A useful book review/lecture Irfy.

Interesting how youngsters in the West usually only gain a narrow perception of Islam.

Broader Islamic education COULD moderate extremist ideas that have crept in.

However, on the other hand broader Islamic education may pull back young men (who are becoming secular like the rest of us) into Islamic seperatism.

I would put forward that most religious kids, be they of Catholic parents or strongly Muslim parents, generally grow out of devout religion, become less God fearing. They become more secular.

They become more interested in the ordinary values of people around them and less interested in religious THEORY - which can be (and is) used as an excuse for violent acts on Earth.

This presents a difficult mixture of teaching kids that they are Muslims and teaching them that they are Australians.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

My posts in the past have generally been supportive of this author, and I have in the main been critical of some of his more blinkered and unthinking detractors. However in this essay I am most concerned about the phrase "the World Trade Centre twin towers collapsed".

There is, in this turn of phrase, the suggestion that they just fell down of their own accord. Collapse - being an intransitive verb - has this connotation. I would hate to think that this author, whose work I have in the main respected, is in some small way trying to distort history.

The fact is that he twin towers didn't fall (intransitive verb), they were pushed (transitive verb).

I agree with the Twin Towers bit,Irfen kind of blurs over that bit .I think it is probably easier to tiptoe around some subjects but it is not as honest.
Bringing together two differing cultures is always somewhat difficult but when it is Islam plus or versus any other culture, it is better not to try.
It doesn't matter how much the West has tried to live with Islam, even to the point of appeasement, Muslims are always going to feel victimised, marginalised, hard done by because Muslims cannot get on with anybody-not even other Muslims. That is proved by the horrors that confront us in the media daily.
The West and the East, in this case, will never meet in truth.Or peace.

'The book contains some inaccuracies. Husain erroneously claims HT was the ideological forebear of al-Qaida, a claim experts on political Islamism would dismiss. However, it is an elegantly written and honest account of one young British Muslim's journey into and out of different forms of political Islam. Cultural warriors will be disappointed by Husain's central thesis: that greater exposure of Muslim youth to mainstream Islamic theology provides an effective antidote to Islamism.'

You're not turning into an apologist for the HT crowd are you Irfan? I'm still waiting for a clear anti-HT comment from you. After all, HT is unfortunately still alive and very active within Australian society.

Secondly, the BEST antidote to Islamism is not more Islam but a good dose of scepticism and critical thinking. In other words, a good dose of science and the scientific worldview.

I dare any Islamist (or Muslim)to read the following classic texts and still be a gung-ho true-believer;

'The Selfish Gene' (Dawkins)
'Breaking the Spell' (Dennett)
'Darwin's Dangerous Idea' (Dennett)
'The Meaning of Things' (Grayling)
'The Human Mind' (Pinker)
'DNA' (Watson)
'God is not Great' (Hitchens)
'Why I am not a Muslim' (Warraq)

Nothing destroys religious fundamentalism like a good dose of scientific naturalism.

Of course, Muslims don't need to be brainwashed to the point of Islamism to be undesirable nutcases.

Here is a recent 'Muslim Village' exchange that is unfortunately not that atypical. Just do a search under apostasy/apostate on the website and you will see what I mean;

http://forums.muslimvillage.net/index.php?showtopic=36512&pid=594043&st=0&#entry594043

'Such beliefs aren't based on anything other than western minded thinking and ignorance of classical Islamic doctrine. The fact is, us layman DON'T have the right to our own opinions. We must follow the majority of 'those who know'. IE. The majority of the Ulema.

I'm not advocating an inquistorial style witch hunt to find out who is an apostate or not, but I am in favour of those who openly claim to be ex-muslims and work against it, being killed....'

Some moron called 'Freeman' posted this comment. He needs a good dose of 'Dawkins' to help eradicate the Islamo-virus from his mind. Poor soul

Oh thank God. I'm so glad we have determined the reason why Islamist are as they are. Now we can all make the changes necessary to accommodate their angst and the world will be at peace. I suppose I will have to kill a few innocent bystanders until the world makes the changes necessary to address my likes and dislikes.

Irfan wrote “His rejection of his parents' mainstream Islam was caused less by any rebellious streak than his own naïvety and inability to recognise the fringe nature of Islamist ideology.”

The tatics used by Muslim apologists these days is to point the finger at Saudi Arabia and blame them for teaching extremists Islam. But the Koran actually teaches that lying and deception to further the cause of Islam is a required duty of all Muslims, this is called the "Taqyaa", or "Holy Deception."

Irfan is getting better at ‘holy lying’ as the days go by. As an ethnic Pakistani, Irfan should know that Pakistan was founded on Islamic ideology and laws derived from the Shariat. Its chief proponent was Sir Muhammed Iqbal, the brilliant Muslim philosopher recognized that Islam is not compatible with other religions and secular democracy.

“The religious ideal is organically related to the social order which it [Islam] has created. The rejection of the one will eventually involve the rejection of the other. Therefore, the construction of a polity on national lines if it means the displacement of the Islamic principles of solidarity is simply unthinkable to a Muslim. This is a matter which at the present moment directly concerns the Muslims of India.”

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_iqbal_1930.html#01
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Iqbal

Tawfik Hamid, the secular Egyptian Arab, put it in simpler terms.

“It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the "end of days." The near deafening silence of the Muslim majority against these barbaric practices is evidence enough that there is something fundamentally wrong.”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009890

TR, check this out ...

http://www.newmatilda.com/home/articledetail.asp?ArticleID=2047

I call a spade a spade. But I refuse to call it a hand grenade.

Yes, Philip, the voices in your head are telling you the right stuff. I am part of a huge international conspiracy of 'holy lying'. It is a huge conspiracy and we are all wired up and connected to the giant Islamist intergalactic intranet in which we receive instructions from Usama bin Ladin and Popeye the Sailer Man. We call ourselves the "Spinach Sleeper Cell".

And just between you nd me, Phil, we hold our secret meetings at a pub in Western Sydney. But please, Phil. Don't tell anyone. It's our little secret.

Irfan I do not think you lie but forgive those of us who believe far too many do.
I know and understand it will be people like you who one day stop the insanity and evil murder.
But this mornings news for me highlights a very real danger in ALL religions.
By this I speak of those who never get a full and rounded education, just one about belief.
Libya it is said wants the Arab world to bar all contact with Bulgaria?!
Middle ages blind bigotry.
However we only have to continue to read our own papers to find a victim of lies and made up evidence here , the poor bloke in Brisbane this morning.
I think education to hate in the name of any God, or the thought some humans are lessor beings is going to see our differences settled in a war.

IRF's article is VERY important. I feel this kind of analysis can help all of us untangle the mess which is 'mainstream' Islam today..ie. there are many aspects and dimensions to it.

Irf has information there which we all should take to heart.

A thought which crossed my mind, is that when 'xyz' Islam (as in the British Mosques, which is JI type) becomes 'mainstream' to young Muslims, and JI types run most of the mosques... is it not actually fair to say this IS "mainstream" ? It cannot be defined outside its actual real world occurrence right?

MORE CONCERNS, I looked up the Muslim Village link provided by TR and I found the comment below:

[mods(Moderators) are cracking down on cyber scholars, so if u post an opinion u need to include a link to a fatwa/scholarly opinion.
we've been warned that anyone posting their own opinion on religious matters will get banned.]

Do we notice this ? PERSONAL opinions.. you get BANNED!

If that is how Muslim village moderators treat "Muslims" how much more will they treat "outsiders" who are non Muslims? (As I experienced)

Look by contrast at OLO.. we have diverse opinions, often polarized, at odds on many subjects including religion..NO-ONE gets banned, unless they attack personally and use profanity.

I have more concerns about TR's 'solution'. He feels 'make them all atheists' will work. My solution is introduce them to the One True God as revealed in Christ Jesus, and bring them into relationship with God through Christ.
TR..your solution cannot offer this "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, that you have love, one for another"... instead, your solution gives us moral vacuums....nihilists... MIUAUG

'TR..your solution cannot offer this "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, that you have love, one for another"... instead, your solution gives us moral vacuums....nihilists... MIUAUG'

No Boaz, this lie by monotheists that atheism is equal to immorality and nihilism needs to be exposed then demolished.

Indeed, I would say thay atheists are MORE moral than Christians or Muslims because they have a vested interest in society succeeding, and succeeding well.

Christians and Muslims merely loath this present life and long for the second coming of Jesus Christ. At this point Christians and Muslims bugger off into heaven bidding the Earth good riddance.

Therefore, atheists are the ones who really care about the planet and the people on it. Christians and Muslims are the uncaring fly-by-nights. And the Islamists and other assorted religious fundamentalists are the worst by degree.

Hi TR... thanx for the interaction old son.. but now young Jedi :) I must train you...... hehe..

Ok.. you said that Atheists had a vested interest in society 'succeeding'... but your philosophical problem with that statement is the definition of success.

