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.