. Islam is made up of gangs see, with thugs for leaders like the new redneck Mufti - who won't denounce Bin Laden.

If I had it my way, we'd deport filth like that.

You people will never be considered Australians until you start to act like it, which means being a westerner.

Islamic values are being crushed under globalisation because they don't stand up to rationality.

There is nothing a Muslim can argue against when one says the Prophet was a filthy, murderous paedophile, because they're own scriptures paint him as such.

Islam is terrorism in it's current form, and when we get a real leader in the white house we'll take the war to Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Pakistan, and all the rest of the bigoted, redneck cultures that think bashing women and cutting them up is what God wants.

You worship Satan. Mohammed said himself he thought he was posessed by demons.

Given what I know of the criminal, I believe him.
Posted by Benjamin, Friday, 6 July 2007 4:37:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benjamin,

The version you talk about was invented by French missonaries for purposes known to them. Muslims know Mohammed biography as per the below link:
http://www.fethullahgulen.org/content/category/4/183/4/

Or go to www.youtube.com and put deedat articles.

Peace as always,
Posted by Fellow_Human, Friday, 6 July 2007 6:16:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"when we get a real leader in the white house we'll take the war to Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Pakistan,"

Ah Benjamin, thats the problem! Whilst people like you want to
take the war everywhere, whilst radical Islamism wants to take the
war everywhere, we are basically buggered. You will find extremists
on both sides of the debate, as the evidence clearly shows.

Best you all just become secular humanists and become a bit more
tolerant :)
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 6 July 2007 7:59:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aqvarivs

The Romans were determined to control the Mediterranean. After taking Greece they automatically acquired Israel (Kingdom of Judah) which they called Judea. The Jewish view that their conception of God accepted all good people was settled before the time of Jesus. The Romans in fact had the least success with the Jews of acceptance of their ideas as Judaism held a more enlightened view of the world that the Romans, as I am sure you as a Christian will agree. The question is whether the idea of Jesus as the son of God made for a still more enlightened view is open to debate.

Personally I think Judaism in its most modern versions is more universal than either Christianity or Islam because of its structure of interpretation. Some modern versions of Judaism are almost rationalist in their views because of its emphasis on relationships with others rather than belief or dogma. Long established Jewish views on divorce and abortion are extremely modern. Because of this Jews by and large just wany to live in peace with neighbours who accept basic human values, but this has often not been possible with creed based faiths which consider that they alone own the truth.

I mat be wrong in some of these points but Judaism is not exclusive in the sense that for example is Christianity

coach

I am at a loss to see where the trinity concept of God is present anywhere in the Old Testament.
Posted by logic, Friday, 6 July 2007 9:15:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“You will find extremists on both sides of the debate”

Exactly, and that's why I respect Ayaan Hirsi Ali- she wants nothing more than to PEACEFULLY make Islam at least as debatable as Christianity is, she wants Muslims to be free to criticise Islam without having to fear for their life.
She wants freedom of religion. (And I dare say, freedom FROM religion).

The problem is that there may be many Muslims who don't agree with Islam or parts of the Koran but who are too fearful to speak out. Ayaan wants to change that- it should be safe to leave Islam.
Ayaan does not want war- she loves democracy and promotes peaceful debates so that Islam can be reformed. Reformation is her goal, not abolishment.

For some perspective, remember that In the past, Christianity hasn’t been openly debatable either (e.g. Spanish Inquisittion, more recently the Catholics and Protestants).
We should also keep in mind that even today there are a few fundamental Christian cults and sects to which we turn a blind eye because of their lowish numbers. Nevertheless, if they grow, they can potentially just be as dangerous to society as Islam. Religious extremists are always dangerous, whether they branch off Islam or Christianity.
Excommmunication from sects such as (my favourite cult to bash) the Exclusive Brethren has very negative ramifications especially for children.
For members of these sects it is very hard to leave even though there generally is no life threat, whereas for ex Muslims there can be the same difficulties plus a life threat.

I mentioned in an earlier post that organised groups of Muslim atheists from several European countries will soon meet in Amsterdam to sign the Freedom of Religion declaration.
Do Australian Muslims have such opportunity, to safely sign such declaration?
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 6 July 2007 10:21:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My Dear Logic, the broad view of history is like the broad view of the weather. Mainly cloudy with thunderstorms followed by periods of intermittent sunshine. I'm happy for you that you have found some sun shine.