Machiavelle would define it differently from you I'm sure. This has been history's problem.

Religious zealots who have in their faith a direct connection between 'The fundamentals' and 'Government/State' results in all manner of horrific ill treatment of the 'not' our flavor religionists.
This can apply to historic movements such as the Anglican, the RC, or the Hindu or Islamic. In the end, it matters little whether they can or cannot justify the State in terms of their religion, because if their drive is strong enough, they will simply invent reasons (3rd Reich).

Atheistic Zealots, such as Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, well.. they simply substitute the 'religious' reasons for massive ill treatment with 'non faith' related ones.

So, 'success' for one is a purified, disciplined, ordered Church run society, and for the other it is a politically purified, disciplined, ordered materialistic society.

What determines if a man becomes an Osama Bin Ladin, Oliver Cromwell, a Pol Pot, or an Ian Paisly or a Gerry Adams? I suppose it gets back to what is in the heart of the individual.

But I doubt we can say one system or the other is going to produce little philosophical clones for the next generation.

Such is the dilemna of human society. "The Kingdom of Man"

I was reading that link you gave to Muslim village. That bloke 'freeman' needs to be reported to the AFP for sure. He is advocating killing of people who elect to leave Islam.

The Kingdom of God, is not a State, but a "state of being". "If any man will follow me, let him deny himself" said Jesus... deny what ?
well.. I suggest "All of the above" (in this response)-deny our natural human inclinations to megalomania. "blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth" is deeper than most of us realize.

Surely we can develop enough maturity and intellect to move beyond simplistic concepts of a godly father figure.Is god so insecure that he/she needs a kingdom?Why does this god bother with pathic suckups like humans that that wax and wane in allegiance according to their emotional states?

Many from other belief systems are coming to the defence of Islam,since they know that if the vile teachings of the Koran come to fruition and it really gets on the nose,this could be the demise of the other religions.It is all about power and people will twist all manner of realities to achieve it,since power means security both economically and socially.

If you have to kill your backsliders or apostates to preserve your faith then the faith can’t have much to offer.

Religion can be, should be a comfort, a safety, a place where you can thank God[whatever you call him] for the blessings you have. But when religion is a book of rigid laws based on what old men said a thousand years or more ago, you have a book that stifles and retards human advancement.Because it stunts the mental creativity that drives life forward.
Our Earth moves forward, we must move with it or be left in the stagnant ,rotting decay of all the yesterdays.

The underlying reason that we have friction between religious zealots is typified by this remark from Boaz.

>>I feel this kind of analysis can help all of us untangle the mess which is 'mainstream' Islam today<<

What business is it of yours, Boaz, a self-confessed Christian evangelist, to propose how a different religion "untangle [its] mess"?

To a non-religionist - and, I suspect, non-zealots of any religious persuasion - this attitude can only be offensive.

To an atheist, it is simply background noise. You must know the story of the blind men and the elephant? Here are two versions:

http://www.peacecorps.gov/wws/stories/stories.cfm?psid=110
http://discordia.loveshade.org/apocrypha/elephant.html

People who are convinced that their interpretation of ancient scripts is, like Channel Nine, "Still The One", will never agree that any other interpretation is acceptable. To an atheist - or indeed anyone who thinks for themselves rather than following someone else's dogma - the squabbles are trivial, meaningless, angels-dancing-on-a-pin exchanges, with no connection with real life.

Except.

Except where the two teams of fanatics goad each other to the point where violence is the only answer. That is when it becomes dangerous to mankind, and that is why patronizing offers to "untangle the mess which is 'mainstream' Islam today" are as pointless as they are inflammatory.

Please try to accept that normal people are not corrupted by exposure to religion - any religion - and that it is only criminals who kill. But it is possible to turn otherwise peaceable folk into criminals by constantly telling them that their beliefs are wrong.

Beliefs are emotional, not rational. And when you attack a belief system, you cause an emotional, not a rational response.

We clearly haven't learned the lessons of the Crusades, where entire armies were put together on the premise that one religion was "better" than another.

Boaz, the Christians have their ‘Talibans’ in the Christian Zionist movement who seek to establish the ‘Kingdom of God’ with Jerusalem as the capital of the world. Religion and politics is a potent mix, whatever the religion may be. http://www.christianzionism.org/

The great revolutionary Mao Zedong did a great thing for China. He launched the Cultural Revolution which focused on the abolishment of the Four Olds: Old Customs, Old Culture, Old Habits, and Old Ideas. The result was that China’s education system focused on science and technology, introduced rational thought and did away with long established tradition of superstitious beliefs. Within a generation after the death of Deng Xiaoping, China is developing to be one of the biggest economy in the world.

The Cultural Revolution almost wiped out religion in China. Surprisingly, the number of Christians in China grew from 700,000 to approximately 70,000,000 in 2000, http://www.chinasoul.org/e/cross-news.htm, virtually without outside influence.

Compare China’s secular cultural revolution with that of the 1979 Islamic Cultural Revolution in Iran where Iran was purged of Western and non-Islamic influences to bring it in line with Islam. Hundreds of professors were sacked from Iran’s academia and thousands of Muslims clerics put in position of power.

Iran, together with some Muslim countries, are now exporters of Islamic terrorism, preaching violence against non-Muslims and trying to fulfill the injunction of Muhammed to establish a world-wide Islamic Caliphate. http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/global_islamic_caliphate.htm
Consider what their god has done for them; many are poor, corruption is rife, their countries can’t even produce enough to feed their faithful and they have to emigrate to non-Muslims countries to survive.

It is a fact that violent and intolerent sects are an inevitable part of the Islamic religion.

And ironically they could NOT exist without the platform of liberal Islam. In other words, Islamists cannot exist in isolation. They first need the factory of the broader Islamic community from which to be manufactured.

So, the question is this - should Western societies 'live and let live' when it comes to the Islamic faith?

From a atheists point of view the answer is no. All religions should undergo constructive criticism. Islam like other religions is inherently wrong and untrue. The probability that Mohammad really did talk to an angel called 'Gabriel' is zero.

If Islam was close to possessing some kind of truth then is might be worth putting up the violent and intolerent minority in their midst. But it does not possess truth so there is simply no point in not criticising the tenets of its faith.

Western societies should continue to hound the Islamic faith so it becomes academically untenable. Academics have had enormous success in dismantling the Catholic religion (especially in Europe), I see no reason why the same success cannot be had with the Islamic religion.

The race is on. Atheists and other like minded sceptics have to deconstruct Christianity AND Islam within Western societies before those societies end up like Beirut and the Middle East generally!

This writer has only one topic, his special knowledge apparently. Radical Islam. Why is that? And why does OLP continue supporting this person.

His writing is the equivalent of the recently departed and despised Sheik from Sydney's media front line.

Does Irfan follow Islam or just the terrorist issues?

If he follows Islam he wouldn't be writing this rubbish. He would be preaching peace and kindness rather than what he does do. Attack Australia and it's people. His writing should be examined by OLP editors in regard to Australia's terrorism laws for what he writes encourages the radical Islamists and consistently shows support for them. How? He gives them supportive publicity every times he puts pen to paper.

If you doubt what I write look at what the first commenter wrote and has highlighted. Irfan thinks the Twin Towers collapsed. Accident apparently. As are all those suicide bombers. Just happened to be strolling around with a belt full of explosives when they accidentally went off. What bad luck.

Get rid of this man. Now.

Hi Philip Tang...

I had a peek at the web site for Christian Zionism... and found this:

[But CUFI has an ulterior agenda: its support for Israel derives from the belief of Hagee and his flock that Jesus will return to Jerusalem after the battle of Armageddon and cleanse the earth of evil. In the end, all the non-believers - Jews, Muslims, Hindus, mainline Christians, etc. - must convert or suffer the torture of eternal damnation.]

So..lets see..some Christians with some 'colorful' ideas about last days, 'visited Israel' ..wow..thats scary :)
Their beliefs.
1/ They Support Israel (Romans 11:11)
2/ Jesus will return to Jerusalem. (1 Thess 4:16)
3/ After the Battle of Armageddon. (No..actually its after the Millenium Rev 20:11ff) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon
4/ Non believers will be judged.(exactly)

Now.. I'm struggling to find 'terrorism' or 'Taliban' in that. Support for Israel in terms of donations ? Now that could only be construed as 'terrorism' if Israel was considered a 'terrorist' state. But, given their history of SELF DEFENSE I find that a long shot.
What you need to consider is that all those "last_days" events are God driven..not man driven. Any bright spark who thinks they can help the Almighty along a bit is misguided I feel.

I see no reference to these Christian Zionists beating up women who show their ankles, executing women or teaching 12 yr old boys how to carve off the head of a grown man.. so please.. choose your comparisons MUCH more wisely. *verbal smack*

FINALLY Thanx for showing all of us how the power of the Gospel will grow from 700,000 to 70,000,000 in China without the firing of a Christian gun :)
See where it all started.. this was the mission I served in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Inland_Mission#Missiological_Distinctives_of_the_C.I.M.

