History emphatically has shown, that religious bigots and fanatics are MONOLITHIC. And contemporary Islam as we witness it, is replete with these two elemental curses that inexorably guide the actions of its true believers who live and die by the SUICIDAL VISION of the thirty-two virgins. To assert therefore as Irfan does, 'that we don't have to be enemies after all' because our enemies are not 'MONOLITHIC', indicates clearly that the writer of this piece has misread history and hence takes a "terminal" flight from present reality.

http://kotzabasis1australiaagainst.blogspot.com

Dear Themistocles,

I think you've missed the point the author was trying to make.
'History may emphatically have shown, that religious bigots and fanatics are monolithic'... (although it often depends on whose version of history you're reading). The point the author was making however was you shouldn't generalise about an entire group of people.
Because within that group there are so many differences. You shouldn't tar everyone with the same brush.

Just as not all Jews are alike, nor all Catholics, nor any one else of
any other religion. Be it Judaism, Catholicism, Protestanism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and so on. There are sects within the religions,
and different versions are followed.

To get to know people on an individual basis - we may indeed find that we have more in common as human beings than we first realized.
Stereotyping people is not highly recommended especially if we want cohesion in our society, justice, and a 'Fair go' for all.

I think Irfan and Jason both misjudge the US invasion of Iraq, and of Afghanistan for that matter. Many also fail to understand the impact on moderate Muslims of the economic, political and military support the US gives to Israel and the consequent impoverishment and statelessness this creates for the Palestinians.

I think the basic premise - that the US is driven by good intentions - is completely wrong. The US is a declining economic power. It uses military force as a warning to China, Euorpe and uppity States like Iran that it will use that military force to try to bolster or at least maintain its economic dominance.

I know George W is sincere when he calls for democracy in the Middle East. You only have to look at his friends to realise that.

To name a few, there’s the dictatorship that runs Saudi Arabia. There’s the dictatorship that runs Jordan. There’s the dictatorship that runs Egypt. There’s the dictatorship that runs Kuwait. All are US allies.

And then there are the actions of the US in supporting democracy in the Middle East.

In 1953 the CIA overthrew the democratically elected Mossadeq Government in Iran. Its crime had been to nationalise the oil industry for the benefit of the Iranian people. The coup re-instated the Shah and opened up Iranian oil fields to US companies.

In 1992 the Islamic Salvation Front was going to sweep into power in the second round of elections in Algeria. The Army annulled the elections and has ruled with US and European support ever since. 30,000 have died in the civil war that resulted from this denial of democracy.

Then in 2006 Hamas won an overwhelming majority in the Palestinian elections. The West cut off aid. It has supported the minority Fatah Government and isolated the Gaza strip where Hamas is still in control. Israel has imposed collective punishment on the people in Gaza with US support.

The lesson is clear. When it comes to a clash between US interests and democracy, democracy takes a back seat.

My dear Foxy,

It's prudent before you criticize someone not to misread him. I did not say nor even implied that all Muslims are monolithic. I specifically referred to the bigots and fanatics, i.e., the monolithic, who are our enemies. Are you denying, whatever version of history you have read, that history clearly shows that GENERALLY bigots and fanatics are monolithic?

http://kotzabasis1australiaagainst.blogspot.com

Dear foxy,
You are a very mature and responsible person, may be you are working for Human Rights Commission. You have right, I traveled in many countries, more than fifty, I visited many Muslim countries, I have Muslim friends. Most of them are very good persons, honest and very generous. Few months before I was in Sydney and I asked a young person for the train station to go to airport. He answered me that he will pass from the station and asked me to enter in his car. He was Muslim and instead to take me to train station he took me direct for the airport. Most Muslim political leaders are brutal and they stand on American guns and support, Muslim people have right to be disappointed with westerners , they are the victims. Muslim religious leaders are conservative, they use the Sharia law and jihaad. I disagree with both of them which creates huge problems on Muslims. mainly on Muslim women. The truth is that Muslim people have problems not only in their countries from their leaders but overseas from Europeans, Americans or Australians. Not long time ego I had to threaten workers in my workplace that I will phone to Human Rights Commission to remove from a board a photo with Muslim girls and bad comments.
Our behavior to Muslim people in Australia is bad and we push them to the corner.
We must separate the Muslim people from Muslim leaders and of cause from the Muslim extremists, a very small minority.
Muslims in Australia need our support and understanding.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Dear Themistocles,

Read my earlier post again. It's not a personal criticism of you. It's simply pointing out that you missed the point the author was trying to make. If you re-read the author's original piece on this forum I'm sure you'll see the point I'm making and that it's quite valid.

Dear Antonios,

Thank you for your kind words. It's always interesting to hear what you have to say - because you speak with logic and fairness. Something we can all use.

The war of civilisations is going on now, right now.

Diversity the road for the jihad muslim diaspora to enter the West thats what this discussion should be about.

Foxy, your good intentions are well intended but naive, dont let Islam fool you just as there are many good people of all religions and beliefs, Islam controls every tenet of life and will be obeyed. Even the good among the Umar are controlled internally by the early brainwashing and familial ties.

I hope you are in good spirits and strong.
Scotty

Irfan writes:

"... Burke realises the enormous variety of Islams (as opposed to a single Islam) that exists."

Here is the WEAKNESS in this analysis.

If Burke had gone to Nazi Germany in 1935 he could have written with equal veracity:

"...Burke realises the enormous variety of National Socialisms (as opposed to a single National Socialism) that exists."

It would have been absolutely true. It is hard for us today to understand that many Germans were attracted to "National Socialism" because they thought of it as a benign form of socialism with a strong environmental agenda.

If Burke had spent "quality time" with Germans in 1935 he would have discovered that most of them did not want war, wanted a decent life for themselves and their families and were mainly courteous, hospitable and DECENT people.

Decent people who when the chips were down mainly did what they regarded as their "patriotic duty."

And that is where we have the problem. Contemporary mainstream Islam, the Islam that is propagated by most Muslim leaders in 2008, is an aggressive, imperialistic, totalitarian ideology.

That does not mean that every Muslim is a totalitarian. Most are in denial about the nature of Islam as most Germans were about the true nature of National Socialism or most Communists about the nature of the Soviet Union.

But there is a difference between Islam in 2008 and National Socialism in the 1930s. German refugees from the Nazis never engaged in terrorist acts against the countries that gave them refuge.

Countries like Britain had their home grown Fascists like Moseley but there was no stream of Nazi trained ideologues going to Britain trying to recruit people to the cause.

Most Muslims I have encountered are much better than their religion. I have never met Irfan but I am sure he is a good and honest person.

But, in the end, I would not trust a Muslim any more than I would have trusted a Nazi in the 1930s or a Communist for that matter.

I am judging Muslims not by race but by professed beliefs.

Dear ASymeonakis,

If most Muslims are inherently good - and they are - this is not because of their beliefs but in spite of them. There are plenty of exhortations in the Koran to despise, plunder and kill non-believers, just as there are in the Bible and the Torah. Sensible people ignore some of these. Intelligent people ignore most of them. Enlightened people ignore all of them and manage their own lives with reason and compassion rather than paying even lip service to the made-up myths of a savage tribal culture.