I may be wrong but, Christianity is not exclusive in the sense that for example is Judaism. :-)
One can not easily convert to Judaism but, anyone can become a Christian at any time. Even upon ones death bed. ; ;-)
Posted by aqvarivs, Saturday, 7 July 2007 8:01:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TRTL,

“And if you're going to therefore blast science, perhaps you'd better suggest another means of proceeding with discovery, or I can only assume you're advocating humanity remain in the dark ages.”

I don’t recall ‘blasting’ science at all. Science is there to discover God’s creation as He put humans in charge of managing and prosper the earth.

God’s mysteries like His eternal existence, omnipresence, triune reality, etc… cannot be proven by science. It transcends our human and technical capacity.

Yabby,

Thanks for the laugh. Actually I enjoy God’s sense of humour.

If you want to be technical, humans do have the remnant of a tale (coccyx), as well as many other features that may lead a scientist to deduce “evolution”.

However as you said we share 98% DNA with animals. The theory (no rational evidence) that one species can magically become another has eluded science for centuries.

Humans are above all other creatures, and this is God’s purpose by design.

If my humanity is linked to the extra 2% DNA so be it.

Fellow_Human,

There are different expressions of Islam but one Qur’an, one supremacist teaching.
So unless someone goes in there with a big PERMANENT red marker pen and delete all the bits that provoque radicalism and murder of innocents, we cannot trust you or any person who continues to use the Qur’an as their justification for a religion.

Logic,

Jews (today's remnant) are God’s chosen people since the beginning of recorded history. Jews have no need for change.

Christians (from Jews or non-Jewish people) who accept the Jewish Messiah Jesus become spiritually grafted to God’s "people".

That explains Judeophobia in Islam; (they) believe they could by-pass the "only" way to God: Jesus - a Jew.

As for the trinity in OT, you won’t find that “word” – what you need is an understanding of Hebrew grammar. E.g. The word Elohim used throughout is the plural form of Eloh (God).
Elohiayim – means duality - is never used.

All elements of the one triune God entity although present in the OT become fully explained in the NT.
Posted by coach, Saturday, 7 July 2007 2:37:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aqvarivs

The point is that Jews do not believe that there is any special advantage in being Jewish. Why bother on your deathbed? Basically Rabbis would want a proper commitment before conversion, otherwise what is the point?

coach

Yes Elohim is a plural word, but Judaic tradition is that it is not the name for God, just a substitute. The other name used is Adonay, which is singular. Some Jewish scholars take the plural form to mean that God is everywhere. Who knows, I frankly do not care. To use it as a prophecy for the Holy Trinity sounds to me like a bit of sophistry.
Posted by logic, Saturday, 7 July 2007 5:14:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Coach,

1. I appreciate your improved tone.
You need further education on Islam and 'redmarker'

Watch the following link in a interview on how Muslims should respect others: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut-bvt0NdVw&NR=1

On the contrary, Rev Floyd (in the video) accuses Muslims of paganism.

2. Your comment to Logic "Elohim" the 'im' is a plural of respect (or plural of numbers) in Hebrew and Arabic languages. This is why Jewish people like Logic believe in only one God.
I thought you understood Arabic:-) apologies.

Peace as always,
Posted by Fellow_Human, Saturday, 7 July 2007 5:49:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The theory (no rational evidence) that one species can magically become another has eluded science for centuries."

On the contrary, thats quite well understood. If you are interested,
learn about ring species, that gives you a clue. But then I doubt
if you are really interested in understanding these things.
Thats cool, life is about being happy.

"Humans are above all other creatures, and this is God’s purpose by design."

Above in what way? A larger brain sure. Thats just our evolutionary
niche. The most destructive species on the planet? quite possibly.
A species smart enough to invent interesting things, stupid enough
to wipe themselves out in the end? Highly likely. Thats the problem
with religion, they call it judgement day. I guess planet earth
might one day spin with little more then ants and cockroaches on
board. Shame about those mammals...

"If my humanity is linked to the extra 2% DNA so be it."