PERICLES. your attack on my SUPPORTIVE post for Irfan is rather unwarranted. If you don't see that there are problems in defining 'Mainstream' Islam based on the Article, please re-read it.

I disagree. As usual.

>>PERICLES. your attack on my SUPPORTIVE post for Irfan is rather unwarranted<<

I didn't read your post as being supportive, Boaz. I read it as being patronizing, and therefore offensive.

On a number of occasions, you have stated that the "cure" for Islam is your version of Christianity. Therefore, when you suggest that you can help "untangle the mess which is 'mainstream' Islam today" I naturally assumed that this was again your objective.

If I am wrong, then I withdraw the observation.

But to show that I am in the wrong, you need to explain how on this occasion your assistance to untangle the mess would not include the application of Boazist Christianity.

RobbyH:

You state in part of your comment that Irfan suggested the Twin towers just collapsed, and equate that to apologism for terrorist acts.
I find that spurious. By the same token, your comment "get rid of this man. Now" could just as easily be assumed to be encouraging either the deportation of those who disagree with you, or even worse.
That's crap I'm afraid. Point me to where the author has made radical comments like the 'uncovered meat' saga of Hilaly.
Until I see some substance to back that up, I can only conclude you tar anyone who defends Islam as a radical, and can't help but feel you haven't actually got anything remotely insightful to say about the article.
You also say that because the author speaks predominantly about this issue, then he must be stopped.
By that logic, the calls for moderate muslims to speak up are false. By the same logic, anyone who speaks out about muslims is automatically a radical.

Phillip Tang: There probably are some muslims that follow such a path. You then conclude, that because there are some muslims out there that lie in order to promote violent islam, then any muslim who espouses a peaceful Islam, is therefore just hiding violent tendencies. In effect, you're saying that because Irfan doesn't promote violence, it's secretly promoting violence, but more shrewdly.
I'm afraid that also, is crap.

This piece is quite interesting - while I can see merit behind the idea of moderate Islam being taught in an attempt to dissuade violent ideology taking hold, though as much as I hate to admit it, I see BD's point insofar as when it becomes common enough, the more aggressive varieties will indeed be the 'mainstream.'
It is ironic insofar as the west has fed certain sects in order to play them off another, resulting in an unpleasant cocktail of saudi-funded madrassas. It's here that we need to be directing our efforts...

THANK....you TRTL... now if only PERILOUS could see that exact point...which WAS my point.....

My goodness..poor old Perilous seems to want to find an 'anti Muslim rant' behind every rock and under every Christian green tree...

Yes P, you were entirely wrong, and I accept that you now withdraw your sad comment.

TRTL got it straight away... just as "Islam" itself under Mohammad had very tiny beginnings, and he labored for some 3 yrs with little observable result... but then when he lived at Medina, and had a stronger military backing.. "his religion" so to speak historically, went from 'fringe spirituality' to 'mainstream' when he came back victoriously to Mecca.. there is nothing anti Muslim in making these observations, they are simply historical fact.

National Socialism did not become 'mainstream' German politics over night..but it sure became dangerous when it did.

Let me reiterate the 'point' for your benefit. Irf wisely made indicated that when a number of English mosques came under the control of what we would describe as 'radical'.. that radicalism BECAME the mainstream by virtue of the numbers and religious politics.

I don't agree with everything Irf says.. as you know.. but when he speaks truth.. there is nothing left but to agree. That is not 'patronizing' it is intellectual honesty.

The hapless individuals who had been infected by the loony radicals then could see no difference between themselves and the 'mainstream'....

I place a lot of emphasis on the term 'mainstream' because it was pivotal in the judgement on the 2 Dannies.

I will never understand why Hilali was not charged with racially offensive remarks and encouraging rape.
If anyone ever deserved charging it was him.Yet the authorities let it pass over their heads though Australians were not amused at the filth implied.
The two Danny's never said anything as wrong s Hilali yet were taken to court. And that is wrong.

Irfan,

I enjoyed reading your opinion piece from the New Matilda; 'Islam & the West: The Kebab Kaliphate Klub'. Thanks.

So, are you saying that Wassim Doureihi's mob here in Australia are a joke? Or are you saying that HT as a global movement is a joke?

Also, if HT is friendly and benign as you imply why are they being 'monitored' in some countries? The UK did consider banning the sect altogther.

I should also add that the debate as to whether HT is dangerous or not is only part of the issue. Secular people like myself get distressed everytime we hear of religious sects with a political agenda.

It's bad enough having right-wing Christian groups invading the Liberal Party (mainly at the state level) - but now, due to Muslim immigration, we get the dregs of Islamic culture dragged in from the Middle East.

I don't see why secular Australians should have to put up with Middle Eastern religio-political groups invading its peaceful society like some virus.

Quite clearly, Ruddock/Andrews, the Immigration Department, and the Muslim community (as represented by yourself Irfan), are NOT doing enough to combat this particular invasive virus within Australian society. More needs to be done.

Did I mention Tablighi Jamaat and other assorted Wahabi's.........

Irfan suggests:
"All evidence points to the (7/7 London) attack being the work of frustrated children of nominally Muslim migrants."

followed by:

"These young men found themselves in what Peter Costello once described as a twilight zone where the values of their parents' old country have been lost but the values of the new country not fully embraced."

If your theory was correct Irfan, how would you explain the Egyptian "Islamic Brotherhood" the source of ALL modern Islamic Terrorism?

The fact that this revolutionary (assassins) group was borne after the collapse of the Islamic Caliphate in that country; does not leave too much to speculation about the source of their “frustration”.

The only frustration these virile Islamists had was the loss of their "Islamic State" the integral part of their religious identity... they were not estranged in a new culture at all. Their parents and grandparents were still worshipping at the same local mosque as they did for centuries...

Irfan’s defence of Islamic terrorism will continue to have no credibility if he persists – like most Islamic apologists – to disconnect 'Islamic Ideologies' from 'Islamic Terrorism'.

When the educated world can see for themselves that the source of Islamic Terrorism “frustration” is the very teachings of classical Islam – as perpetuated in the holy Qur’an and the traditions of the holiest man that ever lived: the prophet Mohammad...which these young muslims read, study, (no need for interpretation), and are directly inspired from.

Irfan is not the typical “moderate” Muslim he wants us to believe. And dare I say not a Muslim at all – according to the Islamic Sunnah.

Instead of spending his down time at the pub with non-believers; I wish Irfan would be reclining more often at his local Mosque, reading and memorising verses of his holy Qur’an – and maybe, just maybe then discover (for the first time) the root of all evil… or what he prefers to call “frustration”.

Coach

You said:
"When the educated world can see for themselves that the source of Islamic Terrorism “frustration” is the very teachings of classical Islam – as perpetuated in the holy Qur’an and the traditions of the holiest man that ever lived: the prophet Mohammad...which these young muslims read, study, (no need for interpretation), and are directly inspired from."

I agree.
Also, I think a lot of it is about shame, all this apologia by Muhammed lovers. Shame about what Muhammed actually was and did. They writhe and twist all over the shop to hide what he actually did. It's understandable. It is textbook psychology. They feel shame for what Muhammed was and did, so they invent all manner of sophistry to repress this emotion. Some go on to vent their emotion and burn other people's stuff. Some even kill, like what Muhammed had done to poets who critisized his message.

Why can't they admit there is something twisted with Islam and commence dialogue without the neurotic psychology? This would be a more mature way of doing things.
I guess we can live in hope :-)

Dear Friends

directly in line with Irfans article, about the 'mainstream' Mosques in the UK which have been infected with 'Wahabism' you should view this documentary, which is in 6 parts on youtube.

I won't make any comment, but you can draw your own conclusions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo

The following parts of this series can be seen in the window on the web page where this video is being viewed.

The Green Lane mosque is said to be a 'centre of wahabism' so.. the video's should be viewed in that light. Not forgetting of course, what Irfan said himself in the article, about the 'mainstream'ers who control many mosques.

Boaz, please try to understand where this is leading.

This documentary was shown back in January in the UK. It received a number of reviews, most of them remarking on the careful editing and the overt bias of the presenter.

However, this is the comment on the programme that should appeal to you most.

http://englandrise.blogspot.com/2007/01/despatches-undercover-mosque.html

I particularly liked the CVs of some of "the pampleteers". Tasty. And the "Know thy Enemy" list.

Just imagine, Boaz, if you could only generate the same reaction here in Australia!

Think of the slogans you could be responsible for.

"Rise Australia Rise. Observing the rebirth of Australian nationhood. Beat the drums. Call rise the spirits of Ned Kelly, Breaker Morant and Captain Starlight. Australia needs you once again"

So what's your point Pericles? That the existence of British xenophobia somehow justifies the existence of Islamic xenophobia.