Every sincere Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu or Jew is a threat to civilisation because by practicing religion they are showing their readiness to believe whatever irrational nonsense is fed to them by their priests. You might be the sweetest person in the world, but if you can't say 'get real, you fool' to a homicidal Archbishop, Rabbi, priest or Imam then I don't want you in my neighbourhood, thanks. Drop the religion and then I know that I can trust you.

Dear Scotty,

Thanks for your good wishes. I admit that I tend to look at things
through "rose-coloured glasses." And possibly I am rather naive.

One of the things that I like about being part of this Forum though is, you get such a wide range of opinions. I find it constructive to get a different point of view on a wide range of subjects.

You taught me to stop being so "self-righteous." It's a bad habit that
I'm still trying to overcome. (smile). (As well as being judgemental).
But - as they say - life is a learning process - and you die
ignorant.

Good article Irfan.

Although I believe Muslim to Muslim diversity and dialogue is still into who is right and who is wrong. We are still not doing enough in terms of what contribution can Muslim/ Islamic culture can contribute to modern civilisation. Once upon a time in the the 9th century most new inventions in the fields of medicine, chemistry and science had a Muslim behind it. Not sure what happened to us since then.

Peace,

Fellow_Human wrote:

"…what contribution can Muslim/ Islamic culture can contribute to modern civilisation. …in the the 9th century most new inventions in the fields of medicine, chemistry and science had a Muslim behind it. ….what happened to us since then."

Islam happened.

It matters not what is your background. In order to make contributions to science you need to be part of the SCIENTIFIC CULTURE. The great Jewish scientists since 1900, from Einstein to Andrew Fire draw their inspiration from their fellow scientists, not from their fellow Jews. This is quite clear from Einstein's notes. He was more interested in Galielo, Newton and Maxwell than, say, the Jewish sages Maimonides and Rashi.

Outside the Arab world, scientists of Muslim background understand this. It's not Islam. It's science. There is no such thing as "Islamic Science."

However the Arab world is beginning to wake up. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is funding the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST).

See:

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=105629&d=14&m=1&y=2008&pix=kingdom.jpg&category=Kingdom

Note that the Saudi thought police (aka as the religion police) will be barred from entering the KAUST. King Abdullah recognises that, if KAUST is to succeed, it must put SCIENCE before Islamic dogma.

Here we come to the nub of the issue. Can you be a great scientist who believes the creator of the universe has the character of a petty 7th century Arabian Warlord and who comes up with statements like this:

9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

You really believe the creator of the universe is going to give a seventh century tribal warlord instructions on when, and under what circumstance, to slaughter an ill-defined group of people called "idolaters?"

And you truly believe someone who takes this claptrap seriously can make a great contribution to science?

Keep up the good work, Passy.

Just read an article from a book by Jonathan Steele, called Ignorance, not Ideals in Iraq.

Naturally gives Tony Blair a hell of a hammering. Reckon without Blair and our Johnny Howard backing Bush, could say commonsense could have found an easier way to get rid of Saddam.

In any case looks like Saddam's Baath Party Sunnis have now been forgiven by Bush, the Washington Post giving insight when a few months ago it described a turnabout action outside Bagdhad with a US gunship buzzing in not to attack the enemy Sunnis but Shia militia part of the present Iraqi defence force.

Yet since that graphic bit of news from the Washington Poat, nothing has been heard or seen from the main media, the intimation about a a public dumbed down by a muzzled main media seems all too true.

One wonders whether our OLO management has also been fed with the bullsh-t that the big problems in Iraq are now over.

Apart from America's main sworn enemy, Iran, of course.

Well put stevenlmeyer.
Muhammed lovers have to keep repeating absurd things over and over to convince themselves and others that Muhammed's message is valid. They are the primary victims of Islam, yet continue to support spread it's insanity. It is mental illness and should be treated that way.

King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) sounds progressive. I suspect the direction of this university is more to to with applied science, advancing technology and industry than pure science. This is not necessarily a criticism as it is vital for future world trade.

However, Islam does not recognise evolution. Indeed, this is not unique, as evidenced by Christian creationists and those who embrace intelligent design. Can science really flourish in such an environment. Will KAUST be limited by "acceptable" boundaries, or will this institution be permitted the widest free and open enquiry and research as seen in the west.

Danielle

You are correct. It is intended that KAUST will focus on applied sciences and will steer clear of contentious issues such as evolution. Whether this will prove possible in practice is unclear.

Abdullah will turn 84 this year. Will KAUST continue to enjoy freedom from the Saudi thought police under King Abdullah's successor?

Bassam

According to Encyclopaedia Britannica the five religions with the most adherents are:

Christianity – (2.17 bn adherents of which 1.14 bn Catholic)

Islam – (1.34 bn)

Hinduism (870 mn)

Chinese "Universist" (390 mn)

Buddhism ( 380 mn)

See:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9437361/Worldwide-Adherents-of-All-Religions-Mid-2006

Collectively the top 5 account for almost 80% of humanity.

Among the top 5 Islam stands out. Islam, and Islam alone among the top 5 has positive commands to carry out mass slaughter and mayhem under certain rather ill-defined circumstances.

It is important to understand this point. It is not a case of comparing Islam to Western secular values or to Christianity. When it comes to commands to commit violent acts Islam is the stand out from ALL other major religions.

Of course the behaviour of adherents often differs from the teachings of their religion. New Testament Christianity is theoretically a pacific religion. Yet Christians have committed more than their fair share of violence, mayhem and murder in the name of their religion.

It could also be argued that the Hindu caste system has violence built into it by implication.

In practice I would say that Muslims are usually better than their religion and Christians usually worse than theirs.

However when we look at the teachings, Islam stands out.

Can anyone imagine Jesus or the Buddha discussing with their followers when and under what circumstances they should engage in mass slaughter?

Sura 5:33 - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned..."

It is not clear what "wage war against Allah" means in this context

Steven,

Your post contradicts itself: once you say progress got nothing to do with religion and then you talk about Jewish scientists.

The point I am making is that religion is neutral. Sometimes it is interpreted in a progressive manner by its followers (like the example I mentioned Islamic science in Bagdad in the 10th century).

In the last 25 years, there was 11 Nobel prize winners by practising muslims who saw no contradiction between their beliefs and innovation in their respective scientific disciplines. Thousands more excel every day with no hope in a nobel prize but they do it anyway.

You will find the same story in your faith or the Christian faith (dark ages interpretation vs modern post enlightment interpretations). There are no new versions of the Quran, Bible or Torah. Just how people read and interpret the same teachings in different times seems to change.

Fellow_Human,

"Just how people read and interpret the same teachings in different times seems to change."

I agree entirely. To be able to interpret the same teachings as eras progress is a necessity for “enlightenment”. I had thought that Islam's teaching was rigid, just for example, the afterlife - a plethora of virgins - a tenet of faith, and could not be challenged. Am I correct in assuming that this can be interpreted as symbolic or allegorical ... or poetic? If so, what is the underlying meaning?