Well yup, that leaves you 98% common primate. So what is amazing?
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 7 July 2007 8:07:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's a sad reflection on Australian society reading these comments.
Posted by Liz, Saturday, 7 July 2007 9:46:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz

Please be more specific, what have you not liked?
Posted by logic, Saturday, 7 July 2007 10:45:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Logic

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you.

I was referring to the Islamophobic comments on the thread.
Posted by Liz, Tuesday, 10 July 2007 8:27:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'TR suggests:
“… the Gospels are not historical accounts but are in fact mythological accounts.

Which particular book? Give us some specifics.'

Sure Coach. All four Gospels are mythological accounts and the rest of the New Testament is a loose history describing the effect of this proto-Christian mythology on the early Church.

The miracles depicted in the Gospels are a give away. For example, the idea that a corpse could raise to life after three days is clearly stupid. Dead people stay dead. They do not, and cannot come back to life. It is an impossibility for them to do so. Only a deluded mind would believe otherwise.

I don't think that we can labour the point too much. Miracles are a con! There are no such thing as miracles as Nature does not permit them. Nature is too elegant, too ordered and too predictable for a grotesque thing like a miracle.

Because this is a thread about Hirsi Ali and Islam I should also mention that the 'Miracle of the Koran' is also another piece of rank stupidity. To believe that a book is divine and has originated from outside space-time is also delusional. And what's more, to believe that is was dicated to a 'Prophet' by a real live angel is just plain silly.
Posted by TR, Tuesday, 10 July 2007 11:03:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TR, we bring the dead back to life all the time. Some of the most ordinary people have done it using CPR. Only a simpleton would approach a book of parables using a literal translation for argument.
Perhaps you need someone to explain parable to you.
Posted by aqvarivs, Wednesday, 11 July 2007 3:59:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, that's novel aqvarivs. The Disciples (or someone) did CPR on Jesus on the third day! After crucifixion, a spear in the side, and a good flogging as well. Brilliant. I'm sorry, but when I say dead I mean dead.

Yes, I agree that the New Testament is like a collection of parables and should be read like Homer's Iliad. However, in the real world hundreds of millions of Christians take the Resurrection story LITERALLY. And for reasons best known to themselves both Christians and Muslims believe that this same Jesus will descend from heaven (where ever that is) to save us all during a LITERAL Second Coming.

With such (literal) childish ideas that make no sense what-so-ever I'm not surprised that Hirsi Ali went atheist.
Posted by TR, Wednesday, 11 July 2007 9:36:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poor TR all touchy touchy and has to misrepresent and use ridicule to keep his rank stupidity alive and angry.
TSK TSK. I did not say any one had used CPR on Jesus but, made a point to contradict you assertion that "Dead people stay dead. They do not, and cannot come back to life."
A normal person would acknowledge such arrogant and rank stupidity in making such a bonehead statement considering the fact that thousands of people are brought back to life each day on the streets and in the hospitals around the world every day.

I suggest you read some of the works of ibn Sina (Avicenna). Bringing people back from the dead is powerful magic to those who have not the knowledge or understanding. 1st century, the relative time of both Avicenna and Jesus few would understand the nature of medical science but would appreciate the same in terms of being magical or of the supernatural. This lack of general education was one of the main reasons for writing the Bible in the form of parables rather than a documented historical account. It was written for that time to be understood by the majority at that time in hopes of educating them to events they may have heard with in their towns and villages as part of their local news. These missives or gospels were not only written letters but the contents conveyed abroad by word of mouth by the Apostles and others to not only bring news but teach the lessons one has to learn by such events.
Your out right dismissal of such a method of conveying news, socialisation, and education with such hostility is unconscionable. Meaning both excessive and unreasonable.
Posted by aqvarivs, Wednesday, 11 July 2007 2:11:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The primitive history of Christianity makes fascinating reading.

Two Christian groups existed - those of the Church of Jerusalem comprising of Jesus’ original apostles and desciples, including James (Jesus’ brother), Peter and John. This group not only denied that St Paul had been an apostle, but they also taught a ‘Christianity’ at such variance with Paul’s account that he referred to it as “another gospel” - “another Jesus”; especially concerning Jesus' trial and death. The Jerusalem community perished during the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE (AD).