Any fair minded individual would rather have neither forms of xenophobia jack-booting through their society.

Wahabis, Hizbos, Skin Heads and White Supremicists - they all come from the same totalitarian mindset.

Islam has been touted as a religion of peace. Yet a few years into Mohd's death, there was much fighting, murder,etc among the Moslems to succeed him. The leaders have so much blood on their hands and what message are they bringing from allah? That he is a blood-thirsty god? The Talibans and modern day Islamic terrorists are tame compared with them.

The following is taken from a Muslim website, "islamfortoday".

HISTORY
Ali is the central figure at the origin of the Shia / Sunni split which occurred in the decades immediately following the death of the Prophet in 632. Sunnis regard Ali as the fourth and last of the "rightly guided caliphs" (successors to Mohammed (pbuh) as leader of the Muslims) following on from Abu Bakr 632-634, Umar 634-644 and Uthman 644-656. Shias feel that Ali should have been the first caliph and that the caliphate should pass down only to direct descendants of Mohammed (pbuh) via Ali and Fatima, They often refer to themselves as ahl al bayt or "people of the house" [of the prophet].

When Uthman was murdered while at prayer, Ali finally succeeded to the caliphate. Ali was, however, opposed by Aisha, wife of the Prophet (pbuh) and daughter of Abu Bakr, who accused him of being lax in bringing Uthman's killers to justice. After Ali's army defeated Aisha's forces at the Battle of the Camel in 656, she apologized to Ali and was allowed to return to her home in Madinah where she withdrew from public life.

c'td

c'td

However, Ali was not able to overcome the forces of Mu'awiya Ummayad, Uthman's cousin and governor of Damascus, who also refused to recognize him until Uthman's killers had been apprehended. At the Battle of Suffin Mu'awiya's soldiers stuck verses of the Quran onto the ends of their spears with the result that Ali's pious supporters refused to fight them. Ali was forced to seek a compromise with Mu'awiya, but this so shocked some of his die-hard supporters who regarded it as a betrayal that he was struck down by one of his own men in 661.

Mu'awiya declared himself caliph. Ali's elder son Hassan accepted a pension in return for not pursuing his claim to the caliphate. He died within a year, allegedly poisoned. Ali's younger son Hussein agreed to put his claim to the caliphate on hold until Mu'awiya's death. However, when Mu'awiya finally died in 680, his son Yazid usurped the caliphate. Hussein led an army against Yazid but, hopelessly outnumbered, he and his men were slaughtered at the Battle of Karbala (in modern day Iraq). Hussein's infant son, Ali, survived so the line continued. Yazid formed the hereditary Ummayad dynasty. The division between the Shia and what came to be known as the Sunni was set.

http://www.islamfortoday.com/shia.htm

Not quite, TR. But very close.

>>So what's your point Pericles? That the existence of British xenophobia somehow justifies the existence of Islamic xenophobia<<

The point that I have made to Boaz many times is that his continued rabble-rousing of anti-Islamic sentiment can only lead to a backlash of similar proportions from Christian/Nationalist/xenophobic groups.

The problem is one of terrorism. This brand of terrorism happens to have an Islamic flavour to it, in exactly the same way that IRA terrorism had a Catholic flavour to it. While there were similar "secretly-filmed" meetings of various Irish groups in the seventies and eighties promising public mayhem - in those days they were mainly of sinisterly-hooded gunmen - the problem would certainly have been exacerbated if the target of public opprobrium was Catholicism, rather than terrorism.

I know, I know. The Islamic agenda includes world domination, grinding the rest of us under the heel of Sharia yada yada whatever.

And if you believe that, you are well on the way to being part of the problem, not part of the solution.

'the problem would certainly have been exacerbated if the target of public opprobrium was Catholicism, rather than terrorism.'

Good point Pericles, and I understand where you are coming from. But you are slightly behind the times.

The link between monotheism and violence has now been established. This is now well understood in the public mind thanks to the likes of Darwkins, Hitchins, Harris, Dennett, Kurtz et al.

Monotheism and violence are both part of a positive feedback loop. Monotheism feeds off violence and in return escalates it. And it is a truism that the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland would have concluded decades ago if the Irish people were not Catholics and Protestants to begin with. Indeed, I think that it is significant that the peace process and declining church attendance are concurrent.

In the same way the problem of Islamic terrorism and Islamo-facism would be easier to solve if the foundations of monotheism were kicked over.

Thanks to the internet and the globalised media we now have the means to deconstruct Islam, Catholicism and monotheism generally. May the great scientists, philosophers, sceptics and humanists continue to open the minds of the people and expose the stupidity of Koranic and Biblical literalism.

I have no problem with the argument, it is simply the conclusion that worries me.

>>The link between monotheism and violence has now been established... Monotheism and violence are both part of a positive feedback loop. Monotheism feeds off violence and in return escalates it.<<

If this is the case, why do people spend so much time ensuring that the feedback loop is fully loaded, by taking every opportunity to attack the faith of their opponents? Surely, this will have the effect of prolonging and deepening the conflict?

>>the problem of Islamic terrorism and Islamo-facism would be easier to solve if the foundations of monotheism were kicked over<<

Well, yes.

But that isn't going to happen any time soon, is it?

Because the problem is not with the everyday churchgoer or mosque-goer, but with a militant minority who uses religion as a means to acquire power over their fellow human beings. And whatever its rights and wrongs, religion itself is not going to die out as a part of the psychological development of the human race for a while yet. As Christopher Hitchens said in a recent interview:

"...religion was our first attempt at philosophy. It was the first and the worst, but it’s still part of our history and tradition."

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200707u/christopher-hitchens

So while addressing the root cause would normally be seen as a good management technique - and would validate your idea that if you eliminate monotheism, you solve the problem - I think we should try a less incendiary approach for another few hundred years. Just to be on the safe side.

Again the anti-religious attach the worlds history of violence to religion while omitting the direct influence of politics. Human violence supersedes any organised religion as we know it today. Monotheism or otherwise. It isn't Islam that created the Islamist. It is the negative politicalisation of Islam by a few demagogues that exploit the weak of mind. It doesn't hurt that these killers infest areas of poor employment and spread sedition and vilify a prosperous 'west'. It's much easier to blame another more successful society for your not having such a successful society than blame your own society. Not just easier. A hell of a lot safer to boot. Shoot your mouth off in Iran and see what happens to you. God may be great by Ayatollah Khomeini can make your every breath the utmost painful experience. Death becomes welcome, hoped for, desired, a prayed for event.

The idea that 'Violence and Monotheism' are connected by default is

a) Intellectually shallow.
b) Plain wrong.
c) Dangerous.
d) Vilifies all believers in God.

The only connected between violence and man is his fallen state of being.

VIOLENCE comes from:

Matth 15:18

"But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.'
19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.
20 These are what make a man 'unclean' "

Don't argue with me.. argue with the One who said this, -Jesus.

It does not take "MonoTheism" for the above to exist..they are ALWAYS part of us to some degree.

TRUE Monotheism calls men BACK from corrupt behaviour.

Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Amos, Hosea, Micah..etc etc etc.

NONE of the above prophets EVER forced anyone to obey their message, how could they ? they were just voices- No army, no gang, just...a voice.

They simply said:

Do this and that...and this WILL happen.....and..it did. Israel was warned... and warned...and warned...AND warned..then God saw fit to bring a pagan nation against them, yet always kept a remnant.

I take your point, Boaz, but you mis-read the statement.

>>The link between monotheism and violence has now been established... Monotheism and violence are both part of a positive feedback loop. Monotheism feeds off violence and in return escalates it.<<

...is not the same thing as:

>>'Violence and Monotheism' are connected by default<<

Not by default, Boaz. There is no intrinsic reason why two people cannot worship entirely different gods, and be at peace with each other. You and Fellow Human would be an obvious case in point.

But they are most certainly connected by individuals who use their adherence to a particular creed as a weapon against people who follow a different one. Have you not noticed this?

If I had stated that "'Violence and Monotheism' are connected by default", I would indeed be seen as intellectually shallow, plain wrong, dangerous and to vilify all believers in God. But that is not what happened here, is it?

You have yourself used your religion in this fashion, praising its good bits and contrasting then with what you consider as the bad bits of someone else's beliefs.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Nevertheless, if guns didn't exist, there would be a significant reduction in people admitted to hospital with a bullet in their head.

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

Richard Dawkins, 'A Devils Chaplain' p187

In the 21 st century there is no need to cling to the old devisive labels of religion. Indeed Judaism, Christianity and Islam have become pointless exercises. Cosmology, Evolution by Natural Selection and Pro-Human Philosophies have surpassed them, and now replaced them.

Monotheism and its bloody warriors are now redundant. And they need to be told so - loudly.