Knowledge of different belief systems provide an insight into modes of thinking ... even their arts.

If Islam is open to challenge and re-interpretation by its adherents, this would go a long way to assuaging fears of non-Muslims - and, indeed, lead to more open dialogue between Islam and other groups. Non-Muslims have the impression that Quranic teaching is not only engraved in stone, but has to be taken literally.

7th century belief systems of Christianity were also dark, however, over time, these have been reinterpreted and modified. Some Christian groups admittedly remain somewhat addled, but for the most part are benign.

Wafa Sultan believes Islam is shackled to the Dark Ages, “"The clash we are witnessing around the world is ... a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another that belongs to the 21st century," she said. "It is a clash between freedom and oppression."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1187385,00.html

Obviously, Fellow_Human, you are an enlightened, intelligent and cultured person. What is your perception?

Pax

Fellow-Human

I have to agree with Danielle here.

The point of my post was that the success of Jewish scientists had NOTHING to do with Judaism the religion. Most of them were secular. They sought ideas and inspiration from other SCIENTISTS and not from Jewish sages.

There is no Islamic or Jewish science. There is just science.

But Islam has made it difficult for Muslims to embrace the spirit of free enquiry that is an essential part of the science culture.

Islam extinguished a scientific culture that had existed for millennia in what are now Muslim lands.

Examples

It was the great Babylonian astronomers who first plotted the trajectories of the planets. They found that 235 lunar months = 19 tropical years. Their calendar forms the basis of the modern Jewish calendar with its 7 leap months every 19 tropic years.

Other great scientists from what are now Muslim lands included Eratosthenes (Libya and Alexandria) and Hipparchus (Turkey) and Claudius Ptolemaeus (Egypt)

The great Library of Alexandria, Egypt was the greatest collection of knowledge in antiquity. Ironically it was Christians who finally destroyed it as well as murdering the last librarian, Hypatia.

Fast forward to about AD 1500 and the observatory of Taqi al Din is destroyed on orders of the Mufti of Istanbul.

As Bernard Lewis put it.

"This observatory had many predecessors in the lands of Islam; it had no successors until the age of modernisation."

Even the Catholic Church at its worst was never as feral as that.

What you call great Muslim scientists are actually the tail end of a great PRE-ISLAMIC scientific tradition. Islam killed it off.

Today most of Dar-ul-Islam is a scientific dead zone. (But not necessarily a TECHNOLOGICAl dead zone. This is an IMPORTANT distinction)

Perhaps one day mainstream Muslim schools of thought will emerge that are compatible with a scientific culture and a spirit of free enquiry. That time is not now.

I know of only two Muslim Nobel laureates in science. Abdus Salaam (1979, physics with Steven Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow) and Ahmed Zewail (1999, Chemistry)

Who were the others

The key issue on any religious discussion is freedom of religion and, for secularists, freedom from religion.

Islamic countries would have far greater Christian populations if it were not for fear of retribution on conversion.

Even when some overcome that fear barrier, they are not permitted by law to convert.

This freedom to disavow or embrace faith is the litmus test of diversity. Of all the faiths, Islam scores lowest on this aspect.

Historically, other religions have (and still do in eg: India) prevent religious liberty. This can be by sheer weight of numbers or force (or combination of both).

All of us, religious or not, should encourage religious liberty. An involuntary assent of faith, based on fear, serves none of us well.

The lack of recipricocity in the Muslim world - where other faiths are either persecuted or frustrated by second class status - provides a validation of communities, like Camden in Sydney, refusing Islamic institutions.

It is hard to maintain tolerance when the other is perceived or in practice, is intolerant. In such circumstances, unity through diversity is a dangerous principle to work from.

Hi Steven,

Agree with you and Danielle. The below quote from Naguib Mahfouz lecture (Nobel prize winner 1988) is what I had in mind:

“As for Islamic civilization I will not talk about its call for the establishment of a union between all Mankind under the guardianship of the Creator, based on freedom, equality and forgiveness. Nor will I talk about the greatness of its prophet. For among your thinkers there are those who regard him the greatest man in history. I will not talk of its conquests which have planted thousands of minarets calling for worship, devoutness and good throughout great expanses of land from the environs of India and China to the boundaries of France. Nor will I talk of the fraternity between religions and races that has been achieved in its embrace in a spirit of tolerance unknown to Mankind neither before nor since.

I will, instead, introduce that civilization in a moving dramatic situation summarizing one of its most conspicuous traits: In one victorious battle against Byzantium it has given back its prisoners of war in return for a number of books of the ancient Greek heritage in philosophy, medicine and mathematics. This is a testimony of value for the human spirit in its demand for knowledge, even though the demander was a believer in God and the demanded a fruit of a pagan civilization"

The question I had is how did the Islamic civil of the 8th century was that enlightened and 6 centuries later we evoluted in the opposite direction. Its puzzling.

As for the Muslim Nobel prize winners, here is a list of all 11.

1. Chemistry: Ahmed Zweil 1999,
2. Physics: Abdus Salam1979
3. Medicine: Ferid Murad1998
4. Literature: Naguib Mahfouz1988, Orhan Pamuk2006
5. Peace: Mohammed EL Baradei2006, Anwar Sadat1978, Mohammed Unus2006, Shirin Abbadi 2003, and Yasser Arafat1994.

Danielle,

There are lots of urban myth invented by mere mortal scholars. If you watch Dr Gary Miller lectures on youtube the word Jihad is not even in the Quran.

Peace,

Fellow_Human,

Naguib Mahfouz was indeed worthy of his Nobel Prize - his writings are truly inspirational. Undoubtedly enlightened, an existentialist and influenced by Western writers. No one can deny that Mahfouz was exceptional, however, no one can deny he was not representative of his people - and, indeed, at what cost. Like Rushdie, whom he admired, he had a death warrant against him, even attacked, then placed under protection for the rest of his life. However, it gives his country credit that they gave him, I believe, when safely dead, a state funeral.

Yasser Arafat ... an unfortunate person to list among credible Nobel Prize winners, don't you think?

Fellow_Human, I always enjoy discussing things with you; and I always learn something more each time. We don't always agree on issues, but I think we basically come from the same place. I wonder how someone as enlightened as yourself would fare if you openly
professed, like others have - and suffered for it - some of your beliefs in Islamic countries.

I am still waiting for the explanation of the "post-mortem virgins". However, I doubt very much if the promise of these figure anyway in your conduct on earth, nor in your sense of the afterlife.

Pax

Fellow_Human,

You wrote:

"....in the the 9th century most new inventions in the fields of MEDICINE, CHEMISTRY and SCIENCE had a Muslim behind it." (Emphasis added)

You specifically emphasised Muslim contributions to SCIENCE.

I responded by saying there was no such thing as Islamic SCIENCE or Jewish SCIENCE.

You asked what had happened and I responded that "Islam happened."

I stand by what I wrote. Islam extinguished the pre-existing culture of science that had once existed in what are now Islamic lands.

When you mentioned 11 Muslim Nobel Laureates I inferred you meant SCIENCE laureates.

So far as I can see there are only the two I mentioned.