Unlike the Twelve Apostles, Paul did not know Jesus in life. Evidence of Jerusalem group comes from Paul himself in a letter to the Galatians.

“ I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man ... but came though a revelation of Jesus Christ”.

Pauls’ intentions were to show that his teachings were by divine origin and independent of that being taught by the original apostles in Jerusalem.

In Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians he appears to be defending himself from accusations of being of unsound mind; rebutting the claim by the Jerusalem group that he was deluded. This centres round the idea of Jesus’ death being a ‘human event’ (held by the Jerusalem group), to Paul’s idea that it was a ‘mystical event’.

“even though we once regarded (oidamen) Christ from a human point of view, we regard (ginoskomen) him thus no longer”

I have drawn the above from “Trial of Jesus of Nazareth” (impeccably researched and referenced) by Professor S.G.F Brandon.

Brandon held impressive academic qualifications in Comparative Religion, authored works, presented the Wilde lectures at Oxford, the Forwood Lectures at Liverpool; held memberships of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, the Society for Old Testament Study, and the International Society for the Study of Time.

An Army Chaplain, prior to academia, I presume Brandon, Christian; his research is so rigorous, it is not apparent.

My personal belief is that Jesus was a Rabbi, or a Jewish teacher. He was insightful and had important things to say.
Posted by Danielle, Wednesday, 11 July 2007 5:30:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

Just a point on the hearing of voices - particularly in ancient peoples have a look at
Bicameralism (psychology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Jaynes

In greater detail see
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_ Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind

This theory was first presented by Julian Jaynes in his work, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Whilst scientists like Daniel Dennett and H. Steven Moffic think bicameralism intriguing, but “probably” wrong, others think it worthy of study.

Apparently, if someone (quite sane) hears a voice, some scientists believe it is residual bicameralism. In London, there is a research program looking at this.
Posted by Danielle, Wednesday, 11 July 2007 6:04:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Danielle, I read a bit about Jayne's hypotheses, but to me it simply
opens a can of worms and is yet another hypotheses from the 70s,
when people got so much wrong. Just look at the "Tabula Razza"
story for example. Freud, Jung etc, lots of speculation, little
evidence.

Today we have moved on, with much better neuroscience, fMRI
scans, evolutionary psychology and other fields. Thts the beauty
of science, the mountain of information keeps growing, we keep
learning more. Unlike religion, which is bogged down in the past.

Firstly the definition of consciousnous is open to debate. If
you define it as self aware, well chimps are self aware, as we
can show. I'd say that even my dog is self aware.

Secondly, just about everyone I know hears voices, as people
regularly talk to themselves and think to themselves. Thats
just a matter of brain function. There is however a big difference,
between talking/thinking to yourself and claiming voices from
the supernatural can be heard. People deluding themselves about
all sorts of things, is in fact very common human behaviour.

The thing is, we are an anxious species, who crave certainty to
feel better. We often also kid ourselves that its all about
thinking. Emotions colour most of our thoughts, even if on
a subconscious level, as various centres of the mind, compete
with one another.

Religions have thrived as they give people perceived certainty
and play on hope ( no you won't really die) and fear (you
will burn forever). Even today, some of the fundies I know,
when they run out of arguments, threaten me with judgement
day. I keep telling the born agains, that I was born fine
the first time :)
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 11 July 2007 9:53:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Facinating posts Yabby and Danielle!

The 'All in the Mind' radio programme from the ABC has an interesting webpage. It begins thus;

'Around 10 per cent of the population hear voices that aren't there. Some people can live harmoniously with them, but for those whose voices are associated with a psychiatric illness, they can be frightening and menacingly real. We discuss the latest research on how auditory hallucinations occur in the brain, what it's like to live with voices in your head—and the healing power of the international Hearing Voices Network.'

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/stories/2006/1689941.htm

What a shame that men like the Prophet Mohammed were not able to join support groups like the 'Hearing Voices Network' and gain help.

It is now obvious due to modern medicine that the Prophet Mohammed did not really have an 'angelic experience' but suffered from schizophrenia. Of course he would not of been to tell the difference because the science of neurology did not exist in 7th century Arabia.
Posted by TR, Thursday, 12 July 2007 7:30:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aqvarrivs, why do religiously inclined people like yourself insist in making simple concepts complex.