Your absolutely right TR.
The Nazi party is responsible for some 45 million deaths and all for racial purity and living room. Didn't need religion as an excuse. The Japanese slaughtered the Chinese by the gross and never once spoke of religion. From 1937 - 1945 some 3.2 million Chinese soldiers died in combat and some 9 million Chinese civilians murdered. Nobody said word one about religion. Stalin murdered 20 odd million of his own people in a couple of years, hells bells, he murder 100,000 one day and never used religion as the excuse. It's just pure intellectual laziness to point at religion and say God made me do it. The Khmer Rouge managed to murder near 3 million people in a matter of four years and never needed to hold religion responsible. Mao didn't need religion to slaughter some 80 million of his own people to establish and maintain his communist regime. No folks it's not necessary to blame religion or excuse your actions by claiming God made you do it. BUT. It sure is convenient for the anti religionists to have an out. Another crowd that's never responsible for anything.

Keep up aqvarivs.

If had read the previous posts properly you would have realised that no one is claiming that religion is the absolute cause of any particular conflict.

Rather that religion intensifies and perpetuates conflict. If you think about it all of the atrocities which you mentioned above have more-or-less resolved themselves.

However, if you compare the wars of religion they seem to go on, and on, and on, and on. It's been 1400 hundred years since the Battle of Karbala yet Sunnis and Shia still hate and kill eachother in Iraq. What are the odds of the Palestinians and Jews ending their slaughter anytime in our life-time? Answer, zip. Muslims in the Middle East still have the absurd idea that the American incursion into Iraq has something to do with the Middle Age Crusades. And so the Muslim-Christian hatred goes on........

I suggest that you read posts properly aqvarivs before passing on tired old comments.

One last thing.

If you think that the Imperial Japanese Army, Mao, Stalin and the Khumer Rouge were bad - can you imagine how much worse they would have been if they had been motivated by some totalitaraian monotheistic ideology. It is quite likely that those related conflicts would still be going on in 2007 with a lot more death and destruction.

TR you imagine it as you do because it suits your narrow bigoted mindset post-Dawkins indoctrination. No one is still fighting the crusades but, old cultural animosities are forever being inflamed by politicians and demagogues who don't mind brutalising and murdering their own in hope for power. And the Crusades were not really about religion but, the principle players fighting for control of that particular nexus of the silk road were of different cultures and religions. Lots of wealth at stake not souls.
Your anti religious rants are poorly studied and the way you have intellectually cuddled up to Dawkins and the other anti-religious is more a supplicants kowtow than any persons of faith. For every instance of war you can blame on religion I can name ten that lay at the feet of the secular/political and show millions on millions of deaths. The Osama bin Laden's of this world are not religion and are doing nothing for religion. Their nasty little people hoping to wrestle some smidgen of power over others before their last heart beat, and they have no concern for the nature or number of hearts they stop to hold such power. They are truly pathetic creatures lost to any God or even to your Dawkins that you worship. The Nazi Party, the Imperial Japanese Army, Mao, Stalin and the Khmer Rouge were motivated by some totalitarian monotheistic ideology. Political, cultural or racial superiority based on one God-like being, themselves individually or in the name of nationhood. They were all doing the Dawkins long before Dawkins, using cosmology, evolution, natural selection and philosophies as justification.

I suggest you read something more than Dawkins and his fellow God-haters. Your assumption that the Irish were fighting over religion was proof that you need other reading materials. The Irish Rebellion was anti-English, anti- feudalism, and Ireland for the Irish. Religion was coincidental to everything else. Just like it has been in many another condition of war. Coincidences don't make the rule nor make the reasoning behind events. Try looking deeper than your expectations.

That Islam is just like any other religion and, the wave of Muslim terrorism afflicting the West is due to a few extremist is a misconception and myth propagated by well-intentioned but misled and misguided (often Western) people.

Muslims are not only targeting Western countries but are also killing Thai Buddhists in south Thailand, the Hindus in Kashmir and non-Muslims in parts of Russia, beheading Christians in Indonesia and killing Catholics and mutilating them in the Philippines.

“The western world would be wise to recognize the realities of Islam, a religion laid down in writing over a millennium ago with violence and oppression at its heart.” This is written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali an ex-Muslim.
http://www.islam-watch.org/AyanHirsi/My-View-of-Islam.htm

And also read how the Muslims are taking over Sweden, ‘Radical-left Islam-lovers and the Death of Sweden’
http://www.islam-watch.org/Fjordman/Left-Islam-lovers-and-Death-of-Sweden.htm

PERICLES

the point about linking 'Monotheism' to 'violence' can only be based on the VALUES connected with the Deity.

If the values are 'violent' and form a basic charter of belief, then you would expect the followers of such a deity to be violent.

On the other hand.. (this is reallllly simple.. remember that finger of yours ?) IF...the values of that Deity are 'peaceful'

-Blessed are the meek....
-Blessed are the peacemakers....
-Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness....
-My kingdom is not 'of' this world.
-As the Father sent me, so I send you....
-By this shall all men know you are my disciples..that you have love, one for another.

....then you would expect the followers also to be peaceful, or at least long suffering.

There isn't much more that needs to be said here because if you don't get '2+2=4' which I'm sure you can.. then it would be sad.

Please have a look at the links provided by Philip Tang..specially the one about Malmo, and see the stories of intimidation of Immigration related judges in Sweden... sure.. we can't verify them from here, but it does seem to reflect a pattern. "fight them".... do I need say more ?

aqvarivs, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

>>The Irish Rebellion was anti-English, anti- feudalism, and Ireland for the Irish. Religion was coincidental to everything else<<

Try checking these out before you make a complete fool of yourself. Ooops, too late.

"Irish Rebellion (1798), an uprising of Irish Roman Catholics seeking parliamentary reform and complete Catholic emancipation" Encyclopaedia Britannica http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9042781/Irish-Rebellion

If you want to go further back in history:

"The Irish Uprising of 1641 was a long-term result of the "Plantation" policy of Tudor and Stuart monarchs under which Ireland was colonised by Protestant settlers from England and Scotland... Ireland was predominantly Roman Catholic, so the plantations brought religious conflict as well as territorial disputes." http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/glossary/irish-uprising-1641.htm

"The Irish Rebellion of 1641 began as an attempted coup d'état by Irish Catholic gentry, but rapidly degenerated into bloody intercommunal violence between native Irish Catholics and English and Scottish Protestant settlers, starting a conflict known as the Irish Confederate Wars." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Rebellion_of_1641

Or more recently:

"The Ulster Volunteer Force, opposed to Home Rule, mainly Protestant and dedicated to preserving the status quo or take Ulster out of the Empire, flourished in the north. In the south the Irish Volunteers, mainly Catholic, supporting Home Rule and ultimately Irish independence, were set up". Excerpt from About.com: Ireland for Visitors http://goireland.about.com/od/historyculture/a/easter1916.htm

Or right up to date:

"With Catholic hopes raised on one side and unionist fears on the other, the situation quickly threatened to boil over. Violence finally erupted in 1966 following the twin 50th anniversaries of the Battle of the Somme and the Easter Rising - touchstones for Protestant and Catholic communities respectively. Rioting and disorder was followed in May and June by the murders of two Catholics and a Protestant by a 'loyalist' terror group called the Ulster Volunteer Force."

Excerpt from "Northern Ireland - The Troubles, 1963 to 1985"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/recent/troubles/the_troubles_article_01.shtml

But please, don't let facts get in the way of a truly lame story.

Yes Pericles, the Protestant British invaded and took administrative control from a predominately Catholic Irish people. Ipso facto it is all about religion. Had the British been Catholic I suppose, following your view, not a word or act would have been said or done against the marginalisation of Irish society and eradication of self-government. Hmmm. Silly me. Imagine a Catholic country being undermined by a Protestant country and not becoming a matter at street level of one religion against the other. How stupid of me not to have narrowed my intellectual focus to see nothing germane to the direct and abusive segregation of the people, theft of land, and imposed serfdom on the Irish peoples by a foreign English power and the talking all property and wealth transferable out of the hands of the Irish and away to England. Why, why couldn't I just see it was all about religion. I'm such a fool. Thank you Pericles. You've opened or rather closed my eyes to the real issues and abuses faced by the Irish during their occupation by the English.

Delighted to be of assistance, aqvarivs.

Being on the other side of the world makes it difficult sometimes to keep track of these things, so it is gratifying to be able to straighten you out on the detail.

Your arguments are convincing.

>>the Protestant British invaded and took administrative control from a predominately Catholic Irish people. Ipso facto it is all about religion<<

Makes sense to me.

>>Had the British been Catholic I suppose, following your view, not a word or act would have been said or done against the marginalisation of Irish society and eradication of self-government<<

Close. Had they been Catholic, marginalisation would by definition (since it was on religious grounds) not have occurred. If you follow the bouncing ball of Irish history from the twelfth to the twentyfirst century, you'll find that religion was behind every political move.