Ferid Murad, despite his name, is a Christian. He was born in Indiana. His father was a Muslim of Albanian extraction and his mother a Baptist. Ferid Murad himself was baptised as an Episcopalian while attending university.

In effect Ferid Murad is an apostate!

Here is a link to his Nobel autobiography.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1998/murad-autobio.html

It's a very AMERICAN story.

You have said nothing that makes me change my opinion.

--Islam extinguished a tradition of scientific enquiry that had existed in what are now Muslim lands. ISLAM IS WHAT "HAPPENED."

--There is no such thing as Muslim or Jewish or Christian science. There is only SCIENCE science.

--It is hard for anyone to adopt the scientific culture. But it is harder for people who have been indoctrinated with Islam than it is for people who have received a more secular education.

Additional comments:

--A distinct anti-science culture seems to be developing in many Western countries. This leads me to wonder whether China and India will overtake "the West" in science.

--The Arab world along with much of the rest of Dar-ul-Islam (but not all of Dar-ul-Islam) is being left behind AGAIN.

--Mainly Hindu India may soon be home to a greater number of Muslim scientists than the whole Arab world.

--There may be more top-ranking Muslim scientists in Israel than in Egypt with 10 times Israel's population

Steven,

Apologies you are right re 10 prize winners not 11.

My point to Irfan was:
history shows that 9th and 10th century scientists (in Bagdad of the time) were inspired by their faith to innovate and invent. Ie their writing showed devotion to their faith and scientific innovation in parallel. Those days Muslims worked side by side with Christian and Jewish scientists to innovate. They saw no conflict between science and spirituality and they had no conflict with each other.

There are thousands PHDs in every country and many dedicate their life to their communities with little or no ambition in Nobel. Are they not scientists?

Danielle,

I enjoy our discussions too.

Naguib Mahfouz is liked and respected by Arabs and Muslims. His writings are bold and challenging and he had his day against the traditional religious institution in Muslims countries but he prevailed and most muslims supported him (as with Tefik AL Hakeem before him). I don’t put Rushdie in the same basket.

Re Arafat: I wasn’t discussing the merit of the prize but just listing them as I know them. I see your point but It’s against my belief to speak ill of the dead.

Re: ‘post-mortem-virgions’. Islam's concept of charity is that you give away your money, your time or your temptations as charity and whatever money or tempations you sacrifice you will get in the eternal life (after-death). Hence the teaching you mentioned was an incetive to men and and women who maintain their chastity and don’t commit adultery. The urban myth promoted by the likes of BinLaden and his fellowship have no foundation, although its a good front page catcher.

We might argue that most people do good because inherently humans can tell the difference between right and wrong regardless of religion, but I see no harm of messages like the above (whether Quranic or Biblical) to motivate the masses.

Don’t want to lecture you on my beliefs but there are a couple of good books “Islam for dummies” and “Quran for idiots”

Peace,

All,
There has been mention of ‘charity’

Out of left field, and as an honest question.
It would enlightening to know what PROPORTION of Islamic based/derived charity goes to non-Islamic recipients.

Not whether or not it exists/happens– I am sure it does –but what proportion?

Things I have seen/experienced incline me to believe that Islamic charity is to a large extent directed to Islamic recipients?

Horus,

“what proportion of Islamic charities goes to non-Islamic recepients?

Difficult question because there is no formula. The context is charity is for every human being and animal. Reality is different.
For organised charities you will need to go to each site to find out. For individual charities I can only speak for myself and those who I know of and its mainly on its merits. For example, in Australia, I split charity money evenly between Islamic charities and the salvos. Islamic charities being things like mosques maintenance and repairs. When I am overseas (ie in an Islamic country) I don’t give to building new mosques as I believe there are enough. I give to sponsoring orphans, income-less widows and poor children deprived from education. I also don’t give cash but buy books or pay school fees, etc. Many of my friends and contacts do the same although I am not sure how reflective are we, as a sample, of the overall Muslim communities.
I also give to Christian charities overseas on its merit but I know few Muslims who do that.

Hope I was of help,

Fellow-Human
Thank you for your forthright response.
Though, I'm not sure that the rest of your
congregation would be as humanitarianly inclined as you.

I am more and more inclined to believe that if we could just convince you to change a few of your beliefs , you'd be a real A1 guy.

Good to see you still around.
Cheers!

Good call Horus.
The belief that Muhammed's mentally insane message is divine would be a good start.

Thanks Horus,

“not sure that the rest of your congregation would be as humanitarianly inclined as you”

Belief system is ever changing, 10 years ago when I first suggested to some of my friends that Orphan school fees should replace donations to build new mosques, my idea was labelled as ‘alien and left field’. Today guess what? Almost all people I know and there children are doing it. Beliefs can be influenced and changed if you light candles which I think I am doing.

I am scratching my head as to which ‘few’ of my beliefs are so bad but I was told I am reasonable, logical and factual (at least at work). Anyway, will do my best in our conversations and if I can’t be an A1 guy I will settle for an A2.

Cheers,

Fellow_Human,

I always enjoy talking with you - even if we don't always agree. You are ever gentle, enlightened and intelligent; always very well informed. Your humanity is evident. You are a wonderful spokesman for your faith.

Christianity had accretions of tribal or previous practices attached. You pointed out that female circumsion had been practiced by Christians. Honour killings, whilst illegal, still occur in some Christian areas. Little boys were mutilated to sing castrati for the glory of the church.

Christianity’s history is marked with barbarity - converting the infidel at the end of a sword, then immediately despatching them in case they recant.

Christianity also had accretions of pagan beliefs attached. In Gothic cathedrals in England, bosses are very evident along the ceilings; as are gargoyles - many of which are downright obscene. These elements are of pagan gods, which the Church permitted so as to make their Christian faithful feel at home. Chartres cathedral is built on the site of a Roman temple, the goddess, an ebony figure, was re-assigned as the Black Madonna.

For the most part, Christianity has weeded these out. Christianity has had the Reformation, and Counter Reformation - both bloody. Then the Enlightenment.

Do you think it possible that Islamic anthropologists and archaeologists could identify accreditions of old tribal mores and practices, in no way attached to Islamic beliefs, and these be expunged from Islamic practices. I'm sure this would go a great way towards more tolerance of Islam by the West. Many in the West feel some practices, such as the burqa, confronting.

I know a lovely Arab Muslim family, gentle, warm and generous. The wife is an anglo-Australian convert and wears this garment. I see beyond it, but many others don't. I hesitate to discuss Islam, indeed certain other topics, except at the most superficial level.
I don't want to inadvertently give offence.

Happily, I feel that I can discuss such matters with you.

Pax

Danielle,

Thanks for your kind comments…

“Do you think it possible that Islamic anthropologists and archaeologists could identify accreditions of old tribal mores and practices, in no way attached to Islamic beliefs, and these be expunged from Islamic practices”

There are lots of books, authors on pre-Islamic tribal habits in pagan Arabia and how some of it got ‘stuck’ to Islamic cultural practices. The Burqa is an example as it was used by rich women and women of status in pre Islamic Arabia and isn’t directly related to Islam. Most Muslims would probably be aware of it but when it comes to western understanding its challenging for a number of reasons.

