“However, Fitna does not take into consideration any of the political and social motivations behind the attacks.”

Nothing can justify the cowardly actions of murderous Muslims.

“It may well be that Arab Muslims have more reasons to "hate us" than most Westerners are willing to admit.”

Most Westerners know that Muslims hates us alright. Islam is all about hate. Comparing Islamic hatred of Westerners and all non-Muslims with the actions of one lunatic anti-abortionist highlights how pathetically thin this article, defending violent Muslims, is.

Like all apologists for Islam, this author can only ‘defend’ it by trying to condemn Western values – unsuccessfully

Mr Right, I am quite alarmed that you think my article ‘justifies’ murder. Trying to explore the motivations behind human behaviour is not justification. I am simply stating that we in the West need to look beyond the obvious. The fact is that, religion is not the only motivating factor behind Muslim terrorist activity. To continue to ignore the political motives is to ensure that terrorism will continue to flourish.

You ridiculed my example involving Paul Hill but remained strangely silent on the issue of Iraq and Israel. These are not small issues to Arab Muslims, Mr Right.

Whilst nothing can justify the methods terrorists use, to say they are only acting in the name of religion is to ignore the effects of Western interference in the Middle East.

This is one of the many articles by Muslims (and/or sympathizers) to defend the violence that is propagated by the Islamic religion. Almost all Muslims are forced into their religion by birth. They have no choice of leaving Islam but to be mentally imprisoned within such a system.

Dutch MP Geert Wilders' Fitna can be accused of producing a hate-film on Islam if only the West and Islam are at war (conflict). But this is definitely not the case as there are many conflict areas in non-Western countries involving Muslims and non-Muslims

Muslims are killing many Buddhists in south Thailand
Muslims are terrorizing the Catholics in the Philippines (Mindanao)
Muslims are fighting the Chinese in Xinjiang
Muslims are killing Christians in Indonesia
Muslims have killed or driven away almost all the non-Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh
Muslims (Arabs) are killing black (African) Muslims and Christians in Sudan
Muslims are fighting Russians in Chechnya
Muslims bombed the Indian parliament, killed thousands of Hindus in Kashmir
Muslims demolished hundreds of Hindu temple in Malaysia

If Islam’s conflict is only with the West, they would have gained much sympathy. But the truth is that Islam is usually the main cause in a conflict involving non-Muslims or between Muslims themselves.

A better documentary on Islam is “Islam:What the West needs to know” which include s two Muslim Arabs explaining the true nature of Islam.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8105709395775858867

A very balanced and thoughtful view of all this hatred that seems to be surrounding us.

If only everybody could walk the line of reason then you can't help but think the world would be a better place.

Great Article.

Ruby,

It is a very fine hair you are trying to split, although after reading the Islamist I have some reason to believe that it does exist.

Whilst it is true that sufi style Islam, (taught by Imams/Sheiks who have actually spent some time studying the Koran) , may be the religion you claim it to be, here in the west the influence of groups like Hizb-ut-tahir and Islamic Council of Britain has rendered your point moot.

Until moderate Muslims themselves can regain control of the mosques and community centres we are looking at generations of Muslim young people reared on the hateful message of the Islamists. How can we in the west accept the danger that this poses to our way of life? What can we do? We have no influence on this situation beyond limiting muslim immigration until such times as the fundamentalist strain is defeated.

The problem you face with skeptical westeners is that, not only does the Koran actually condone violence at times, but radical Islamists have somehow found themselves representing their communities, appropriately or not.

Your points about Christian fundamentalists are self defeating. We aren’t facing waves of Christian suicide bombers flying aircraft into skyscrapers, detonating themselves in restaurants and schools and beheading journalists on TV. And in relation to Iraq and Israel I would stick to your argument that muslim anger isn’t derived from the Koran, but from geo politics. However even this becomes untenable when you say that the British bombers murdered people because they had been shown pictures of dead Muslims. The only connection there is religious.

We can’t live with radical Islam in our midst. It’s too much to ask of any liberal democracy.

I agree Louie, it IS a great article, (as is your site Ruby S!)

I applaud ANY attempt at balance;- at cause and effect, but you are nissing into the pind I fear, as evidenced by your first two replies;-and there WILL be more.

Phillip Tang's last post on OLO is as you see. This is his first:-

1. Muslims fight Christians in Philippines in Mindanao.
2. Muslims fight Buddhists in south Thailand. Recently, they killed 2000+ people.
3. Muslims fight the Hindus in India, especially in Kashmir.
4. Muslims fight the Russians in Chechnya.
5. Muslims in Muslim-majority Indonesia are killing the Christians by the thousands and even beheading school girls!!
6. Muslims fight between themselves; Sunnis and Shiites are killing each other in Iraq. Before that Sunni-controlled Iraq under Saddam Hussien fought a war with Shiite-Iran
7. Muslims in secular Singapore have special laws e.g (childhood marriage and polygamy)which do not apply to non-Muslims. This is against a true democracy where the "rule of law" is sacrosanct.

Islam as practised today is against democracy and intolerant of other religions. It must be viewed as a political system that invokes the name of "God" for its many violent actions
Posted by Philip Tang, Monday, 12 March 2007 3:22:50 PM

_____________________________

TBC.,

Cont'd:

It is critical to continue to provide an alternative point of view however, because without it the 'they hate us; we hate them' principle will inevitably destroy us all.

I see two pertinent issues.

One IS the cause/effect issue.
When we choose to denigrate anything, we conveniently eliminate any issue that detracts from the point we are trying to make. Wilder's has done that,-it is evident here. Heaven forbid that the vile behaviour of any group throughout our history conducted under the banner of this or that belief system should 'taint' the target dé jour: Islam.

Freedom of Speech!!
Ahhhh! the dear old chestnut;-FoS. Suddenly (certainly in our recent history), FoS has become the absolute buzz phrase. How DID we manage before it? We were in shackles weren't we? Were we?
Why are we so obsessed with any move to curb our 'freedom of speech'? D'you think it MIGHT have something to do with the DEPTH of hatred in super abundance today? Could it possibly be that this preoccupation with FoS has its roots in the need to express hatred/intolerance/and even a 'call to arms'?

I think so.

A fine article, Ms Hamad. Take the criticism here with a grain of salt, as there are quite a number of people posting in forums such as this, who evidently have an axe to grind with Islam. Whether this dislike of the religion is justified, is open to interpretation.

I've no doubt Wilders piece was inflammatory and quite probably was aimed at receiving the kind of angry response it has incited. I dare say it was misleading at the very least, and focused solely on the worst aspects of the religion.

All that being said - it would appear to me, that Islam is in dire need of such criticism. An angry, violent response is not a mature one. I think most would agree that it's concerning that criticism of a religion can so easily lead to violence.

I haven't seen Fitna so I can't really comment, but I guess my concerns tend to mostly focus on instances when all muslims are represented as extremists.

When violent reactions do occur however, I guess I don't have much sympathy for those who respond in that manner, because it's evident they're the extremist sorts who do need to learn to face up to honest criticism and respond with maturity.

It's the quite moderates that unfortunately, cop much of the anti-muslim sentiment, which isn't really fair.

Phillip Tang, I will say to you as I said to Mr Right: critically analysing human behaviour is not the same as condoning it. As I watched Fitna, my gut was wrenched by the scenes of senseless human suffering. That anyone could think I would sympathise with these actions is extremely disturbing to me. My main aim in writing the article is to put forward the argument that simply blaming religion is not enough. What this hatred of Islam is achieving is nothing more than the simplistic mindset that if we could only get rid of Islam, the world would be happy place.

No. For we will still have issues of injustice, oppression and invasion. Your list of Muslim atrocities is impressive. But I too can show you a list of atrocities committed by others:

Hindus are killing Buddhists in Sri Lanka
Hindus are killing Muslims in India
Christian Basque Separatists are killing Christians in Spain
Christians are killing Christians in Colombia
Christians are killing civilians in Uganda.

Phillip, the list is endless. The point being, where you have humans you have conflict. Whilst I do agree that religion is a tool that is used in an attempt to justify the actions of the perpetrators, in many cases, it is not the underlying cause of the conflict.
Also, since Fitna left its frame of reference to Muslims in the Middle East and the West, I did likewise. The issues which concern Muslims in India and Pakistan etc are entirely different.

Louie and Ginx, thanks very much for your comments. It is appreciated that you can see I was trying to be impartial.

Paul, you bring up many worthy points. However, I am limited in the amount of comments I can post and I don't have the space left on this one. I hope you will check back tomorrow. Please don't think this an attempt to evade your questions as I actually agree with much of what you have written.

I haven't seen much of Fitna, but what I have seen appears similar to "jihadi" videos common on the web, with, of course different commentary.

Ms Hamad makes the point that there is little "context" offered for the scenes in Fitna. What could be expected in 15 minutes? A longer film would not be as easily available on the internet, nor would a lengthy expose of the background of each segment necessarily be of widespread interest. For those who want to follow up, the information is readily available- for instance the content of imam's sermons in say Saudi Arabia (or Indonesia, for that matter) on hatred of non-Muslims. Why is it that westerners are expected to learn about Islam when the common reaction of many Muslims to say, a Bible, is to recoil in horror at the thought of touching it?