In fact it was Pope Adrian (a Catholic, as I recall) in the middle of the twelfth century who invested Henry II and his successors the right to rule Ireland and to bring about religious reformation. As a result, until 1922, Ireland - all of it - was officially part of the United Kingdom.

>>Why, why couldn't I just see it was all about religion. I'm such a fool. Thank you Pericles. You've opened or rather closed my eyes to the real issues and abuses faced by the Irish during their occupation by the English<<

Oh come now, don't be so hard on yourself. Just thank goodness you won't have to make that silly mistake again, eh?

Take a look at this site for more detail. It's actually quite good.

http://www.rootsweb.com/~irlkik/ihm/invasion.htm

You will note that the article also points out prior to the good Pope's intervention, the "political climate in Ireland at the time [twelfth century] was one of inter-tribal rivalries, as it had been for centuries".

So even the unification of the tribes had its roots in religion.

Do check out the rest of the history while you are about it - you will find that it confirms your view that religion was at the heart of all.

Interestingly, the chief architect of the Northern Ireland peace process is the politician Tony Blair who is not a religious cleric but a well-meaning politician. A political solution to a religious problem?

The conflict between Catholics and the Protestants started off as a religious one and was later politicized by people who made use of religion to gain power. Roman Catholicism was and, still is largely a political Christian institution. The Catholics are the spiritual descendants of the church started by Emperor Constantine who made Christianity a “state religion” of the Roman Empire
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_conflict_between_the_Catholics_and_Protestants_in_Ireland

The Communist Chinese government recognised the political nature of the Roman Catholic Church. It severed relations with Rome in the 1950’s because it knew that the Roman Catholic Church had a hidden “imperialist” agenda (“…the Patriotic Association voted to sever all political and economic ties with the Vatican and to obey the pope only in matters pertaining to faith and church law.”, Understanding the Roman Catholic Church in China, p.2, Jean-Paul Wiest)
http://www.usccb.net/church-updates/UnderstandingRCCinChina.pdf

Religion can be a danger to mankind when it has been misinterpreted by its faithful. This is especially true when it has as its focus the building of the god’s kingdom on earth. A belief that you can have 1000 years of peace in a chaotic world.

This was what happened in China during the Taiping Rebellion (1850 to 1865) that claimed about 50 million lives. Hong Xiuquan was an unorthodox Christian convert who declared himself the new Messiah and younger brother of Jesus Christ. Hong and his followers established the Heavenly Kingdom of Great Peace ( Tàipíng Tian Guó) and attained control of significant parts of southern China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion

During the Christian Reformation the extreme Anabaptists came to a disastrous end in Munster which they believed it to be the New Jerusalem. Melchoir Hoffman's preaching on a literal millennial reign of Jesus Christ on earth gripped the imagination of the Anabaptist movement. It propelled the radical wing towards polygamy and terrorism of those who did not join them.
http://ctlibrary.com/4324
http://etext.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH35/howard1.html

Pericles, I appreciate my own study of history and not reduce every thing down to a single cause and effect proposition. Your no different than those others who say things like, Iraq is all about oil, Iraq is a war of religion, or the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is all about Israeli hegemony, or South American politics is a response to American hegemony, or Islam is all about world domination, or Islam is a terrorist movement, or the Howard government is all about removing human rights from Australia. There is much more going on in life than religion that lead to situations instigating war. Single explanations hide the truth of political desires, cultural motivations, financial acquisition, barriers to trade, internal strife, massive unemployment, national expansionism, national security, liberating oppressive government, agreement violations. Etc., Etc.. Does this preclude religion? No it doesn't but, should religion then becomes casus belli, and the scapegoat of aggressive political machination? Religion has it's faults but, it's run by man and politics and religion have always walked hand in hand. To focus on religion and omit the politics is sloppy coverage of a complex situation and at best such myopic focus left to those who have picked a team. Thanks again Pericles but, I prefer to travel with my eyes wide open.

Philip Tang, I agree religion can be used for some most horrendous acts against mankind. My question is, is that the nature of religion or done in the name of religion according to mans nature. Is Islamist terrorism according to the nature of Islam per se or according to the nature of the individual or group of individuals using Islam in a very negative and damaging fashion against both innocent targets and Islam itself? A religious policy of self-destruction doesn't seem a viable continuance and affirmation of the miracle of life. If a woman puts a poisonous snake into her husbands bed do we blame the snake for biting and killing the husband? Or do we blame the wife and try to understand other motivating factors, including the husband?

Errrr... I know that it is your hobby-horse and all that, aqvarivs, but we were talking about Ireland.

This is not about Iraq and oil, Iraq and religion, the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, South American politics, Islam and world domination, Islam as a terrorist movement, or the Howard government.

I responded to your fundamentally incorrect assertion:

>>The Irish Rebellion was anti-English, anti- feudalism, and Ireland for the Irish. Religion was coincidental to everything else<<

Religion was coincidental, aqvarivs?

Coincidental?

You're kidding. Take a walk along Falls Road or Shankill Road sometime, talk to the people, and tell me that religion is "coincidental" to what has happened there. They still talk of King Billy and the battle of the Boyne, and of Cromwell.

Here's a surprising little snippet about Cromwell that might interest you, by the way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLvzGT4DAxQ

>>To focus on religion and omit the politics is sloppy coverage of a complex situation and at best such myopic focus left to those who have picked a team<<

No argument with that.

But it is equally sloppy to pretend that religion is somehow subservient to politics. And in the case of Ireland, it is an absolute fact that religion has been front and centre since St Patrick. Read the history of Ireland with an open mind, and see how Armagh leveraged the cult of Patrick to gain supremacy - and power - over the other churches and monasteries. Classic political spin, fifteen hundred years ago, firmly based in religion and its hold over the people. The process accelerated in the new millennium, and has certainly driven every single political decision in Ireland since Brian Boru.

>>I prefer to travel with my eyes wide open<<

Then start doing so, instead of being blind to the sad realities of what happens when religions collide.

Pericles, religion has always been subservient to the political agenda. The King or Queen of England is the political head of the Protestant Church. In essence every decision made by the British government can be classed as a religious decision. Remember Henry VIII when he wanted to kill off his wives and get new ones as he liked and the Pope said, No Henry that's not proper and we can not sanctify such behavior, and old Henry said, stuff it I'll rewrite the religious text so I can and I'll be head of the Church.
Riiiight. It's all religions fault. And I should vilify religion and then the religious, and next I should reject and vilify other thinkers like philosophy or psychology because both of these sciences are linked to violence. but we wont stop there because there are even more villainous text out there controlling the minds of the people, not counting the video games and fictional novels. Some people are always seeking to blame something or some one for their singular or collective actions. It wasn't English religion that invaded Ireland it was an English political decision, and English people, naturally they brought their English religion. Could they have left it at home. No. Because Henry VIII determined religion would be a mechanism of government. So please Pericles no more B.S. on Ireland. No ones denying religion isn't an element. I'm saying religion is not the driving force and usually it is an abuse of religion. Especially in Ireland because Protestant and Catholic are both Christian and the differences are not that extreme to be the sole cause of that protracted strife regardless of what is written on the walls along Fall Road, Belfast. It's more to do with being ruled by England. if England left tomorrow there would be no strife between Catholics and Protestants.

Are all religions the same, i.e. do they preach peace and non-violence? No, Islam is a religion that is inseparable from its political structure.(The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam by Dr. Muhammad Iqbal). In all countries where Muslims are a majority, non-Muslim religions face discrimination or are persecuted. It is an offence for a Muslim to leave Islam. This practice can be traced to Islam itself.

The Muslim calendar marks the important event (Hijrah) when Muhammad and his followers migrated to the city of Medina from Mecca in 622 CE. Hence 2007 CE is 1428 AH, 1428 years after this famous event.

Muslims celebrate this event because Mohammed became successful at Medina after forming an Islamic state and using the sword. Before that, Mohammed preached for 13 years in Mecca and won only a handful of converts. But after having established an Islamic state in Medina, he became Al-Nabiyyussaif, ‘the sword-wielding Prophet’ and ‘won’ many converts to Islam. At the same time the Jewish population in Medina was exterminated to a trickle.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/x/medina.htm
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/jews.htm

The point is succinctly put across by a Muslim scholar, “…full success in true Islamisation is solely dependent on the establishment of a full-fledged Islamic State known as The Kingdom of God on earth”

Muslims are kept in checked in many Islamic countries by force, threats, the religious police, public hanging, stoning and barbaric practices advocated by the Koran and the Hadiths.

Below are compelling evidences from two ex-Muslim Arabs medical doctors why they are not Muslims.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wPglHZQf-0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Negt6IzxPTo&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxfo11A7XuA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUJErMA4d9Q

ctd

ctd

There are more than 100 verses on hate, killing and fighting in the Koran. In Islam, the world is divided between the believers and the infidels, between Dar al Islam (“the house of Islam”) and Dar al Harb (“the house of war”). All non-Muslims are included in the "house of war", and thus, can be forced to accept Islam through Jihad, Holy War.