Key reasons being that West European and North American cultures are mainly polarised between either inherently Christian belief or non-religious belief altogether. Both poles are inherently non supportive of Islamic faith or interested in its modernisation because Christian theology at its core sees Islam as an ‘alternative and not a parallel’ (search Pope Benedict comments). The anti-religious pole is even stronger as they suffered for centuries to separate the church and state and replace it with democracy. Even democracy scarred secularism by bringing a religious nut to power (Hitler) so last thing they would worry about is ‘another religion’ going through modernisation and honestly I can understand this view.

Bottom line Islam or its modernisation has no advocates or supporters in Western societies apart from its own followers.

Peace,

Fellow_Human writes:

"…Christian theology at its core sees Islam as an ‘alternative and not a parallel’…"

But the reverse is also true.

The following are core tenets of Islam:

--Muhammad received the koran verbatim from an angel.

--The koran alone is the uncorrupted word of the creator of the universe.

--The bible was corrupted by man. It is not a true reflection of the word of the creator of the universe.

If I've got it wrong Fellow_Human, if these are not core tenets, let me know.

The consequence of those three core tenets is that denigration of Christianity and Judaism is actually a CENTRAL aspect of Islam.

I am also at a lost to understand how kafirs can "support" the modernisation, whatever that may mean, of Islam. Perhaps you can enlighten me. How can a kafir help?

You wrote:

"The anti-religious pole…. suffered for centuries to separate the church and state and replace it with democracy."

NEWS FLASH

Most Christians in Western countries want secular democracy and a separation of religion and state.

It's not just the "anti-religious."

And here's what we don't want:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7239953.stm

SNIP

Early morning in Tehran, and two mobile cranes are being manoeuvred into place. They are to act as temporary gallows for a public execution.

Already the crowd are out in force, some of them in a remarkably cheery mood. A few are getting ready to photograph the scene on their mobile phones. There are even one or two young children around.

SNIP

One man was stoned to death in Iran last year, after being convicted of adultery.

Human rights groups say two sisters, Zohreh and Azar Kabiri, now face the same penalty, after they were also convicted of adultery. Both are mothers, each with one child.

Steven,

Not sure if you are mis-informed or just selective. You said

“The following are core tenets of Islam:
--Muhammad received the koran verbatim from an angel.
--The koran alone is the uncorrupted word of the creator of the universe.
--The bible was corrupted by man. It is not a true reflection of the word of the creator of the universe.
If I've got it wrong Fellow_Human, if these are not core tenets, let me know”

Not quiet, the above is true in the context of:

- Muslims also have to believe in all prophets of the Bible and the Torah (the first 5 books of the Bible).
- Muslims should treat followers of Christians, Jews, etc.. as people of the Book. They should respect and honour them.
- Even ‘unbelievers’ have the right of safety and to be treated with respect.

For reference you can refer to any known books of Islam or simply Pickthall meaning translation of all part 2 of the Quran.

You also said

“ The consequence of those three core tenets is that denigration of Christianity and Judaism is actually a CENTRAL aspect of Islam”

That’s your own conclusion.

Perhaps you can explain why Muslims kept and preserved Christian and Islamic places of worship in most Muslims countries (with the exception of the wahabbis in Saudi). If you compare apples to apples, Jewish people seeked refuge in Muslims countries when they were most persecuted by alledged followers of Christianity pre- & post the Spanish inquisition and ending with Hitler last century.
Don’t forget that Israel was formed to seek refuge and hide away from discrimination in Christian Europe. I am sure you are familiar with Theodore Hertzel writings.

Your SNIPS are political and have nothing to do with religion.
If we are conversing in the context of human rights, Tehran's action is pathetic. More pathetic is Israel's collective punishment and seige of Gazza to catch few terrorists. I hope you see both as bad.

Peace,

Fellow_Human

Muslims often run that line about believing in "all prophets of the Bible and the Torah."

But that's the MUSLIM VERSION of the prophets. For example Muslims believe Jesus was not crucified and Ishmael was Abraham's son. Then we have the bizarre Sura 18 which may be called "The Education of Moses."

I could go on but here is the reality. Muslims do not "believe" in "all prophets of the Bible and the Torah." Muslims believe in DIFFERENT PROPHETS with the SAME NAMES.

For the sake of argument ONLY I'll assume:

--There exists a creator of the universe.

--The creator takes an interest in the events on the planet we call Earth

--This creator thinks it will benefit members of our species if we worship him.

Let us look at this "final uncorrupted word of the creator of the universe." We'll leave aside the fact that the creator plagiarised from the works of Galen, a second century anatomist. We'll forget that the creator of the universe gets some basic facts of human reproduction wrong (See Sura 86, 5-7).

Instead let's focus on 5:33

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,"

(Shakir)

Remember, this is the creator of the universe speaking!

The creator of the universe tells those who worship "him" that, under certain circumstances, they are COMMANDED to CRUCIFY or MUTILATE people!

Words like "farfetched," "incredible" and "fantastic" don't begin to do this proposition justice.

The idea that the bible is the word of the creator is equally fantastic. But Jesus does not advise his followers when to crucify and mutilate – or when to slaughter the "idolaters" as in 9:5. Neither for that matter does the Buddha.

We all want the same thing. What a wonderful thought.

I have my doubts, a brief wander through human history seems to count strongly against it. I’m pretty sure the Nazis didn’t want the same thing as the Jews.

Nevertheless I’ll accept Irfan’s premise and test it on him in good faith. I hope he is able to live up to his strong convictions.

OK considering Muslims want the same as ordinary Australians perhaps you can be the first, as a leader of your community to publicly give assent to the following values held in common by our polity.

-That religion is a matter of personal conscience and can have no aspirations for unity of Church and State.

-That people of all religions have the right to apostasy.

-Representatives of all religions have the right to proselytize members of other faiths.

-And given that Western democracy arose from a fight for freedom of religion and personal conscience. You believe that democracy cannot exist in the absence of freedom of religion.

-That democracy is defined broadly in terms of human rights and you do not support the State imposed application of the criminal law component of sharia in Muslim countries.

-You condemn violence and Palestinians, Chechens, and Kashmiris who give up their lives to kill enemy civilians.

-You condemn terrorist groups such as Abu Sayyaf, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Groupe Islamique Armée, Hamas, Harakat ul-Mujahidin, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, and al-Qaida

-You believe Muslim women have equal rights with men for example in inheritance shares and court testimony.

-You condemn jihad as a form of warfare and that Muslims have much to learn from the West.

-Non-muslims should enjoy completely equal civil rights with Muslims in Muslim countries.

-Shi’ites and Sufis are legitimate Muslims and should not be condemned as unbelievers.

-You admit there should be free scholarly enquiry into the origins of Islam and the textual reliability of the Quran.

-You believe institutions supporting terrorism deserve to be shut down and do not see this as a symptom of bias.