I would assume that obfuscation is a tool used by converts to preserve the 'mystery' of religion and to maintain its psychological 'spell'. Why present something in a clear cut fashion when you can shroud it is a load of convoluted nonsense and make it appear more important than it really is.

So, dead is dead. Jesus is dead. And does not exist anywhere.
Posted by TR, Thursday, 12 July 2007 1:02:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jeez, I don't know TR. Why do intellectually stunted people like yourself with nothing but hatred and ridicule for anything they can not understand go around with such a huge chip on their shoulder. The only thing that is dead is your personal ability to grasp spiritual relevance in human history. Jesus is alive in the hearts of the Christian faithful and Mohammad is equally alive for the Muslims as Buddha is for the Buddhist etc.. That you don't like religion and have put together your favorite jibes into well practiced doctrinal rants is hardly reasoned conversational etiquette. And it isn't that I'm religious. I can appreciate human history and development and have never been one to go about condemning universal human practices. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has her story, in which ever fashion she chooses to tell it. It's one persons experience, not a mandatory perception. You are not being compelled to believe. You can slag both her and religion as you will but, please don't come the studied thinker as excuse for your pernicious attacks.
Posted by aqvarivs, Thursday, 12 July 2007 3:25:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Jesus is alive in the hearts of the Christian faithful and Mohammad is equally alive for the Muslims as Buddha is for the Buddhist etc..'

Aqvararivs, this sounds like more religio-double-speak to me. What on earth does 'alive in the hearts' mean?

The fact of the matter is that NOT all three religious figures can be 'alive' at the same time no matter how you try to spin it.

If religion does contain any truth at all then only ONE religious figure can be really 'alive'.

However, since it is NOT possible to tell which religious figure is telling the truth (because the accompanying 'history' is so inadequate) then the only rational recourse is to disbelieve the whole lot of them.

I like Jesus and Buddha because they reasonable role models to follow (Mohammad most definitely isn't). However as far as them being supernatural, divine, or extraordinary in any way - well, that's a complete load of unsubstantiated nonsense. Because Hirsi Ali is an atheist I think that she would at least agree with my sentiment.
Posted by TR, Friday, 13 July 2007 8:42:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TR I loved reading that ABC transcript.

When I was eight years old I read a book in which one of the fictional characters had the ability to hear through 7 walls and 7 doors, so that she knew everything about everybody around her.
It was a story that really intrigued me and I wondered if it was ‘really’ possible for me to train my hearing. After months of practicing every night, I started to hear the most beautiful music which I knew wasn’t “really” there.
I started noticing that I only could hear the music whenever there was already another sound present, like the droning sound of a fridge, the rain, a fan.

When I was 10 I figured that my ability of listening to ‘imaginative’ music was the same ability as watching clouds: when there are clouds, one can look at them and imagine all kinds of shapes, animals, castles, princes, monsters- your imagination is the limit. Even though you can ‘see’ the creative images, you know that they are not ‘real’.
When there are droning sounds, one can listen to them and use the imagination in the same way. I never thought that these sounds were ‘real’.
Perhaps the audial processing in the brain can be just as imaginative and creative as the visual processing.

I have been told by religious people that this ability is special and are ‘celestial sounds’ coming from ‘heaven’.
As a 99.999999999999999999% atheist, I think that my own theory sounds more realistic: it’s playing with imagination.
Perhaps some people hear music, while others hear voices, but it’s all imagination.

About the Jesus “resurrection” story, it’s impossible.
The criteria for ‘death’ are: absence of circulation, absence of respiration and absence of neurological activity (brain dead).
Either Jesus wasn’t flat lined and so wasn’t really ‘dead’ and there couldn’t have been a resurrection, or he was brain dead and then couldn’t have been resurrected since the brain of a flat-lined person starts liquifying soon after and there’s no return. So from whatever corner you look at it, there was no resurrection.
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 13 July 2007 11:38:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm glad you liked the 'All in the Mind' programme Celivia.

I must admit that I was really moved by Ron Coleman's testimony. His personal battle against schizophrenia (auditory hallucinations) and his choice not to take medication was inspirational.
Posted by TR, Monday, 16 July 2007 9:21:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"And it isn't that I'm religious."