[9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

[5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

From where you sit, aqvarivs, Henry's decision to defy Rome was political. In my view, religion, and the power it wielded over people, was the essential ingredient. Obviously there is going to be no common ground if we can't even agree on that simple example.

>>It's all religions fault. And I should vilify religion and then the religious<<

Examining history for the influence of religion is the not the same as vilification, aqvarivs. Unless you want it to be, which is why both sides in a religious discussion - e.g. the Irish - continually invoke ancient disagreements.

>>...Belfast. It's more to do with being ruled by England. if England left tomorrow there would be no strife between Catholics and Protestants<<

In case it had escaped your notice, aqvarivs, Northern Ireland has consistently voted to remain part of the UK, and send MPs to Westminster. That's called democracy. And the army, therefore, is their army, not an occupying force.

They were actually sent there in this round of Troubles, to prevent Catholics and Protestants from killing each other. Now that there has been some form of truce called, it will be interesting to see whether the army's removal will be the start of another round of religion-based internecine activity, or whether the improved economic position of the Catholics is enough to keep them happy.

Reminds me a lot of the present status in Iraq, where the US army's primary role is to prevent Sunnis and Shiites from murdering each other.

But I guess as far as you are concerned, that has nothing to do with religious differences either?

P.S. Pericles, whats on the wall of the Falls Road outside Sinn Fein headquarters is a memorial to Bobby Sands. Not a religious icon.

This is an excerpt from Bobby Sands private diary written during his 66 day hunger strike ending with his death.

“I am standing on the threshold of another trembling world. May God have mercy on my soul. My heart is very sore because I know that I have broken my poor mother's heart, and my home is struck with unbearable anxiety. But I have considered all the arguments and tried every means to avoid what has become the unavoidable: it has been forced upon me and my comrades by four-and-a-half years of stark inhumanity. I am a political prisoner. I am a political prisoner because I am a casualty of a perennial war that is being fought between the oppressed Irish people and an alien, oppressive, unwanted regime that refuses to withdraw from our land. I believe and stand by the God-given right of the Irish nation to sovereign independence, and the right of any Irishman or woman to assert this right in armed revolution. That is why I am incarcerated, naked and tortured.
Foremost in my tortured mind is the thought that there can never be peace in Ireland until the foreign, oppressive British presence is removed, leaving all the Irish people as a unit to control their own affairs and determine their own destinies as a sovereign people, free in mind and body, separate and distinct physically, culturally and economically. I believe I am but another of those wretched Irishmen born of a risen generation with a deeply rooted and unquenchable desire for freedom. I am dying not just to attempt to end the barbarity of H-Block, or to gain the rightful recognition of a political prisoner, but primarily because what is lost in here is lost for the Republic and those wretched oppressed whom I am deeply proud to know as the 'risen people'. “

Now get along Falls Road and tell em it's all about religion.

The way Boaz believes in Himself is very refreshing, in these days of atheism when so many people believe in no God at all.

Thanks Israel Zangwill for the lift.

aqvarivs, mate, if you consider Bobby Sands as a fitting representative of what has been happening for the last forty-plus years in Ireland, then no wonder you are confused.

Bobby Sands had about as much relevance to the Troubles as Guy Sebastian has to the Ring Cycle.

Yes, Guy Sebastian sings, and yes, the Ring Cycle employs people who sing.

But to assume that you can understand Wagner's magnum opus by listening to Elevator Love is to miss the point completely.

And - just by the way - if you think for one moment that Bobby Sands wrote that sententious poppycock, then I have a nice shiny Harbour Bridge that I can sell you.

Very cheap.

Pericles, I wouldn't expect you to understand such sentiment no matter who wrote it. For you everything is about religion and anything that strays from your fixation becomes poppycock. About 550 IRA died fighting for the free Irish State including Michael Collins. Please tell us which of these lives is of no account in the securing of a free Ireland.
The battle for Northern Ireland is no different and is an extension of the 1919-1921 War of Independence, which is an extension of the 1916 uprising, which is an extension of the 1848 Rebellion, and anyone worth their salt can trace the many Irish battles to keep their sovereignty and independence back to the first English invasion. How fortuitous for me to have such brilliance as your to dictate which lives were of account and who's life was given was of no account.
But enough of Ireland for your value of their sovereignty is well established. Tell us about Iraq and who's life and who's death among those fighting for a free and democratic Iraq are of value. Which poor Iraqi soul who picks up a weapon under these circumstances is of value? Or are you one of these punks who hope the terrorist win so America will loose? Oh wait, don't tell me. It's all about religion. No no, wait. It's all about oil. No wait. It's all about American corporate hegemony and McDonald's franchises. Well, I'm sure you'll tell us in your usual contemptuous fashion.

Far be it from me to interrupt your sentimental meanderings through the Irish psyche with a request for facts, aqvarivs, but...

>>The battle for Northern Ireland is no different and is an extension of the 1919-1921 War of Independence, which is an extension of the 1916 uprising, which is an extension of the 1848 Rebellion, and anyone worth their salt can trace the many Irish battles to keep their sovereignty and independence back to the first English invasion<<

The piece that is missing is any information on “the first English invasion”.

Could you possibly enlighten us all – when exactly did this “first English invasion” take place?

After all, if “anyone worth their salt” can do it, I'm sure that you can.

Save the taunts for the school yard pericles, your ham fisted approach and dismissive attitude to history, and your willingness to massage events to suit your preconceptions leaves little room for honest commentary and any sharing of opinion. I grow bored and am being distracted from honoring the subject matter of this thread. Now, if you would like to post your opinion of what would make healthy young Islamic Britons take up with religious extremist, to savage their living environment and society, I'm more than willing to read it. Well, as long as you don't suggest it's all about religion.

Pericles might be correct that many conflicts start with religion. However, he may have a hidden agenda of anti-gods and promoting Darwinism.

What has the Buddhists in Thailand to do with the invasion of Palestine and Iraq? Nothing. Yet Muslims in south Thailand killed about 2000 Buddhists since 2004. Now it seems that some Buddhists have organized themselves into vigilantes to protect themselves and targeting Muslims. After tolerating Islamic violence for so long, they have to fight back or be exterminated.
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/195415

Tawfik Hamid has been proven correct many times in saying that that unless you deal as forcefully with the Islamic believers (Islamists) as they deal with non-Muslims they would not respect you and seek to destroy you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ho8bSaWL-w&mode=related&search=

So, you finally resorted to the history books, aqvarivs.

>>anyone worth their salt can trace the many Irish battles to keep their sovereignty and independence back to the first English invasion<<

There was none, was there?

But your point is not lost.

Politics and religion have been fundamentally intertwined since... well, probably since religion was invented. They are both, after all, merely a matter of rallying public support behind a set of ideas that is different from the set of ideas that some other guy is rallying support for.

My point is not that "religion causes pain". In fact, as I have said many times in many threads, I fully understand how religion per se - the structuring of thoughts around a particular view of spirituality and a deity figure - is a comfort to millions of people.

It is, however, also a means of wielding power, and exerting control. So the temptation to invoke a particular brand of religion - when the true purpose is simply the exercise of power - is often overwhelming, thanks to the emotional, as opposed to rational, pull that religion exerts.

There is nothing intrinsically violent in religion itself. It is all about living in peace with yourself, your fellow man and your "maker". But when it is used as a control mechanism, and to accrete power, it is not the overt goal of that power grab that is front and centre, but religion.

This is not a one-size-fits-all argument. But we have evolved from tribes into "society", and that process incorporates not only territory, homeland or whatever, but also beliefs and spiritual directions. The former Yugoslavia, for example, was a political conceit that eventually fragmented along religious, rather than geographical, faultlines.

Unfortunately, many people were hurt along the way. My objective is only to point out that it is actually less painful to be tolerant of others than to keep getting in their face and telling them they are evil.

Philip Tang, with the multinational expansion of terrorism and the autocratic political-religious ideology that follows, the world is indeed covered by these self-same brushfires. Generally speaking I think you will find this taking place in countries where law is not upheld universally and the balance of power and wealth controlled by a minority in a multi tribal environment. In western countries such episodic acts are usually muted and quickly stifled thanks to the laws, and start again in part thanks to the openness of our society by law. However I do think such openness is a thing of the past as more and more people confine their thinking to restricting “thinking” and not enforcing the laws related to “acts” against existing laws, rather focusing on the issue in an anti-religious pogrom type of fashion. And those willing to excuse 'culturally' and not enforce the law. Those of the western population, who are proponents of a socialist world order, and protest their governments involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan or Somalia, the Sudan and elsewhere to quash these authoritarian regimes, who are not answerable to the people, encourage such examples as what is happening in Thailand and elsewhere by hamstringing the democratic governments on the world stage. These potentates know by experience and history that by the time the U.N gets involved they will be well established and solidly in control politically and militarily. These autocrats are also very aware of the limited time frame the “West” has in prosecuting any regime change and freeing the people to a democratic form of government before the Left start voicing anti-government rhetoric and avidly working to bring down their own government. The left insuring that the only direction is appeasement. Thus the spread of autocratic governments and a decline in democracy. And the pendulum swings. And the world is in the process of creating the next Hitler. We have an ample supply of Chamberlains at the ready.

Aqvarivs, what you describe to an extent is true - however I think you're seeing only half of the situation and completely miss the other half of the pendulum.

The reason why western governments have been so open and have accommodated free speech, is largely due to those who protest attempts of authoritarianism. The Left, which you quickly accuse of having "hamstrung" western governments in their action, are also those who prevent those governments from becoming dictatorial in the manner of those countries which they criticise.

So whilst what you're saying isn't wrong - it's only half right.
How long do you think it would be before we had an authoritarian government, if nobody was willing to criticise the actions of our politicians? Do you honestly think they wouldn't act in their own interests? Because I don't have that much faith in them.

Besides, if recent US interventions have taught us anything, this 'Left' of which you speak has done a pretty poor job of having 'hamstrung' their actions. I'd argue the Left has been totally ineffective anyway and it's only now that the abject failure of such intervention is coming home to roost, that the Left is having any success.

TRTL, I believe all instances should be judged individually and not approached with political partisan doctrines. The left is responsible for the drift away from the democratisation of the world insofar as creating social and political environments that encourage rogue authoritarianism to develop in the vacuum produced by the failure of socialism and by fighting to hold back any 'victory' perceived by the right aiding development of democracy and rule of law among nations not historically socially acclimated to anything but dictatorship. Lets not forget, at the time of WW2 there were only 6 democratic countries in this world. USA(1776), Denmark(1849), Australia(1901), Sweden(1907), Britain(1918), Canada(1931). The rest were variations of monarchy's, dictatorships, fascism, or communism. From 1945-1987, 20 more countries adopted democratic rule. After the fall of communism, 31 more countries adopted democratic rule. Since the effort in Iraq, 12 more countries including Iraq and Afghanistan have adopted democratic rule. This has not been brought about by socialism but, by the advantages of democratic rule and free market economies that float world trade. We have come this far and have a hard struggle ahead to secure for future generations of this world the right to stand on their own two feet with out being born into subjugation through socialist policies that encourage governmental dependencies that we find encouraged from with in todays democratic countries and the leftist promulgation of cultural Marxism.
I'm all for helping people. That's my work-a-day job as a social welfare worker. I never took it as my station to perpetuate dependencies on government services. Before that I was a soldier. The work is about the same. The left talk about shared resources and world aid but, that is all couched dependency. The only true independents will come from democracy, equal law, and employment opportunities as all countries work out markets and natural environmental advantages. Religious extremist seek to emulate the power structure from which they come. More authoritarian oppression. Those countries already know oppression. Too bad the extremist were not pro democratic. That would be assisting advantage.

part2 to TRTL.
So you say, the left can't be much of a hinderance considering such success. No they haven't. That's not where they've succeeded. The trade off for conservative success in democratisation has come at the expense of home government as more socialism is taken up. Government becoming socially responsible for the citizens rather than the citizens responsible for governing. The initial six democracies are becoming more and more socially authoritarian and what were once considered "inalienable rights" held by the people are being abrogated as state rights, rights given by the state and taken by the state as necessary. The government is doing this for your own good! Westerners have always understood the Soviet Union to be 'left-wing'. That is a grave error. The Soviet system has always been 'right-wing' and remains so today. Think about this. These 'right-wing' demagogues that are popping up like moles aren't doing so in response to a world movement of the 'right'. It's an accumulated effect of watching social and cultural values become null and void under the spread of universal socialism. Our societies are becoming so government dependent that we are in effect working for the government. Each year the time between when you finish working to pay off your taxes and begin to pay your self is getting longer and longer. And the things we really need are getting more expensive all the time. How much does your health care cost you, medications, dental care, education, housing, proper nutrition? How much money do you actually have at the end of a pay schedule and you've paid your bills? The dichotomy of the situation is we are selling democracy overseas while giving it away at home as fair exchange. It's not a fair exchange but it was the quiet deal for the money makers to be left to do what they do. Give over the home government to the social managers. If you have enough money you can purchase democracy even in Russia. If you have no money-you can have socialism. The state will care for you.

Aqvarivs, your observation about the ‘left’ is correct in many ways; it appears to be a recent characteristic of the radical ‘left’-- this sissy, pussyfooting attitude of the 'left' towards many of the problems confronting free secular democracies. Years earlier, the real left were passionate in what they believed in. They fought for causes and a few of them formed ‘terrorist’ gangs such as the Japanese Red Army and the Baader Meinhof Group.

However, your view of the world is based on the idealism that countries such as Britain, the USA and Western countries represents the good and just, their foreign policies is based on altruism. We have lived long enough to know that countries act out of (a) self-interest (b) self-interest (c) self-interest.

There are many, many examples of how the colonisation that took place in the 18th to the early 20th century by some Western powers was the cause of millions of death in Asia, America and even in Europe, due to famine, war, epidemic, etc.

Cecil Woodham-Smith, an authority on the Irish Famine, wrote in The Great Hunger; Ireland 1845-1849 that, "...no issue has provoked so much anger or so embittered relations between the two countries (England and Ireland) as the indisputable fact that huge quantities of food were exported from Ireland to England throughout the period when the people of Ireland were dying of starvation." Ireland remained a net exporter of food throughout most of the five-year famine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Irish_Famine

The Gulf War was fought by G. Bush (senior) to safeguard the oil supply of the USA rather than to liberate Kuwait.

The war in Iraq was basically fought to reward the businesses that supported G Bush’s election campaign and to grow rich at the expense of the suffering of the Iraqi people. No weapons of mass destruction was found!

c'td

c'td

“Halliburton has already raked in more than $20 billion from the Bush-Cheney Administration for work in Iraq, and they were awarded some of the first Katrina contracts," Lautenberg said in a statement. "It is unseemly for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his Administration funnels billions of dollars to it. The Vice President should sever his financial ties to Halliburton once and for all.”
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_stock_options_rose_3281_last_1011.html
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6008

Small wonder that extreme right-wingers like George Bush of the US are the ‘best of friends’ of Islamic fascists, Saudi Arabia, which also has the largest known oil reserves in the world. Whereas a democrat socialist and president hopeful Barack Obama knows and understand the current Islamists threat; if elected he would take unilateral military strikes against Muslim countries preaching and harbouring terrorists. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/03/politics/main3130600.shtml

It is common knowledge that mainstream Islam today is Wahabism; practiced, preached and promoted by Saudi Arabia. All over the world, Saudis fund mosque, madrassahs and schools to promote radical Islam. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) founded by Hamas sympathisers are funded by the Saudis.

“ …CAIR complain about Muslims' rights being abused in the West, while Muslims and non-Muslims have no real rights in Saudi Arabia. There is something unbalanced in this equation.”
http://www.islam-watch.org/AdrianMorgan/Sickness-Wahhabi-Islam-is.htm

Philip Tang, I'm not that shallow to believe in universal altruism and I would lay that emotive at the feet of your sissy leftist. I also am not equally as shallow intellectually to think that every action is based solely on screwing the other fellow. I prefer the middle road, of doing something to get some thing in return and mutual benefit. Equal benefit would be subjective. Going back into history to prove a point works for both sides of any argument today. History is full of counter arguments. History tells us where we have been. It doesn't prove out any realities regarding this day. A lot of people harp on about Haliburton but, forget to mention the nearly 200 other companies and corporations in Iraq or Afghanistan working at trying to provide a service that will help the Iraqi/Afghani in the long run get up on their own two feet. Establish legal systems, governing institutions, policing education, policy and active training. Rebuilding destroyed or neglected infrastructure, waste management, hydro/electric, sewage treatment, securing trade, promoting business, etc.,etc.. That they are earning a profit (hopefully)is the capitalist reality. The reason Haliburton was singled out for special attention by the Democrats was as a way to work a crowbar under the Republicans foundation and pry open what was perceived as a political lock on the American political scene and foreign policy. Finding questionable but not prosecutable errors in any corporation is not difficult. It was a poor tactic and rather rushed to be successful revenge for the Starr report and Clinton's impeachment.
Now, if the Democrats had taken the high road and gone to Bush early days and asked if they could in some way help by working with the Iraqi/Afghani to assist in establishing democratic governance they would of had a true victory, rather than the no party-no power situation they must build from today.
And Philip, Saudi Arabia was a good friend to the Clinton Administration as well.
I'm not in favour of any religious council on anything. Unless it's on religion. And only religion.

The following is Christopher Hitchens opinion on Islam and Islamists.

It is a YouTube classic with Christpher at his caustic best. Definitely worth the price of admission;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY8fjFKAC5k