Look forward to your public responses Irfan

Steven,

The way Muslims interpret the Quran is through the science of ‘meaning-interpretation and reason-for-revelation. Please get an ‘Islam for dummies’ or ‘Quran for idiots’ from any bookstore if you are serious about understanding Islam or how Muslims practise their faith. Until then you will have little respect or creidibility when you discuss matters of faith with a Muslim.

The context of 5:33 and all part 9 is within the context of ‘fight those who fight you (ie uniformed enemy combatants) and shall not transgress’ You can go to youtube and search for Deedat debates with a number of missionaries regarding the same topic. You can also watch Dr Gary Miller understanding the Islamic faith on the same website.

Other comments:

1. “Muslims version of prohets"

I read the prophet stories in the 3 religions of Abraham. Honestly I prefer the Islamic portrait of God’s prophets being good, honest and ethical people. Please compare stories of David, Solomon and Moses and tell me which story would you like your children to believe.

2. “Jesus was not crucified”

Not sure why this is an issue for you according to your faith the man never really existed.
Anyway, Jesus is honoured as a prophet of God in the Islamic faith. Crucifix and its symbolism of divinity is not a matter of faith for us Muslims. All we know he is another Holy prophet and we follow his teachings but we don’t believe he is divine or God. In that belief we are no different than Unitarian Christians.

3. “Muslim’s believe Ishmael was Abraham’s son”

Well I am out of words. Its actually the bible that states that Ishmael was Abraham’s first born and Abraham took Ishmael’s mother as a wife (according to Sarah’s wish). It goes as far as claiming that it was God who gave Ishmael his name (ie that God 'heard' his mother prayers). The Quran merely confirms the biblical sory.
Not sure what religion you follow but start by reading the bible.

Peace,

Fellow_Human

Oops.

I meant in the bible Isaac, not Ishmael, is Abraham's HEIR. In a sense Ishmael and Isaac swap roles in the koran.

Your last post gives the game away. You ask "which STORY would you LIKE your children to believe."

You concede that the "stories" are DIFFERENT. A different life story means a different person. So the Muslim claim to "believe in all prophets" is bogus. You believe in DIFFERENT prophets with different life stories that have the same names as the biblical prophets.

It is interesting that you ask which STORY I would LIKE my children to believe.

Are you saying that you do not believe in the literal truth of the koranic stories, that we are free to choose which stories to believe?

I am aware of the "science," so-called, of koranic interpretation. It is not a science at all. It is the art of explaining away – not explaining, but explaining away – the awkward bits.

However you miss my point. Anyone who in the 21st Century thinks the creator of the universe would say anything like 5:33 or 9:5 is either:

--Pitiably ignorant of what we now understand about the nature of the universe;

OR

--Immune to reason.

The creator of the universe depicted in the koran has the character of a seventh century Arabian warlord. Considering who was largely responsible for compiling the koran that is not surprising.

The top 5 religions are Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Chinese Universism and Buddhism. Of these Islam stands out as easily the one with the most violent teachings. Hinduism is probably second because its caste system contains inbuilt violence. But it lags far behind Islam.

The dichotomy is not between Islam and Christianity or "The West." It is between Islam and all the other major religions in the world.

Can you imagine Jesus or the Buddha ever telling their followers to crucify, mutilate or slaughter under ANY circumstances

Steven,

Not sure you keep jumping between the Bible (which you keep quoting from then for some reason you appear to have never read it).

Two comments:

a. The definition of a prophet in the Islamic faith is a good, honest human being chosen to preach or teach a message. And Hence ‘reason’ dictates that we believe the in the Islamic version and not the other versions of their biography. In the non-Islamic version, Lot got drunk and committed adultery with his daughters. It also claims that God killed the first born ‘randomly’ in every house hold in Egypt until the Jewish people got their freedom.

b. The teachings of Christianity and Bhuddism is no different to Mystic Islam known as Sufism which is practice by more than 20% of the total muslims around the world. To know more about mystic Islam here is a good site:
http://www.fethullahgulen.org/

Fellow_Human,

The only reason I keep quoting from the bible is because we’re arguing about whether Islam truly believes in all the prophets in the bible. What’s in the bible is intrinsic to the discussion.

The koran describes prophets that have the same names as those used in the bible but tells different stories about them. The fact that you believe these stories are more logical is IRRELEVANT.

The stories are DIFFERENT.

Therefore the frequently repeated Muslim claim to believe in the prophets of the bible is bogus. You believe in DIFFERENT prophets with the same names.

Most Muslims are not Sufi. Most faithful Sunnis and Shia despise Sufism.

I am curious. Do you take the koran literally?

A “yes” or “no” will suffice. But add any qualifications you feel are necessary.

I am really curious to know how a seemingly intelligent person such as yourself could believe that the creator of the universe would say something like 5:33 or 9:5.

I have tried to have this discussion with Muslims before and I realise I am probably wasting my time. The usual responses are:

--No I don’t take the koran literally (A distinct minority among Muslims generally but actually a majority among my Muslim colleagues)

--Flim flam about the “science” of interpreting the koran

--Abuse (The majority response among Muslims generally but a minority among my colleagues.)

Steven,

“Therefore the frequently repeated Muslim claim to believe in the prophets of the bible is bogus. You believe in DIFFERENT prophets with the same names”.

FH: Being different is not a crime, I believe the Muslim version (cos I am a Muslim) and you don’t. Really simple. The Islamic faith is based on belief in previous books and prophets. Islam does not claim to be a new religion or a parallel universe like you are portraying it. The Quran confirms previous prophets’ stories with few corrections to where the biography got distorted.

“Most Muslims are not Sufi. Most faithful Sunnis and Shia despise Sufism”

FH: Another confirmation you don't want to understand Islam: Muslims don’t despise each other or even other creatures, animals or plants. It’s a key teaching. Sufism is a popular growing version although extreme sufism might be viewed as too passive.

“I am curious. Do you take the Quran literally?”
FH: I don’t and matters of faith, any faith can’t be taken literally. Hitler took the Bible literally.

“I am really curious to know how a seemingly intelligent person such as you could believe that the creator of the universe would say something like 5:33 or 9:5”

FH:
Not sure what you mean by 5:33 it’s the story of Adam’s children and it’s the same as the Biblical one.
You seem to be the one taking Quran literally. Muslims (or most of them) understand all part 9 as a revelation during the time of war. That whole section got little to do with faith but mainly defining the rules of war, punishment for treason during the times of war, alms evasion (the poor due), etc..
Any legal system today has similar clauses and penalties for similar crimes including tax-evasion (not paying the alms).

Peace,

Fellow_human wrote:

"...Muslims don’t despise each other or even other creatures, animals or plants. It’s a key teaching..."

LOL FH :-)

That ranks right up there with Ahmadinejad's "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country" statement.

FH wrote:

"Being different is not a crime,..."

I did not say being different was a CRIME. I merely said it was DIFFERENT and therefore the Muslim claim to believe in the prophets of the bible was BOGUS. You believe in DIFFERENT prophets with the same names.

Even being bogus is not a crime unless you are trying to defraud someone.

Anyway you answered my most important question. You don’t take the koran literally.

That leads to the next question.

Do you believe the creator of the universe transmitted the koran verbatim to Muhammad via an angel?