But you are religious Aqva. You try to defend the Catholic
Church and get upset when people point out its many flaws.

I am just amazed that anyone can give that institution, any
kind of credibility. Why should anyone take any notice,
of what those old farts in Rome think? Ok, they were
brainwashed as children, surely they can think beyond
that? It seems not, quite often.

Now we have 700 million $ being paid out of church coffers,
to pay compensation for the sins of the priests. Did those
people who gave the church that money, really mean it to be
used for this purpose?

Some time ago, I read a book called "The Sex Lives of the Popes".
It was enlightening.

Considering the scandalous history of the Catholic Church,
the selling of indulgences, the having put to death people
who disagreed, the gross misuse of power, the inquisition,
the crusades, etc etc, why should anyone respect that Church
for anything? Because they happen to practise brainwashing
of children?

You might take your church seriously for your own reasons,
but don't expect anyone else to do the same. I respect your
right to believe whatever you want, not what you believe.

To me those old farts in Rome do little more then interfere
politically in peoples lives, increasing suffering on this
planet. But then suffering does not seem to be a problem
for them, some of them think its noble. Pffft..
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 16 July 2007 10:08:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, “But you are religious Aqva. You try to defend the Catholic Church and get upset when people point out its many flaws. “

Oh Yabby, I don't get upset when people point out flaws with in the Catholic Church. I think that is healthy for all. Those who are Catholic and those who are not. What pulls on a raw nerve is fools who use ridicule and belittlement in their post to attack in the name of studied reason rather than actually taking the time and effort to engage in reasoned discussion on topic. For example your rants against the Pope and the Church are so refined by time and tweaking that one can not be blamed for thinking it is a matter of cut and paste for you, your rant being so refined. Your no different than that other poster who accused me of propigating Catholic dogma because I said that I have a Catholic School upbringing.

At the moment I'm deep into reading Taoism and P.D. Ouspensky's Tertium Organum.

“Upon our very first steps toward cognition, writes Ouspensky, certain conditions determine both our usual way of thinking and understanding. Much of what we take as known and familiar in our daily lives is, in reality, far from certain and when pondered remains enigmatic. The question of time and its relation to space, problems associated with the mysteries of life and death along with man's various conceptions of God remain distant and, as it were, obscured from unaided reason. Yet a recognition of these problems as enigmas along with attempts at possible solutions remains fundamental to any comprehensive understanding of the world.”

“What is ultimately to be reduced must first be expanded.
What is ultimately to be weakened must first be made strong.
What is ultimately to be discarded must first be embraced.
What is ultimately to be taken away must first be given.
This is called subtle insight.”
-A Taoist thought.

Keep picking away at that scab on your brain. I'm sure it will heal in no time.
Posted by aqvarivs, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 8:29:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ROFL Aqva. I admit, I prefer the KISS principle.
Keep it simple stupid!

In my late teens I lived for a few years in Paris.
Now if you ever want to get into philosophical navel
gausing, Paris is your city. They come in every shape
and size, with every varied philosophy that you can
imagine.

In the end, all that speculation, turned out to be
little more then verbal masturbation by a multitude
of people. The answers have not come from Freud
or Jung, but from neuroscience, from evidence.

So these days I am a skeptic. If people make claims,
they should provide evidence. That includes the
Catholic Church and those old farts in Rome.

The rest is mere speculation and hardly worth the paper
its written on.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 11:04:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, There is no first step to the scientific method with out speculation, with out hypotheses. A good person of science and I mean those before the cutting edge, are persons of broad thinking and willingness to consider multiple approaches and avenues of thought. Not people who have discovered it all on a bust up in Paris as a teen and have quit with their frontal lobe. No scientific discovery has been brought about by individuals afraid to explore the unknown or engage all modes of thought. K.I.S.S is the working mans version of a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities. Better known as Occam's razor. And usually misquoted.
I put mental masturbation right up there with the other. Both enjoyable exercises and neither for anyone that can't hold a thought.
Posted by aqvarivs, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 1:17:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I put mental masturbation right up there with the other. Both enjoyable exercises and neither for anyone that can't hold a thought."

Thats fine by me Aqva, as I always say, whatever gets you through
the night :)
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 3:50:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 17
  7. 18
  8. 19
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy