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.