Of course, Steven's supposedly secular crusade against Islam would be somewhat more credible, if he also badgered the far more prolific OLO Christian fundies about their delusions, with the same vigour that he pursues our few Muslim correspondents.

CJ Morgan,

I like the 'supposedly secular'.

Steven,

“therefore the Muslim claim to believe in the prophets of the bible was BOGUS. You believe in DIFFERENT prophets with the same names”

This statement can only mean that you believe the biblical version so much to the limit that any idea of a ‘different biography’ must be coming from a parallel universe or must mean different people with the same names.

It’s Ok if that’s your conviction.
What I don’t understand is why bother debating with Muslims or being curious about understanding Islam or Muslims?
Belief is a choice and an inner feeling. No one ever succeeded to prove one religion (or no religion) over the other.

You are hot on initiating debates and get too emotional with Upper Case use, yet you don't investigate what you are saying or accept the possibility that others can have equal reason to believe what they believe. Not sure what you are hoping to achieve?

Maybe I am missing something. Happy for any fellow posters to step in and share some thoughts.

Peace,

LOL CJ Morgan,

I could equally say your secular credentials would be more credible if you didn't keep excusing Muslims for purveying the sort of garbage you would flay BOAZ_David for.

I pursue Muslims precisely because so many people on the so-called Left keep giving them a free pass. I think it's necessary to expose the contemporary Muslim brand of superstition as being perhaps even more destructive than contemporary Christianity.

F_H,

I am secular. I have no reason to believe the prophet tales in either the bible or the koran. Most likely both are counter-factual.

If I give slightly more credence to the biblical tales it's because the prophets described there appear to be more rounded human beings with real foibles and weaknesses. By contrast the koran depicts the prophets as cardboard saints.

The only reason I entered into this discussion about prophets was in response to your repeating the BOGUS claim that Muslims believe in all the prophets.

You don't.

I note you have not answered my question.

Do you believe the creator of the universe transmitted the koran verbatim to Muhammad via an angel?

It's a simple enough question.

stevenlmeyer: "...if you didn't keep excusing Muslims for purveying the sort of garbage you would flay BOAZ_David for."

When have I done that? I can't recall "excusing Muslims" for anything.

Could you give an example?

"I think it's necessary to expose the contemporary Muslim brand of superstition as being perhaps even more destructive than contemporary Christianity."

Google "list of muslim terrorist attacks" and "thwarted terrorist attacks" and then do a comparison with Christian terrorist attacks.

This is what boggles my mind, the complete lack of proportion and fuzzy thinking when it comes to religion, IQ's seem to plummet.

What pray is the destructive threat you see arising from Christianity? I notice when paranoid nonsense about Christianity arises the Master's name is very rarely invoked, or anything much of what he did or the example he set.

Nor do we hear by what mechanism His teaching and example suddenly promotes "destruction" when individuals read His words and will to follow him.

To help with everyone's efforts in comparative religion try the simple "what would the world look like if everyone were a disciple of Christ? or Mohammed?"

Steven,

“The prophets described there appear to be more rounded human beings with real foibles and weaknesses. By contrast the Quran depicts the prophets as cardboard saints.”.

Once again you prove you neither research nor investigate what you are writing. The Quran actually depicts weaknesses in many prophets including Prophet Mohammed (all part 90: he frowned). The same goes for a number of other prophets. However, there are clear distinction between a weakness and unethical practice as previously highlighted. Prophets were not supposed to be liars, deceitful or crooks. Your ‘credible reference’ portrays a prophet deceiving his blind father to bless him instead of his brother, another getting drunk and committing incest, a third tricking his army general into battle so he can take his wife.

Not sure why you keep repeating a question that you know the answer to.
The answer is yes I believe Prophet Mohammed was inspired through a median. Just to be clear, the Islamic definition of angel is a median of light and/or energy and not a blond male athlete with white wings.

Peace,

F_H wrote:

"I believe Prophet Mohammed was inspired through a median."

That does not quite answer the question.

"Inspired" is a bit vague.

By "inspired" do you mean Muhammad got the koran from the creator of the universe VERBATIM through a "median?"

Or do you mean Muhammad was inspired by a "median" but the words are his own?

When I read a passage in the koran do you believe I am reading the literal words of the creator of the universe?*

Or am I reading the "inspired" words of Muhammad?

And, no, I do not know the answer to the question I've posed.

*Leaving aside the fact that the creator of the universe apparently speaks Arabic and I would be reading an English or German translation

MARTIN IBN WARRIQ

See my post of Monday, 4 February 2008 10:38:03 PM above

Among the world's top 5 religions Islam stands out as having the most violent teachings of the lot. It is impossible to imagine Jesus or the Buddha commanding their disciples to engage in slaughter, crucifixion or mutilation.

Of course that has not stopped many Christians doing just that

Muhammed lovers keep answering the question. As have the Sufi apologists for centuries, realising that Islam is offensive to non-muslims. Sufis (and other apologists) have done they best to turn “kill” into “kiss’, and “beat” into “tap lightly” . And, thinking that they have answered it, ignore other concerns.

I think you Muhammed lovers are in for a bit of a shock.
Most non-muslims are starting to find out that Muhammed’s message is insane, disgusting and disturbing. I personally am sick to death of the scxreaming and suffering perpetuated in the name of the ridiculous fruitcake God you people bow to everyday.

FH demonstrates that he is confused. How can a caravan raiding, jew murdering bigot be divine? What divinity is there in having his companions murder a woman with kids at her side? FH, Irfan, you are sick to believe in Muhammed’s message. What do we have to do to help you?!! Would you like to book into the Jesus, Nepolean or Muhammed wing? What do you want done? Why do you think rational people are going to accept the message of an insane bigot?

Steven,

I answered your question.
You seem to be all over the place on faith, what do you believe in?

F_H you have NOT answered the question. For reasons which I fully understand you're not able to.

What do I believe?

I'm answering that question in the context of our discussion.

ON the question of whether there exists an entity that could be called the creator of the universe I'm agnostic. I think it unlikely; but if you show me some evidence I'll change my mind.

In the unlikely event that a creator does exist, does he / she / it / they / whatever:

--Take an interest in our species on our planet? Probably not

--Take an interest in individuals within out species? Even less likely

--Wish us to "worship" him / her etc for our own good? Seems bizarre.

--Resemble in any shape manner or form the "God" described in the bible or the grotesque "allah" described in the koran? You've got to be kidding.

You notice the form of my responses F_H. I cannot prove that the koran is not the word of the creator of the universe. For all I know the creator of the universe has a good reason for commanding one group of species homo sapiens to murder, crucify and mutilate other members of the same species under certain ill-defined circumstances.

But I think it even less likely than my winning the lottery 10 weeks in a row – were I to buy a ticket. I think my judgement that the koran is a compendium of 7th century bull excrement is probably closer to the truth.

But unlike religios I understand that certainty is in these matters is impossible. In the end I have to go with the weight of the evidence.

In a wider sense my beliefs can best be summed up by Steven Weinberg's oft quoted maxim:

"The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things which lifts human life a little above the level of farce and gives it some of the grace of tragedy."

And on another level I believe that life is beautiful.

As you can see F_H, I have no difficulty articulating my beliefs.

Thanks Steven,

You seem open minded on all fronts but put the narrow vision on Muslims. Anyone who read the whole Quran will not come to your conclusion.

good talking to you.

I see that, despite Steven's voluble 'secular' critique of Islam, he hasn't been able to support his claim that I "excuse Muslims" for religiously derived excesses.

The reason I mention it is that I don't think I've ever done any such thing.

If anything, I think that Islam is even more reprehensible and ridiculous than its cousins in Abrahamic mythology, Judaism and Christianity. What I object to is the implicit but obsessive vilification of those millions of people who follow the Islamic variant of that mass delusion.

From where I stand, they're all pretty anachronistic and ultimately sources of conflict in the world. But we need to live and let live, so to speak :)

CJ Morgan,(& Steven)

I spent sometime reading the thread above and I don't believe Steven is sharing his true beliefs. He believes so much in the first 5 books of the bible as the absolute truth (re-read his comments on Abraham legitimate HEIR). Its the only time where he uses UPPER CASE intensly.

The atheism and bhudism portraits are smoke screens in my view or maybe he is just being trendy.
I can't see someone reading the Quran and getting stuck on the 19 sentences of 6,000 and overlooking the horrors in other references depicting God the father as vendictive, racist and land developer and allocator ato times.

Steven, you don't need to be honest here but at some point in time you need to be honest with yourself.

Have a good weekend,

LOL F_H

Realistically there's nothing I can do to convince you I am being honest. If you don't believe me you don't.

The purpose of my capitalisation was to emphasise points of difference between the bible and the koran. I did this to nail the lie that Islam honours the "prophets" of the bible.

I doubt there ever was an Abraham. That part of the bible is pure myth.

So is the story of a global flood. It may have been lifted from the Gilgamesh epic. Jesuits who went to China in the 18th Century found that Chinese records pre-dating the supposed flood recorded no deluge.

The idea of a global flood is preposterous. Had plant life been submerged for that period it would have died. The ark would have come to rest on a barren land.

The Torah was not written by a single person. It probably underwent redaction.

I do not believe in Adam and Eve. Nor do I believe that Joshua stopped the sun.

There isn't any evidence that the Israelites crossed the desert from Egypt and conquered Canaan. The pillar of fire, cloud of smoke, mannah, ten plagues are obviously legend.
The ten commandments look suspiciously like an adaptation from the code of Hammurabi.

I like some of the prophets. Amos seems to me to be the greatest cry for social justice I've ever read.

The Hebrew calendar was an adaptation of the old Babylonian calendar with its cycle of seven leap months every 19 tropical years. The names of the Hebrew months may be traced back to the old Babylonian months.

I don't believe in virgin birth, God incarnate or resurrection.

I find the bible interesting in a way that the koran is not. The bible is obviously the work of many authors with differing perspectives over many millennia of time. The koran is merely the blathering of a crazed seventh century Arabian warlord though it almost certain underwent redaction after Muhammad's death.

But I do not regard the bible as "holy" or even "inspired by God."

Steven,

You are smart I give you that. But to think you are smarter than others isn’t.
So let’s call a spade a spade.

If you truly believe your secular, atheist version, then the Torah, Bible or the Quran should be equally fairy tales to you. Everyone there is equally seeing flying pink elephants.

Instead, you believe the Muslim version of the prophets is bogus (an atheist would believe the opposite is also correct because time line is irrelevant in mass illusions).
You see in monochrome (Genuine-Bogus, True-False). Pretending to believe in nothing so you can always drive a ‘one way attack’ in a debate is a naïve trick and may imply that deep inside you know your true beliefs are made of glass.

Just to be clear, I am not criticising your belief system. I just think you should focus on finding inner peace with your faith. You will know that when you stop seeing the black&white or true&false and accept that everyone are equally right about their beliefs.

Is it too much to ask you to respect my small and narrow mind?
LOL

All the best,

FH

Following on from:
“If anything, I think that Islam is even more reprehensible and ridiculous than its cousins in Abrahamic mythology, Judaism and Christianity. What I object to is the implicit but obsessive vilification of those millions of people who follow the Islamic variant of that mass delusion.” –CJ Morgan

1) It seems a peculiar characteristic of Abrahamic faiths to be intolerant & monopolistic.
The incidents you find in other creeds: i) The Akhenaton/Aten heresy in Egypt & its suppression by the Amon priesthood ii) The Hindu backlash against the British & more recently Islam. iii) The treatment of Socrates. Tend to isolated .You don’t find the same systemic, sustained authoritarianism with its religious driven conquests, forced conversions, militant mobs that show up in the Abrahamic faiths?
[ and frankly, the world may have been better off without any of them ever appearing]
PS "respect" in Abrahamic terms eventually gets down to, doing things my way.

2) I am tending to believe that the- best bits- of the Abrahamic faiths are impurities that have seeped into them, been plagiarised & re-badged from Greek & other secular thinking, and

3)I am also beginning think that Judaism owes a lot more to the Amon-Ra and Aten cult s that we have been led to believe.
i) Akhenaton could have been a old testament prophet without too much adjustment &
ii) I have recently found references where even the main-stream/polytheistic Amon cult describes Amon as ‘the unseen’, ‘the unseeable’ ‘the universal god’. Conceptions which previously we have been lead to believe were Judaisms- unique- take on the divine.

Any comments?

F_H

Sigh

You stated:

"Muslims also have to believe in all prophets of the Bible and the Torah…"

I pointed out that Muslims do not believe in "all prophets of the Bible..." What you actually believe in are different prophets with the same names.

But let me rephrase.

IF I were a believing Christian or Jew I would point out that Muslims do not believe in the biblical "prophets." Muslims believe in "prophets" whose life histories have been concocted by a crazed 7th century warlord called Muhammad. For reasons best known to himself Muhammad give his "prophets" the same names as the biblical ones.

I wish the koran was merely a "fairy tale." It is as poisonous compendium of bull excrement as Mein Kampf and just as dangerous.

For reasons that I've explained before, I find the bible more interesting. Partly that is because you can trace how the thinking of a group of tribal primitives changes as they come into contact with more advanced cultures. The "God" of Isaiah is different to the tribal deity of the Torah. By the time of Jesus, Jews had had intimate contact with Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek and Roman culture and had borrowed freely from all of them.

Jesus' ethical teachings are a synthesis of various Jewish schools of thought that had already incorporated much from other cultures.

"Allah" is actually the "YWVH" of the Torah on steroids.

Horus,

I don't think intolerance is unique to the "Abrahamic" faiths. It is a weakness of all superstitions. Any belief system that believes it is in possession of the received word of the creator of the universe is likely to be intolerant.

How intolerant depends on the nature of the teachings and the cultures of the believers.

Right now there are growing signs that Hinduism is becoming conflated with Indian nationalism and is becoming ever more intolerant.

CJ Morgan,

I agree with the sentiments in your last post. I'll deal with the question of your giving Muslims a free pass when I have another 350 words.