Ms Hamad states: "From this statement, one could deduce that contrary to Wilders' claims, not all Muslims are inherently violent and some are actually willing to engage in peaceful dialogue". Is this an example of "peaceful dialogue" or is it "trying another tack" since eruptions of violence prove Wilders' (or the Danish cartoonists') point ("if you say Islam is violent we will kill you"). The orchestrated brouhaha over the cartoons (riots months after publication, non Jilland-Posten material included) was shown to be counterproductive from a Muslim point of view. The courts have backed free speech- so "softly softly catchee monkey" on the Muslims' part is more in tune with the current scenario, typified in Ban Kee Moon's dhimmi statements and the castration of the UNHCR by stacking with Muslim nations from the OIC and other human rights luminaries like Cuba.

My take on Islam is simple- Muslims are good people in spite of Islam, not because of it.

With the republishing of the so called "Mohammed cartoons" most Muslim websites and newspapers now exhibit signs displaying "except Mohamed" urging visitors and readers to boycott all Danish products. This public campaign has worked to the extent of making people detest any Danish product.

Privately many Muslim leaders or Imams are gleaming with joy for the reaction that such provocative moves have caused and many of them can not remember any thing like it. They wonder whether is it a rekindled love or dormant emotions or feelings that have been awakened.

Denmark has chosen to embrace the role of the whipping boy to whom all angry emotions are vented and Denmark is probably taking over the USA in one area, the country which has its flag suffer most frequent flag desecration or burning. So the previously respected Danish flag is now being widely used as a floor mat.

But why did the Danes or the Dutch choose this time? Probably it is just miscalculation on their part. They may have thought that this is the best time to defeat Islam morally as it has so far resisted all attacks militarily.

This systematic attack on Islam has so far been directed towards the most sacred person in Islam; the prophet Mohamed and to the most sacred book the Quran.

We should expect the next attack to be directed towards Makkah (Mecca ) the most sacred place for Muslims, where the Saudis would not welcome that attack publicly but privately would love to see millions of Muslims flock to Makkah exactly as the man wearing the coat was holding it tightly as the north wind blows stronger.

One can not help but ask the question: What have the Danes or the Dutch gained from all of this? And have they ran out of other ideas to demonstrate the right for free press?

Mohamed Alkilani

Dear TurnRightThenLeft .. why can't people have an "axe to grind with Islam", as you put it? In most places where Islam is practised and has become the dominant faith it is a repulsive religion - a form of cultural thought control that is embedded in people since they were very small. Hence you get the situation of the three year old girl in Fitna who says that Jews are "pigs", claiming that is what is stated in the Koran.

Of course, Ruby Hamad objects to the use of this interview footage with the young girl. "As a three-year-old, she obviously has not read this for herself. Someone has been feeding her this information. She could be reciting from a script, for all we know."

But if the three-year-old was a Saudi girl then this would be the spin on Jews she would be given as she moved into that country's education systems.

Writing in The Washington Post of May 21st 2006, Nina Shea from Freedom House, noted that translations of current Saudi school textbooks provided many instances of exhortations against both Jews and Christians. One text that was in use for Grade Eight students said that: "The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus". Even in First Grade children were taught that, "Every religion other than Islam is false."

Or listen to Tawfik Hamid, a former member of the Islamist terrorist group Jemaah Islamiya, who is now a Muslim reformer living in the West. In The Wall Street Journal of April 3rd, 2007 he wrote:

"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".

Silly little girls really need to spend a bit of time learning the facts of life, before putting their naivety into print.

Nice little apologist arguement Ruby. Many women in Islamic countries would love the opportunity to express their views. Unfortunately they don't get to.

I did not say that your article justifies murder, Ruby.

The West does not have to look “beyond the obvious” as you claim. Muslims are the ones who need to take a good look at themselves. They could and still do think whatever they want in predominately Muslim countries; but now that they are trying to live the same sort of lives in the West, it is they, not the Westerners who have to do the adjusting and start understanding the Western way of life if they wish to be accepted.

Whether or not the “issue of Iraq and Israel is important to Arab Muslims”, it is a matter of complete indifference to me, Ruby. I believe, and will continue to believe, that Islam is the greatest threat to the West and all non-Islamic people; particularly Arabic Islam.

Sadly, in your rejoinder to me, you again justify terrorism because of “…the effects of Western interference in the Middle East.”

You seem to have a typically Islamist attitude: always blame non-Muslims for the obvious backwardness of Islam.

You might fool yourself, Ruby, but you don’t fool anyone but the most gullible of Australians who think that they are being ‘nice’ by agreeing with you, or sympathising with you.

"But why did the Danes or the Dutch choose this time? Probably it is just miscalculation on their part."

Maybe they're sick to death of murder, rape, indigestible immigrants, ballooning welfare payments and disrespect and contempt for the host cultures?

"They may have thought that this is the best time to defeat Islam morally as it has so far resisted all attacks militarily."

Any time is a good time to defeat Islam morally. As for "militarily" are we talking recent (Afghanistan, Israel in 1948 and 1967) a little while back (Ottoman Empire) or a long way back (Gates of Vienna, the Reconquista on Iberian Peninsula, Battle of Tours, Lepanto)?

"This systematic attack on Islam has so far been directed towards the most sacred person in Islam; the prophet Mohamed and to the most sacred book the Quran."

The whole idea of free speech is that no one is above reproach, not even an alleged "sacred person" whose career was long on murder and mayhem and short on good deeds and good works.

'We should expect the next attack to be directed towards Makkah (Mecca ) the most sacred place for Muslims'

Hardly likely, despite the continuing attack on the Holy Land by Muslims. Muslims claim victimhood, yet who are the real victims in "Palestine"? Perhaps those in Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus, now 90% Muslim, once almost entirely Christian. No one makes any claims on Mecca (nor Medina, despite the fact the population was once largely Jewish) but the whole world is supposed to bow to Muslim claims to Jerusalem- when the place was never once mentioned in the Muslim holy book.

Apparently, according to some posters, Islam itself is inherently evil, bloodthirsty, murderous... fill in the adjective.

Christian fundamentalist George W Bush invades Iraq and kills, according to an article in the lancet using recognised methods, 655,000 innocent Iraqis int eh first 3 years. So it is possible the figure is now 1 million. Add to that the 500,00 Western imperialism killed in the blockade of Iraq.

Palestine was the creation of the UN, the expression of the twin imperialisms of Russia and the US. Driving hundreds of thousands off their lands and into bantustans, slaughtering thousands, and then imprisoning people in the Gaza strip and West bank is an act of barbarity.

Now, who is the bloodthirsty one? When war criminal and mass murderer George W Bush is tried alongside Osama Bin Laden I will know there is justice in the world.

I think to see this in terms of religion is to miss the point. All religions contain an essential ambiguity - they appeal to the elite and the poor simultaneously. Their role is to offer hope to the oppressed and reassurance to the elite that they can channel that hope in non revolutionary directions.

While each major religion is born out of particular social conditions, they adapt to each particular class society they find themselves in. Thus the Christianity of 100 AD is very different to that of feudal Europe and that of capitalist society. Similarly with Islam in terms of its development. I think an article on these points might be worthwhile.

Passy,

Don't forget your secular humanist mate Stalin who makes all the rest pale into insignificant except for the murdered unborn babies.

Good article.

Reminds me of the way the Jews were being seen between the Wars as an example of evil.

Imagine the outrage in the West if somebody released a film showing the other point of view, with images of their own that we don't get to see in our daily media.

One thing that has always puzzled me about the cartoon controversy is how so many people can get hold of so many Danish flags to burn at such short notice all over the world (or wherever there is a camera conveniently nearby).

I would have imagined there would not be much of a market for such things in foreign countries.

Where would you go to buy one here, if not dozens or hundreds of them?

Somebody really wants this to keep this conflict simmering and I suspect it's coming from both sides.

Dear Runner

You say I forgot to mention my mate Stalin.

Thanks for equating me with Stalin.

Actually he murdered those standing in my political tradition. He was the gravedigger of the Revolution, not its logical successor.

Sandra Bloodworth has just released a book called How Workers Took Power: The 1917 Russian revolution.

It deals with the sort of nonsense runner has come out with and argues that the ideals and reality of the revolution in its early days - democracy, workers and peasants running society, glimpsing a world in which production occurs to satisfy human need - are as relevant today as they were in 1917.

She looks at the reasons for the defeat of the revolution - without a revolution in Germany we are defeated said Lenin - and describes how Stalin, the mass murderer and destroyer of the revolution led a new ruling class and set up state capitalism in Russia.

I notice runner doesn't challenge my view that George Bush is a mass murderer and war criminal as well. George W represents a particular class interest, one much more powerful than the class interests Bin Laden represents. In fact the main terrorists sit in Washington, London and Canberra.

At least this article attempts to understand Islam, unlike some of the posters here.

I know, don't feed the trolls, but I can't help myself sometimes.

AMAZING.

BIAS.
"of over 600,000 Muslim Iraqi children... due to the sanctions"

BALANCE If the author was truly interested in TRUTH, she would have also pointed out that Saddaam was continuing to build his palaces, and re-stock his armaments.He COULD have used the money for medicines.

IS ISLAM INHERRENTLY EVIL? Well.. many have tried to answer this question on this thread.... some affirming, some denying.

I won't even address that 'well oiled' question, but I do address a question to Ruby for her serious contemplation, and response.

RUBY SAID:

<<The Old Testament FREQUENTLY instructs the Israelites to murder and RAPE other tribes, ....>>

THAT IS RELIGIOUS VILIFICATION... Ruby..sorry, but it is. In this case, you have not used "Truth" but a lie.. albeit an "oft promoted by Muslims one"

There is not a syllable of "instruction to rape".. so, in this deliberate misrepresentation of the Bible, you have vilified all Christians and all Jews.

The relevant verse calls for Israel to "utterly destoy" the Midianites, but to "keep for yourselves all those female children who have not known man".

"KEEP for yourselves" is not 'so you can rape them' it is "as captives"

Now female captives were under the jurisdiction of the Law of Moses which allowed only MARRIAGE to female captive WOMEN...
-after a month of grieving.
-with the assurance of freedom slavery if the marriage did not work out.

So..I'm sorry but your comments have vilified me as a Christian,and all Jews.

So.. I expect an apology.. specifically mentioning that you have:

-Misunderstood the passage and are sorry for misreperesenting Christians and Jews and the Bible.

or..

-You did really understand it, but deliberately misrepresented it, and now, seeing the harm done, are repentant..sorry and now wish to confess your wrong doing, and express your deepest regrets for it.

In either case, you have infringed section 9 of the Act. "Motive is not relevant"

Passy

Excellent comments in your post above and you responded beautifully to Runner, as to whether he will even understand is entirely moot - the discerning OLO reader will understand.

Shame that your excellent post had to be followed by the usual rant from Boaz. He even claimed that Ruby was indulging in vilification of the Christian religion!. I wonder if he has ever read the old and new testaments in their entirety. If he had he would be aware that there is much call to violence invoked by the writers of these old texts, even Jesus was claimed to have "come with a sword".

However, any regular to OLO is aware that Boaz cherry picks his own holy book as much as he cherry picks the Koran.

Of course this article is just another opportunity for wacka-mozzie by Boaz. Why it is acceptable in Boaz's mind to vilify Islam but to squeal indignant if someone points out that christianity is less than perfect is simply indicative of the duality of mind that is required for religious belief.

On topic, I have seen a significant amount of the movie, I believe at one level that Islam needs to be held up to criticism like any other religion, however, there was no balance at all in the film and any moderate muslim would feel unhappy that Wilder's offered no chance for a meeting of minds. He painted a picture as bleak as any of Boaz's rantings.

However, Islam has yet to enter the 21st century and being held to account is a part of that. I would like to see a movie by Muslims countering the extremist fundamentalists of their religion, that would have more impact than someone outside their religion. We have had enough of that.

aaah.. sigh.. "MOOD LABEL" = 'mildly annoyed/still jovial'

Fractelle.. now.. honestly you need a good talking to. Pity 350 words isn't enough.

1/ Have I read the Old and New testaments in their entirity? YES.. a number of times, 3 yrs full time study of most of the books, plus some greek.

2/ CHERRY PICKING. No Fractelle.. 'judiciously selective' just as any journalist or lawyer would 'select' information to illustrate a point in a case.
What I DON'T do..is what you DID. "Even Jesus claimed to have come with a sword" now.. either you deliberately chose to ignore, or.. simply don't know the facts. I'll take the latter and give you the benefit of the doubt, but I've addressed this issue a number of times.

The main reference is Matthew 10:34, the context of which begins at verse 1. The reference also includes a quotation of Micah 7:6 and you need to understand THAT also in context. So.. presuming you will actually seek to understand these matters, I sincerely hope that you will not again trot out material which vilifies Christians by making false claims against Jesus and Christians by implication.

You also said:

<<he would be aware that there is much call to violence invoked by the writers of these old texts>>

You are both correct and incorrect here. It was not the 'writers' of the texts, but God Himself.

Now.. if you wish to say "God, in the Bible advocates and commands GENOCIDE of specific peoples".. I won't argue in the slightest with you. I will not feel vilified, nor misrepresented. Because it is TRUE.

But if you say "God 'commanded' the Israelites to RAPE"....then I'll have you along with Ruby at the EOC quick smart :)

Are you seeing it yet?

To say "The Freemasons sect permits child abuse" would be true, IF...they had texts spelling that out. It cannot be vilification to point this out, it is in the public interest. As far as I know, they don't.

Boazy: << To say "The Freemasons sect permits child abuse" would be true, IF...they had texts spelling that out. It cannot be vilification to point this out, it is in the public interest. As far as I know, they don't. >>

So Boazy, are you still beating your daughter?

Paul L, I agree that Islam is screaming out for a reformation. Turkey has already announced it is reviewing the Qu’ran for this purpose. And though we rarely hear of it, there are small steps being made in the progress of women in Islamic countries. However, these are being undermined by extremism in other corners.

How do we in the West counteract hateful extremist messages? Perhaps by not denouncing all Muslims as evil. perhaps by not further alienating all Muslims because of the actions of a few. Perhaps by supporting those Muslims that are leading the movement for change. Whilst most terrorist activity does appear to be perpetrated by Muslims today, it is grossly unfair to label most Muslims as terrorists for they are not. To label them as such is to give credence to the arguments of the fundamentalists- that the West hates Islam. Can you see how this sword is two edged?

I mention Christian fundamentalism only to point out that Islam is not alone in seemingly advocating violence. The case of Mohammed B does directly co-relate to the case of Paul Hill- individuals driven to murder purely by religious fanaticism. But neither relate to bin Laden whose ambitions are political. In other words even though bin Laden and Mohammed B are both Muslim, their motivations are poles apart. Religion is only part of the problem. Yes, the London bombers identified with the dead Muslims, but their actions were not motivated by a simple hatred of the West as Wilders claims. It was simple, bloody revenge. No less horrific, but to continue to deny any political motivation behind such attacks is to live with our head in the sand. The more we alienate the Muslims in our midst, the more we flan the flames of extremism as Fitna is undoubtedly doing

Boaz your latest patronising statement:

“Fractelle.. now.. honestly you need a good talking to. Pity 350 words isn't enough.”

No Boaz, I don’t.

I honestly expressed my opinion on Online Opinion, your problem is that you disagree, but can’t deal with the fact that others, especially women don’t find you as inspirational as you do. ;-(

As for your interpretation of the scriptures, AKA ‘cherry picking' – many Christians here on OLO and demonstrably elsewhere, have a completely different interpretation to your narrow fundamentalist perspective. Sad but true, old man.

Whether the gospels are fact or not, it is very risky to think that YOUR understanding is completely free from error. In fact, your religiosity is the most arrogant and least spiritual of any of the religious people who post here. I make exceptions for both Runner and Gibo, because they clearly suffer from mental impairment, whereas you have no excuse.

BTW have you even watched Fitna? Last time I checked you could see snippets of it on Youtube? You should have no trouble identifying with the Islam fundys in it being a fundamentalist of one of the Middle Eastern religions yourself. You guys have just so much in common - you really should get together for a yarn.

Ruby Soho (Ruby Hamad) says: "The more we alienate the Muslims in our midst, the more we flan (sic) the flames of extremism as Fitna is undoubtedly doing".

Ruby, when are Muslims going to do something about acknowledging the vile stuff that is put into print every single day in Muslim-majority countries about the West, about Christians, about Jews and other infidels?

Due to space reasons I can’t provide anything like a comprehensive list of all of this vile material but as a background primer might I suggest that you (Ruby) read the document Islamic Anti-Semitism in Historical Perspective which is available at http://www.adl.org/anti_semitism/arab/Arab_Anti-Semitism.pdf

I also have a link for The Washington Post article that I mentioned in my previous post on this topic - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901769.html

As the author, Nina Shea, notes in her article: "A review of a sample of official Saudi textbooks for Islamic studies used during the current academic year reveals that, despite the Saudi government's statements to the contrary, an ideology of hatred toward Christians and Jews and Muslims who do not follow Wahhabi doctrine remains in this area of the public school system".

And let's not forget that in Saudi Arabia, Islamic studies are estimated to make up a quarter to a third of students' weekly classroom hours in primary and lower secondary schooling.

At the end of her article Shea notes that the views expressed in Saudi school textbooks, will "only harden and deepen hatred, intolerance and violence toward other faiths and cultures".

Also what are non-Muslims supposed to make of a recent survey of Malaysian Muslim opinion, which showed that while there was a substantial residual moderation amongst the respondents, there was also a degree of genuine intolerance among even the majority and authentic extremism among a substantial minority. According to this survey, only 4% of Malay Muslims liked Australia while a combined 57% either hated or disliked Australia.

Ruby, when you can show us that Fitna is on an approved list of viewing for school students in the West as a factual documentary, we might then actually listen to your argument.

Passy,

You and your far left buddies are intellectually vacuous if you cannot recognize that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceasecu, the Shining Path and the many others are the obvious and inescapable progeny of Marx’s absurd philosophy. By its undemocratic nature, Communism inevitably leads to the powerful and ambitious, seizing control whilst hiding behind the cloak of the “public good”.

The George Bush is a mass murderer nonsense deserves a response only because far-left propaganda needs to be defeated wherever it raises its ugly head. To start with the oil for food program which accompanied the blockading of Iraq was sanctioned by the UN. Secondly, as Boazy said, The money and food to feed the people of Iraq was there, Saddam just refused to distribute it. He instead chose to beef up his praetorian guard and replenish and re-man his armies whilst his people starved. But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.

The Iraq war may have led to 655,000 Iraqi deaths, I won’t quibble about statistics today. But the vast majority of deaths in Iraq have been caused by sectarian hatred and ethnic cleansing carried out by the Iraqis themselves. Ie Sunnis killing Shia, Shia killing Sunnis, Sunnis killing Kurds etc. To then pretend that Bush is the behind the deaths of those people is preposterous, its propaganda, which is all the far left knows how to do. Bush didn’t tell AlQaeda in Iraq to attack Shia mosques, and he didn’t ask the sadrists to respond with murder squads targeting Sunni civilians.

At worst Bush is responsible for underestimating the number of soldiers required to win the peace in Iraq.

Class analysis is so pathetic, so old and so irrelevant, that I am amazed you have the audacity to even mention it. I’d be embarrassed about parroting a superseded philosophy which had failed spectacularly everywhere it had ever been put into use.

Boaz: I have no reason to give you an apology nor a desire to get into a slanging match, suffice to say I would not have made those comments about the Bible had I not being able to back them up.

Ginx: Thanks for pointing out that this is indeed a matter of cause and effect, and that freedom of speech is not just the freedom to be hateful.

Hasbeen: Attacking the writer as opposed to the argument makes you look silly, not me.

Mr Right: You contradict yourself by saying you know I don’t justify murder but then telling me my statements about Western interference in the Middle East justify terrorism. Nowhere do I blame the west for what you call the “backwardness of Islam”. How many times can I say that I believe terrorism has more to do with politics than it does with religion?

Runner: Women in Iraq are no more free to express their views now than they were under Saddam’s regime. In fact, in Basra, they are less so. I support women’s rights with all my heart, however I don’t think spreading hatred is the best way to help them.

Savage Pencil: Is that survey a recent one? Would it have yielded the same results had it been taken 10 years ago? Could Malaysian distrust have anything to do with Australia’s eagerness to go to war with Iraq?
I am not saying that Islam is not without its problems. I do wish to see it progress. I am just of the opinion that films like Fitna do nothing to hasten the social progress of Muslims but do much to prevent it.

Wobbles: nice point about the curious abundance of Danish flags. Methinks there is someone making a lot of money…Also, thanks for bringing how Muslims seem to have have replaced Jews as scapegoat. It’s actually the focus of an article I am currently writing.

Thanks to everyone who has commented on the article, whether you agreed with my point of view or not. And thanks for keeping it quite civil (mostly)

Sorry Ruby,

You say terrorism is political but then you say “Could Malaysian distrust have anything to do with Australia’s eagerness to go to war with Iraq” What has Malaysian politics got to do with Iraqi politics? The only link is Pan-Islamism.

You say “Thanks for pointing out that this is indeed a matter of cause and effect,” and you appear to be saying that Islamic intolerance is the effect” meaning of course that western bigotry is the cause, yet you say to Mr Right “Nowhere do I blame the west for what you call the “backwardness of Islam””. Which is it?

You say “… it is grossly unfair to label most Muslims as terrorists for they are not. To label them as such is to give credence to the arguments of the fundamentalists- that the West hates Islam”

Yes I agree with you. Can you see that we need to know for sure that Islam, as it is practiced today, doesn’t hate the West? How much evidence do we see that this is not the case?

>>“I mention Christian fundamentalism only to point out that Islam is not alone in seemingly advocating violence”

I’m all for locking up Christian fundies advocating suicide bombing and attacking innocents. But it’s not helping your cause to pretend that we have the same problem.

>> “Yes, the London bombers identified with the dead Muslims, but their actions were … simple, bloody revenge.”

What was Osama bin Laden taking revenge for on 9/11. What were the bali bombers taking revenge for?

>> “… to continue to deny any political motivation behind such attacks is to live with our head in the sand.”

But Islam can and is seen as a way of life in which politics is indivisible. Those supporting Sharia for example see Islam in this way.

I agree that we need to support moderate muslims and we need to be able to better recognise them. They would do their own cause a lot of good if they were prepared to stand up and criticise the Islamists among them. Can they do this?

Enjoyed reading this article and the responses.

Somehow it just doesnt fit with what one also reads over a longer period from;

http://jihadwatch.org/

for example.

Only the muslims themselves can fix up there crazy religion and bring it up to par with post enlightenment standards. Obviously I dont think much of any of them.

In the mean time the probabilty that they are collectively going to accept that their prescious book cannot possibly be the immutable word of anyone,is highly unlikely.

It isnt immutable because it has a history, and didnt come into its final form until many years after the prophets death, and much of the early pieces were written in aramaic, a jewish language, and cobbled into its fnal from by his henchmen and successors,some of whom were not even there.

All this critical exmination if the origins has been gone over in ad nauseun with the Bible, and it has still survived,so what are they frightened of with the koran. Therein lies the nub issue-IMO.

Therefore taking out,or re interpreting the violent pieces as Fitna is suggesting in not going to happen either.

"I agree that Islam is screaming out for a reformation. Turkey has already announced it is reviewing the Qu’ran for this purpose."

Not true, Ruby. The Turks are reviewing certain hadith, in which are some very strange pronouncements (even by Islamic standards). Surely you realise the difference between Quran, hadith and sunna?

"Also, thanks for bringing how Muslims seem to have have replaced Jews as scapegoat. It’s actually the focus of an article I am currently writing."

Surely you jest? A scapegoat is: "One that is made to bear the blame of others" and in the sense you suggest, Jews are still blamed for all the ills of the world, especially in the Middle East. The Jews did nothing to deserve their plight up to and including WWII.

While Israel's response to attacks on its lands and people may be perceived as (and may actually be) disproportionate, this does not affect anyone in New York, Bali, Thailand, Madrid, London, Darfur or any the other countless troublespots where Muslims kill, maim, forcibly convert, or dispossess hundreds of people on a daily basis.

Should Muslims in Australia be "scapegoated" for the actions of Muslims elsewhere? They wouldn't be- if they and other Muslims came out and expressly condemned terrorism anywhere. They do not do this, in fact we see and hear Muslims the world over overtly or tacitly supporting the actions of terrorists and spreading hatred for Jews.

The description of Geert Wilders as "far right" is disingenuous. Wilders is a populist anti-immigration campaigner, who is trying to stand up for the rights of native Dutch people. The conundrum of the "far right" descriptor, which would equate in the minds of many to "Fascist",would be plain if people realised that Wilders produced his film to expose Fascist passages in the Quran. Wilders is no more "fascist" than Winston Churchill (who it appears, given recent surveys in the UK, is relegated to the position of a "fictional historic figure" in the minds of many, while large numbers of people, even in the west, believe the "Protocols of Zion" are factual!).

BOAZ -

"BIAS.
"of over 600,000 Muslim Iraqi children... due to the sanctions"

More a statement of FACT than Bias. How can you put a positive spin on those numbers and say it was a good thing?

and

"BALANCE .... Saddaam was continuing to build his palaces, and re-stock his armaments.He COULD have used the money for medicines."

It was some of the basic ingredients to manufacture the actual medicines that were banned by the sanctions, not just a matter of misspent cash. (Maybe AWB should have been more generous).

As for historical figures mentioned by others elsewhere, Stalin was actually a Seminary student for a year before he found his political niche. He could actually have become been a priest if it wasn't for the attitude of some of his teachers who inflamed his Georgian patriotism.

Churchill was infuriated when he was not allowed to bomb the Afghans and Kurds (who he regarded as savages) with poison gas from the newly founded WW1 airforce - only because the government felt it may upset the Indian colony - not to mention his ideas on using the navy to fire on striking workers years later. I think that qualifies as a fascist attitude.

So who are the trouble-makers here? Those (like Wilders) who deliberately inflame a hostile situation to provoke a violent response, or those who stupidly take the bait and react the way somebody else intended them to?
Maybe it's somebody else pulling all the strings. No doubt there are provocateurs acting for both sides to keep the show on the road for as long as it's needed.

Meanwhile, as Ernie Cline once said - "dance monkeys, dance".

Hi Ruby, I just saw your fantastic article. Glad to see some sanity in the madhouse :) of Islam discussions on OLO.

I don’t have the time right now to read the comments so I’ll tell you, in brief, my thoughts about Fitna so far.

I agree that as a film, it’s not a good one. At least Submission has some creative merit IMO. Theo van Gogh was a talented moviemaker while Wilders just makes propaganda.

Fitna is barely more than a collection of clips that were once put on the Internet by radical Muslims.
Wilders only shows Muslims when they behave badly- it’s as black-and-white and unbalanced as a film clip can be.

It verges on racism, too. At first, I didn't think so, but than I gathered that even though Geert Wilders claims that he has nothing against Muslims and merely criticises the Koran, he shows the photograph of a Dutch rapper (Salah Edin) when Mohammed B., the murderer of Theo van Gogh is speaking in Fitna.
That indicates that he doesn’t distinguish between one Muslim and the next.
Edin may take legal action against Wilders, and Wilders would deserve that. I do love free speech but one should accept that one can be held responsible for what one is saying.

Wilders probably also will have to replace the cartoon he used by Kurt Westergaard because of copyright infringement.

Unfortunately, there exists a minority of Westerners who tend to confuse terrorism with Islam. I have been changing my mind a few times about Islam as I gathered more information.
When I think of the many Muslims who are victims of the threat of terrorism- more so than Westerners are- I don’t think it’s justified or fair to generalise.

Wilders’ clip shows that not only Islamic terrorism exists, but also that fanatic Westerners exist. Both ways of thinking need to be eradicated.

Both Muslim leaders as well Western leaders need to openly object to both Muslim and Western fanatics.

Is Islam and democracy compatible? Yes if Muslims are in a minority of the country but when they form the majority, they would throw out democracy and establish Shariah law. They would use the democratic process to get power and after that, put away the democratic process. Minorities would have to be converted to Islam or be killed off as many Hindus experienced in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Less than a year ago, an Islamist party came to power in Turkey. The Muslim leader Erdogan promised that he would uphold the rights of the minorities. But a few months into his Islamic rule and, like 99% of Muslims, he has an Islamic agenda. Turkey is closing down all the pig farms,

“Istanbul's Last Pork Butcher Fights Islamist Crackdown on Swine”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=&sid=aC4.f2m9HcDg&refer=news

“The ministry used the food-poisoning scare as an excuse to shut down the pork industry, says Tahsin Yesildere, former head of the Turkish Veterinary Medical Association's Istanbul branch.”

The Hindus have had a long experience with the Muslims who plundered and raped their country. The Hindu rule is, “Never, Never Listen To What The Muslims Say, Watch What They Do”

The film FITNA is the means through which a Dutch politician is telling the world the violent aspects of Islam and, that the violent nature of Muslims is derived from the KORAN.

The film does not utter a word about hating the Muslims but warning non-Muslims against the violence of Islam. There are many scenes of Muslim preachers telling Muslims to hate non-Muslims and use violence.

You can watch the film at the link rather than read the prejudices of Islamic-jihadist-apologist Ruby Hamad about the film.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/.php
(Click on the youtube ones)

Both Hamad and Celivia need to realise that it is the Muslims who are the ones that terrorise Western cities, murdered 3000 over Buddhists in south Thailand, beheaded 3 Christian school girls in Indonesia. What have the Buddhists in the remote villages of Thailand and Indonesian Christians to do with the West? The Muslims are the trouble makers not the West.

Note: The links in my earlier post wasn't working

“Istanbul's Last Pork Butcher Fights Islamist Crackdown on Swine”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aC4.f2m9HcDg&refer=news

“The ministry used the food-poisoning scare as an excuse to shut down the pork industry, says Tahsin Yesildere, former head of the Turkish Veterinary Medical Association's Istanbul branch.”

You can watch the film at the link rather than read the prejudices of Islamic-jihadist-apologist Ruby Hamad about the film.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/191968.php
(Click on the youtube ones

A very quick reply to RubySoho's post of Friday, 11 April 2008 4:41:53 PM.

The Malaysian survey was mentioned in an article that Greg Sheridan wrote for The Weekend Australian of January 20th, 2007 ("Hate beyond reason"). It was a joint Asia-Europe Institute and University of Malaya survey of Malay Muslim opinion in Malaysia and I can only presume it was a recent survey given the way Sheridan referred to it in his article.

Anyway, I doubt if the Iraq war would have had any great effect on the opinion of Malay Muslims toward Australia as opposed to ten years ago. Mainly because if you knew anything about Malaysian history and politics Ruby, you would be aware of the scapegoating of Australia that was carried out by the former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad during his 22 years in office and especially in the period after 1986. Obviously as this survey showed, this low opinion of Australia had rubbed off onto the Malay Muslim population who were Mahathir's political constituency.

If you want to know more about Mahathir Mohamad, might I suggest that you read Tony Parkinson's article that appeared in The Age of October 18, 2003 ("Mahathir's outburst poisons atmosphere at time of crisis"). The URL is http://www.theage.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupPrintArticle.pl?path=/articles/2003/10/17/1066364486663.html

This is just further evidence of the creepy growing alliance between the far Left and Islamofascism. And from a woman too!

She should be ashamed of herself.

Ruby Soho

"How many times can I say that I believe terrorism has more to do with politics than it does with religion?"

This reveals a remarkably naive understanding of Islam. Islam was born as a political ideology; indeed it is innately imperial and does not recognise the difference between the public/political and private/religious spheres.

Your review of this issue shows you need to learn about Islam, before you start defending it against western liberalism

Hello again Paul,

When I said “Thanks for pointing out that this is indeed a matter of cause and effect”, what I meant was that my statements referring to Western involvement in Israel and Iraq being a root cause of Muslim terrorism were not intended as a justification of terrorism, simply as A causing B. Paul, I view terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism as two separate issues which often overlap and intertwine. Yes, I do believe that 9/11 was revenge on US involvement in Israel and I have already provided statements from the 9/11 Commission to back that up. That does not mean that I approve of those attacks. And as for issues such as the riots over those cartoons and death threats to detractors, unfortunately, that comes down to the fact that Islam, as a younger and altogether more petulant religion, is not yet willing to accept criticism. These are two separate phenomena which need to be dealt with differently. The more we point the finger at all Muslims the uglier this is going to get.

I'm curious as to what you want from moderate Muslims though. An apology every time an extremist detonates a roadside bomb? Moderate Muslims are no more responsible for that bomb going off than you are.

I love the reductionism of some people (and must admit I am prone to it too.)

Islam inexorably leads to Bin Laden. Then Islam is Bin laden.

Marx inevitably leads to Stalin. Then Stalin is Marxism.

Its like saying Christianity inexorably leads to Ian Paisley, or the Inquisition, or polygamist Mormonism or whatever enemy you want to put in. So that enemy then becomes the generalisation of the original thought.

Or maybe it's like saying Adam Smith leads to Adolf Hitler.

All philosophies represent present class relationships in some form or particular.

That is why it is false to say Islamism is islamofascism. Certainly some versions of Islamism are a middle class movement, and some clearly, for example in Saudi Arabia, represent a ruling class perspective.

Certainly fascism was and is a middle class movement - stuck as the middle class IS between the big battalions of capital and labour. That is why politically it is all over the place. (And why the Pauline Hanson movement, a middle class movement, contained within it the seed of fascism). But historically as the economic crisis worsens the ruling class turns to the thugs of fascism to smash the working class and its political and union organisations so it can drive down wages and conditions and restore profit rates. Thus fascism is a middle class movement that becomes the battering ram for th ruling class against the working class.

That is not the case with Islamism. Since I only have 350 words, I'll save this for an article.

Ruby, It isn’t clear to me that Wilders was intending to make a “movie” or a “documentary”, so the absence of balance and character development don’t seem to me to be fatal.

Perhaps he’s just issuing a warning. The warning is probably intended to heighten awareness. This risks creating fear, but it doesn’t follow that it is intended to create hatred. Perhaps some fear is an appropriate response.

The warning is necessary, isn’t it? Hasn’t it become evident by now that liberalism – which I usually support – is very naïve and vulnerable, and just isn’t coping with Islam.

I don’t see the warning as a call to arms, and I think you make a great logical leap in saying that it is.

The one thing about the film (which I haven’t seen, I’m just relying on your description) I disagree with is its inclusion of the cartoons. They are not a part of the responsible use of free speech: they are a gratuitous provocation. Stupid on
Wilders’ part. Still, he should be able to include them and continue to live in his home.

Another leap you make, Ruby, is this: You start by saying that it’s not just a religious issue but also a political one. Okay, maybe that’s true. ("Maybe": Paul L’s first post suggests otherwise.) You end up saying that the religion of Islam is just being used as a tool, as though it has nothing to do with the strife that seems to follow it everywhere. Quite an athletic leap.

This is what makes you seem like a Muslim apologist, even though I suspect you are not.

Non-Muslims and Muslims need to get on better, if at all possible, simply because people should get on better. We non-Muslims should, I believe, be gracious to Muslims that are within reach of us. But, this doesn’t mean we should fool ourselves and be unrealistic. The warning introduces some necessary realism into the liberal mind.

Pax,

Ruby

The 9/11 bombers were taking revenge on the US for perceived slights on Islam, including the support of Israel and American forces in Saudi. I’m not suggesting you are condoning the acts, but I’m not convinced you have a handle on them either.

The recent riots and deaths threats which were reactions to the Danish cartoons have nothing to do with Islam being a young religion. They are directly linked to the influence in many Islamic societies of fundamentalist groups which preach hatred of the west. The protests are whipped up, sometimes months after the event by firebrand preachers spewing hatred of the west and determined to face down the liberal democracies.

The only thing I think you got right is the distinction between Islamists(read Islamo facists) and Muslims.

IMO there is a war going on for the hearts and minds of the Muslims worldwide and more specifically in the west. To many people it would seem as though the fascists were just more extreme examples of every day Muslims. I don’t believe that to be the case, however the extent to which Muslims have been captured by the ideas of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Deobandi and the Wahabists is very difficult to know. Only the moderate Muslim community will know these things although I agree we should be paying a lot more attention to what is going on in the mosques.

The only way we can point the finger where it is actually deserved is with the committed support of moderate Muslims.

You say “Moderate Muslims are no more responsible for that bomb going off than you are.” That is as maybe, however the silence from the Muslim communities whilst Islamists are making vile pronouncements does them no favours.

I expect that when the Imam says hateful things about the west, including Australia, that the people get rid of him. I expect that extremists are not invited to mosque for discussions.

I had to laugh at Passy's post.

How many of the proletariat in Karl Marx's day owned shares, either directly or through superannuation funds, as so many of the "working class" do today?

Isn't it a bit "passé", Passy, to be talking the language of class conflict today?

You'll be talking about "capitalists and their running dogs" next.

You probably need to update your world view to 2008 rather than that of 1908.

You don't seem to have noticed that Communism has failed completely everywhere it has been tried: and the reason for that, Passy, is human nature, as I've mentioned before.

Dear Froggie

If class is irrelevant what philosophy have you adopted to explain the world and the way it works?

If class analysis is irrelevant to understanding the rise of Islamism, what is the alternative analysis. (No doubt it is that it is islamofascism or some such nonsense, or that the Muslim religion is inherently evil. If we are to talk in religious terms, then the same analysis applies to Christianity, although its brutal colonial and imperialist history shows it is far more evil than Islamism. I don't see it in religious terms. I agree with Marx when he said the history of capitalism is written in blood.)

You might like to address my claim that George W Bush is the biggest terrorist today and the greatest threat to world peace.

If you think Stalinism was socialism or communism then you understand none of those concepts.

If class is irrelevant (you forgot by the way to call me a dinosaur) why did Australians vote Howard out? If class is irrelevant why did the Opposition in Zimbabwe call for a general strike against Mugabe? If class is irrelevant how do you explain the magnificent revolutions in Eastern Europe that overthrew the Stalinist dictatorships? If class is irrelevant how do you explain the state capitalism of China? (A state capitalism that has existed since Mao's nationalist "revolution".)

If class is irrelevant why do the majority of us have to sell our ability to work to someone else to survive?

In terms of this discussion you might also like to answer the question why Wilders uses anti-Muslim rhetoric to attempt to hold his place in Dutch politics, a position that can best be described as the extreme right? Perhaps he is using crude racism in an attempt to get some working class support? (A sort of Pauline Hanson of Holland, perhaps.)

I look forward to your erudite answer (between laughs of course.)

I know, don't feed the trolls. But occasionally they raise issues I think actually worthy of debate. A stopped clock is right twice a day.

Savage Pencil: Thanks for the extra info on that Malaysian survey. Is it fair to say then that Malaysian ‘hatred’ of Australia has less to do with Islam per se and more to do with propaganda perpetrated by the former Malaysian PM?

Viking13. My apologies for the error, yes it is the Hadiths which are been reviewed. The Hadiths are guidelines for interpreting the Qu’ran, so the essence remains the same: a much needed re-evaluation of Islam.

When I referred to Muslims replacing Jews as scapegoat I did mean in the Western world. And nowhere did I imply that Jews deserved the hatred that was heaped onto them.

I never called Wilders a fascist. By ‘far right’, I mean very conservative. Which he is, in all his policies, not just his attitude to Muslims and immigration.

Viking, the conflict in Darfur is essentially a tribal not religious one, New York was revenge for US support of Israel, Madrid and London were revenge for Iraq. The 2006 war between Hezebollah and Israel saw a dramatic increase in the popularity of that militant group amongst Christian Lebanese- not their traditional fan base. This was a direct result of the actions of Israel in that war. Yes, conflict exists! It is not only the Muslims who engage in it. Have you heard of the (Christian) Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda? They kidnap children, use them as soldiers and force them to cut off the breasts and lips of women. The human race is pretty screwed up. But to oversimplify it and blame only the religion is self-defeating, as you are not really getting to the bottom of the issues. Far from being a religious apologist, I am actually an atheist, my concern is that when we place 1.5 billion people into one category (ie all Muslims are the enemy), then we are ensnaring many who are innocent of any wrong doing.

John Greenfield: Your comments on my article indicate that you need to read it again before you start accusing me of defending ‘Islamofascism’ (not a real word)

Islam Fitna's up itself,as it parodies it's own outrageous beliefs by constantly threatening and actuating violence.

Not until all the vile verses of the Koran are removed,will there be peace.

Goodthief: As a filmmaker I would say character development is important in any type of film. When I said religion is used as a tool, it was specifically a reference to the terrorist attacks depicted in the film. In the cases of violence such as the murder of Theo Van Gogh, then I thought I made that clear that it was religious fanaticism that was the problem. But then, religious fanaticism is not purely a Muslim characteristic. Basically, what I am trying to say is that the situation is much more complicated than simply, Islam is violent. Goodtheif I do think Islam is problematic, but I do not think that all the strife that Muslims find themselves in today is purely a result of their religion (politics, war, socio-economic status, displacement etc are all factors).

My reference to Fitna being ‘a call to arms for those who hate Muslims’ was purely a figurative one. As in Geert is intending to stir hatred and anger, not a literal call to arms. I don’t think that arousing fear was a side effect of Fitna, I think it was the intention.

Paul L: I understand exactly where you are coming from but is the support of Israel and forces in Saudi not a political issue? Would there be the level of terrorist activity in the Middle East today if not for these issues? The PLO was born after the creation of Israel as were all other Palestinian terrorist groups. Hezebollah did not exist until after Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982. If the problem was merely Islam then Islam would be attacking the West without the slightest provocation, that is my point. I agree that much of the reaction of the cartoons was orchestrated by anti-Western-clerics. Like I said in my article it’s a case of religious devotion whipped into a frenzy by political goals. And I reiterate that these are two separate issues which over lap and sometimes get entangled. As you said Paul, it is a fine hair, but nonetheless, it is a hair that exists. I have reached my word limit…

Ruby Soho

"Islamofacsism not a real word," eh? You would do well to consult a dictionary, the thousands of media pieces and academic articles, Wikipedia, and the 625,000 web pages which discuss Islamofascism.

Your attribution of 911 away from Islamofascism to the Jews is lame, despicable, but tragically predictable. Tell us what were the religious affiliations of those who went on suicide missions on Sep. 11? Xian? Hindu? Atheist? Tell us what they muttering as they did so. Let me give you a hint. Every single one was a Muslim - all Sunni, not one Shia mind - and the whole edifice led by Osama bin Laden was at war with the Saudis as part of their broader jihad within Islam to establish a new caliphate led by the Sunni Arab Wahhabism.

I read your article very carefully. It is yet another product of far-left anti-Semitic excuses for Islamofascism which the Left has been making a fool of itself with for years now.

You would do well to open your eyes.

Ruby, Turkey's re-evaluation of hadith is nothing new. In fact the acceptance (or "reliability") of ahadith is the basis of much of the differences between Islamic sects, and the basis of an Islamic "science".

As for the Lord's Army, you would be hard-pressed to find Christians anywhere in the world who would accept this murderous bunch as fellow Christians.

The conflict in Darfur may well be "tribal" given that the victims are black African while the perpetrators are of Arab origin. There is nothing new in Muslims being the victim of other Muslims, especially when the victims are of another sect or race. One presumes Muslims are open to the same vices as others- in this case a desire to restrict oil wealth to Arab Sudanese and to expand their powerbase.

I again question the description of Geert Wilders as "far right" given that the epithet arises from one plank of his party's platform, namely their anti-immigration stance. Reference to social and economic policy might make the PVV centrist for all we know. Rejection of "open-door" immigration, multiculturalism, and PC madness does not a "far right politician" make, in my view. Was Howard "far right" for insisting that new Australians recognised "Australian values"? Is Labor "far right" for broadly accepting the need for migrants to accept "Australian values" even if they disagreed over detail? Are either "far left" for allowing in hundreds of thousands of immigrants we don't need?

I also don't see Fitna as anything like a call to arms against Muslims, but rather as a "wake up call" to European and other politicians, bureaucrats and policymakers who have been asleep at the wheel (at the very least), to make them stand up to Muslim lies ("Religion of Peace- baloney), fake victimhood and demands for accommodation far outstripping their worth to European (and other western) societies. Frankly, I think he will fail, and the "clash of civilisations" is nigh (except that one side isn't civilised).

Greenfield, you would do well to open your eyes!! Your tiresome clichéd twaddle;________________________

"I read your article very carefully. It is yet another product of far-left anti-Semitic excuses for Islamofascism which the Left has been making a fool of itself with for years now..."
Posted by John Greenfield, Sunday, 13 April 2008 5:11:44 PM

________________________;illustrates far more about your embittered far-Right attitude than those who do not hold your political views.
Get a grip man.
_________________________________________________________

Ruby,-what'd I tellyer??

(I intend to give ieSpell a stiff talking to; it does not recognize "Islamofascism". You can bet it was set up by a group of Left-wing pinko anti-semantic ((!!)) thingy wotsits!)

RACHE umm I don't recall in any way shape or form saying the death of the Iraqi children (due to neglect and mis-spending of ill-gotten gains by Saddam) was good? My intended meaning was this. If Sadaam can avoid the impact of the sanctions to re-arm his military and enhance his latest Palace, then does it not raise the question about his ability to provide needed mecidines for his own people? I have zero mercy on lefist propoganda, ZERO.. and the line you trotted out was exactly that.. I'll believe you did it sincerely and naively, which is better for you.

BACK TO RUBY.. I'm sorry dear Ruby, you made an unsubstantiated claim which villifies my faith.
Now..you claim you can back it up. I happen to know you cannot, so not only does it "not suffice" for you to say you can, I suggest it is strongly in your interests to ACTUALLY either back it up or apologise.

As I mentioned to Fractelle..if you had only said "The Bible mentions God commanding the complete destruction of particular tribes" I would have no quarrel with you. But you went too far, you specifically said in a public forum something which not only is not true, but is damaging to the public image of Christians who live by the Old and New Testaments, (with the New interpreting the old)

Now..lets be crystal clear here. You said "God frequently commanded the Israelites to MURDER and RAPE"

So..I presume you can find a command which says "Kill them and rape them".. because if you cannot..then you might find yourself in hot water.
You also used the word "Frequently" so.. you will need to show that this command is repeated 'numerous' times for this to be true.
Numerous/Frequently.. would be at least 3 or 4 different independant places.

I'll await your backup or apology.

There is no slanging match here.. I've not called you any names, but I have called you to account.

If I said "The Quran permits sexual abuse of captive women" I can give you Surah 23:5-6 clear as a bell.

"Fitna".. 'frame up'..or.. fit?

On Youtube, there is a portion of it, and of that portion, I have selected just one Quran verse for consideration.

MY GOAL is to find the actual background according to Islamic scholars, and then, to evaluate if the claim made by the Movie, fits the context and meaning provided by Muslim Scholars.

THE VERSE surah 8 vese 60.

BACKGROUND is explained here
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau8.html

It was the first major battle(BADR) between Muslims and Non Muslims.

Here is another Muslim commentator on the 12th verse of that surah, which is connected also to the rest of the Surah includling verse 60 quoted in 'Fitna'.

http://www.ruqaiyyah.karoo.net/articles/fingers.htm

In that commentary, he explains about the Battle, and mentions the following:

"It was about a specific place at a particular time"

Surah 8.12 was hardly revealed to give carte blanche for Muslim extremists to rush off and strike out at and destroy all unbelievers willy-nilly, but refers specifically to a particular historical event, to the Prophet (pbuh) urging on his troops before the Battle of Badr.

MY COMMENT. It appears, that he is claiming that Muslims only fought when they were 'commanded to' at particular times.

This does not at all fit with the more generalized command to 'fight' as in Surah 9:29 "Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last day"etc.. which is quoted by Mohammad many times in Hadith to justify his attacks on others. (Most Muslims would claim they were defensive attacks, history says otherwise)
This verse is also used Al Mughira with Caliph Omar when "invading" the Persians, where this very verse is quoted by Al Mughira.

MAJOR PROBLEM. On the one hand, Muslims claim "specific place and time" but on the other they claim "We can defend ourselves anytime" but then, they claim ALL fights in which Muslims are involved are 'defensive' in nature

CONCLUSION. Wilders use of this verse is quite justified, the Image he associates with this is 9/11 Which was perpetrated by Muslims against the USA, which is no different to Omar invading the Persians.

Here is a link which gives two Christian responses to Fitna, from the Centre for Public Christianity:

http://publicchristianity.org/news.html

No fan flaming. No calls to violence. No hatred being incited.

If nothing else, these Christian responses highlight the misconceptions the author labours under when pretending to understand the realities patched together in Fitna. When the minarets tower over the Opera House the point might sink in; or when the message being preached in Australian mosques floods over as violence in the Australian suburbs; or when Christians cannot hold evangelical meetings without being pursued into the courts for preaching hatred and inciting ridicule; or when our immigration policies encourage rapid growth of one section of the population. Oh, maybe Australians can learn something from the Dutch experience after all.

My understanding is that your article is calling for context (before launching into a film review and a textual analysis of the cinematic devices employed by Fitna’s producers).

Ok Ruby. So back up your inflammatory comments.

Is it too much to expect that you would provide an explanation when launching into your anti-Christian tirade? Perhaps your next article could feature how you’ve travelled down the well-trodden path of anti-Christian rhetoric so far that you don’t recognize your own.

So, no public apology (in the absence of a detailed explanation) for misquoting the Bible?

Next time you wish to reference the bible, I would encourage you to not only to take issue with points that you don’t understand, but to seek clarification from someone who can provide a context. In the meantime, BD has a very good grasp of both the OT and the NT and will be very happy to oblige, I suspect.

Yes, Fractelle, I’m a woman and a Christian. Well there’s one...

Meanwhile, I can’t help rehashing something which I read over the weekend: not all muslims appear to be terrorists, but all terrorists appear to be muslims.

Thanks for replying, Ruby, very gracious of you.

I think you are making a small mistake. In trying to inform readers of the existence of other factors, you are downplaying the impact and importance of the religion of Islam. You needn’t do that, in order to make your point. The US, for example, is probably every bit as dangerous as its critics say it is. But, so is Islam.

Israel is up itself, sure, but it’s not a threat to the world. It won’t be Zionists who blow up my train.

In tracking this back to the establishment of Israel, are you saying that, if it weren’t for that, Islam and the rest of the world would be at peace? I know it’s a hypothetical, so I’m not expecting an overly confident response. However, judging from the things Muslim clerics say, the answer is clearly “No”. Islam seems to have a few beefs other than Israel.

I don’t know how anyone can suggest that Islam is simply playing defence. It seems to me to be a proactive, dynamic danger to every non-Muslim and to many Muslims. I would prefer to believe something better of Islam (just as I believe better of many Muslim people, including those I’m acquainted with) but the evidence seems overwhelming.

The film is not a call to arms. It is a call to awareness. There should be dialogue, but the West should not be drowsy and lethargic during that dialogue, but alert to the realities across the table.

Pax,

Dear Katie0

Hate the belief, love the believer.

We all know that you are particularly choosy, Boaz, when it comes to selecting quotes from ancient texts to support your views. So why beat up on Ruby and Fractelle if they fall occasionally into those same habits?

>>if you had only said "The Bible mentions God commanding the complete destruction of particular tribes" I would have no quarrel with you. But you went too far... You said "God frequently commanded the Israelites to MURDER and RAPE"<<

In your very next post, Boaz, you proceed to perform exactly the same trick - select one verse from the Qu'ran, and extrapolate it to generalize that all Muslims are instructed to kill all non-believers.

Does this not strike you, just occasionally, as an example of, at the very least, the pot calling the kettle black? My own interpretation of this involves, as you well know, that "h" word. Hypocrisy. Unpleasant.

What annoys me in parallel with this bad habit of yours, by the way, is the arrogant and condescending manner in which you deliver your sermon of sanctimony.

Have a great day.

Hello all, and I thought that Rubby was making an interesting admission when she writes, "religion isn't the only reason for violence..." or words to that effect (if you'd like to clarify or correct, go ahead).
As others here have said, the only way to be a good (and not anti-social) person as a Muslim is to ignore the Koran. The violence, mysoginy and anti-semitism quite takes my breath away, and I'm only up to chapter 4.
As I've said elsewhere, a project has come to me. What if a Koran was to be published with all the violence, mysoginy and anti-semitism removed? It could be called The Humane Koran (although it might get known as the holey Koran). Just to make the point, all the bits left out could be published as an appendix, along with explanations as to why it was left out. (And if you want to talk about 'taking things out of context, there is almost no context in the Koran - it is a collection of recollections, which have been put together almost at random. Patricia Crone calls it 'rubble' , by which she means it has been broken down.)This might help uninformed westerners learn quickly what Islam is about.
You will struggle to find any calls to violence in the New Testament, it isn't there. The violence in the Jewish scriptures is out of date, as it was to be directed against peoples which have been long extinct (and not due to the Jews - they were reprimanded for not doing the extermination job they were supposed to).
In the council pound of world religions, Islam remains the one whose rabbies has not responded to treatment. Let's give it a dose of exposure.

Pericles,

I posted a link above that gives a Christian response to fitna. This below is one of the responses from that same link:

http://publicchristianity.org/fitna.html

This article addresses the problematic issues of Fitna (all raised in the discussion above):

(1) disturbing content and approach
(2) violence of the film
(3) ‘cherry-picking’ of the Qur’anic verses
(4) Politics of the film-maker
(5) Lack of context

As non-muslims, we are left in a quandary, and encouraged to ask if the Islamist reading of the Qur’an is authentic.

Does the Qur’an indeed promote violence in the name of Islam?

Conclusion: “The argument of Fitna must be established or dismissed by the Qur’an”.

The article then shows the issues of interpretation which are unique to the Qur’an, and takes the example of 47:4, to show interpretation as defined by Muslim clerics:

(1) Is this Qur’anic injunction situational in application?
(2) Has this verse been ‘abrogated’?
(3) Is it metaphorical or symbolic?
(4) Are the views in the movie representative of Muslim scholarship?

BD’s stated goal in his post above: “to find the actual background according to Islamic scholars, and then, to evaluate if the claim made by the Movie, fits the context and meaning provided by Muslim Scholars” is consistent with the approach advocated in the arctcle (for understanding surah 8 verse 60).
For muslims, the challenge is clear: “the Qur’an endorses violence in the name of Islam, even if it is only in self-defence”. How does that fit with citizenship in a democratic country?
The Bible has not been afforded the same courtesy here, and as there are no verses that have been ‘abrogated’, it should not be that difficult to at least engage with the arrival of Jesus Christ into the context of the old covenant (refer Camo's post).

Boaz and KatieO: Deuteronomy7: 1-2:
"When the Lord your God brings you to the land that you are going to occupy and forces out many nations before you-Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and powerful than you - and he delivers them over to you and you attack them, you must utterly annihilate them. Make no covenant with them nor show them compassion!"

Deuteronomy 21: 10-14:
"When you engage your enemies in warfare and the Lord your God allows you to prevail and you take prisoners, if you should see among them an attractive woman whom you wish to take as a wife, you may bring her back to your house. She must shave her head, trim her nails, discard the clothing she was wearing when captured, go to your house, and lament for her father and mother for a full month. After that you may have sexual relations with her and become her husband and she your wife. If it should turn out that you are not pleased with her, then you must let her go where she pleases. You cannot in any case sell her; you must not take advantage of her, since you have already humiliated her."

These are two examples of God not only condoning but ordering rape and murder in the Old Testament. I do not write this in order to “vilify” your faith. I am simply quoting the Bible. I am not suggesting that anyone actually takes these verses at face value today. In fact, my article suggests otherwise. Take it as you will but I don’t appreciate being accused of lying and vilification. Thanks for your comments.

John Greenfield: I have no idea what you are talking about. Anti-Semitism? Blaming Jews for 9/11? Are you sure you read my article? I fear you have me confused with someone else. If you have any questions or comments relating to any of the issues I raised then I am more than happy to hear them, but I am beginning to find your baseless accusations quite irksome and offensive

The reality is that the supporters of porn and abortion are the murderers and rapist of our day. The arrogance of those who question the right of God to be God is incredible. Yes He did order the destruction of people who offered kids up as sacrifices (in the name of culture) and gave His land to the Israelites. It would be hilarous if it was not sad that the created try and give the Creator a moral lecture and question His goodness and kindness. The fact that He allows such arrogant people to breathe is testimony of His long suffering and patience.

"Not all Muslims are inherently violent."
"Moderate" Muslims are mostly sitting on their deceitful and cowardly asses, doing little or nothing to actually STOP the lunatics in their midst from DELIBERATELY blowing up women and children in marketplaces, cutting off the heads of hostages with a dull knife while the hostages are still alive, stoning women to death on the mere SUSPICION of infidelity, passing the death sentence on 15 year-old girls in Iran, Pakistan, etc. who have been charged with "prostitution" after being raped, murdering Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia with machetes, executing apostates and "heretics", carrying out acts of terrorism against the very democratic systems of Europe which have given them legal residence and refuge, and becoming more enraged over pictures of naked men at Abu Ghraib than they are over the body parts of children who have been shredded by suicide bombers who knew exactly whom they were targeting. These ongoing atrocities are not accidents. They are not "collateral damage". They are PREMEDITATED. It is NOT the moderate Muslims who are setting the agenda for international Islamic expansion. When you hear Muslims talk about "peace and tolerance", just ask yourself how tolerant they will be when and if THEY become a majority in western democracies within a hundred years, given their birthrate and volume of immigration. Among Muslims, western "imperialism" is always defined in the most expansive terms, even if the alleged imperialism only involves trade. Essentially forgotten is the fact that most of what is now the "Muslim World" became Muslim mainly through naked military conquest and frequent genocidal pillaging campaigns that were excused, of course, by the rationale of religious "cleansing". Jihadist ideology is explicitly imperialist, yet, it is often portrayed by its apologists in the West as "resistance" to imperialism. Ludicrous!
When will Leftists and other apologists for Islam actually LISTEN to what Muslim fanatics are openly saying? Do they think the medieval lunatics are simply engaging in hyperbole? When will we finally wake up to the fact that Muslim immigration to western democratic nations is, indeed, a long-term suicidal security risk?

BOAZ,
I didn't accuse you of implying that the death of children was "Good" but it was you who brushed off the significance of the numbers as "spin" (ie creating a false bad impression).

Meanwhile here are just some of the things that were banned under the sanctions -

Agricultural pesticides
Baby food
Bandages
Blankets
Cannulas for intravenous drips and catheters for babies
Cobalt sources for X-ray machines
Dialysis equipment
Disposable surgical gloves
Drugs for angina and epilepsy
ECG monitors
Medical gauze, swabs and syringes
Nasogastric tubes
Soap, sanitary towels
Specific umbilical catheters
Stethoscopes
Suction catheters for blockages surgical instruments
Tooth brushes and toothpaste
X-ray equipment and X-ray film

- but one of the biggest problems was the banning of chlorine and other water purifying chemicals.

Although medicines per se were said to be exempt, many basic ones were banned because of their potential to be used in the manufacture of WMDs.

You figure out what impact this would have on a war ravaged society.

Hi Goodthief: “In tracking this back to the establishment of Israel, are you saying that, if it weren’t for that, Islam and the rest of the world would be at peace?”
I think that there would still be some tensions between the different sects of Islam, and Islam and the West but I don’t think there would be anywhere near the level of terrorist activity and hence not such a widespread fear and hatred of Muslims. This is not an indictment on the creation of Israel as that is altogether a separate issue. As I have said, Islam has its fair share of problems. The main one being that the absence of a Reformation and Enlightenment means that there is a wider prevalence of fundamentalism in Islam than there is in Judaism and Christianity. I think that anger at America for its unconditional support of Israel and for example, the arming of Saddam Hussein, is what gave rise to groups such as Al-Qaeda.

I think the terrorist masterminds exploit the religious devotion and helplessness of many Muslims who feel utterly defeated. Notice that it is not bin Laden or his fellow leaders who volunteer to strap on a bomb, they are quite happy to get others to do that. If they truly believed that a reward awaited them, you’d think they would be the first to do the deed.

I disagree that Fitna is a call to awareness. Propaganda such as that is not designed to spark dialogue but incite hatred and fear. Wilders has often stated that he thinks Islam is incapable of reforming "not now, not in a million years". These are not the words of someone interested in promoting dialogue. I do think something needs to be done about the prevalence of radical Muslim clerics and I wish I knew what the answer is. But I truly believe that films like Fitna make an already dangerous and fearful situation so much worse. In my honest opinion, I think the more the West demonises Islam, the more Islamic fundamentalism will increase.

I really appreciate your intelligent comments,
Ruby

The “West” does not have to demonise Islam. Any rational person who studies the Quran and Hadith will come across the constant incitement to violence and other insane rantings. Even if the Jews did not exist, Muslims would still hate Jews because the Quran and Hadith tells them to. Islam demonises itself.

With all the apologetics and “Islam means peace” rubbish that is spun, it is only inevitable that films like Fitnah are made. More films like Fitna would be made if it was’nt for the harassment and death threats issued by followers of Muhammed’s insane message.

My hat off to Mr Wilder’s for being brave enough to expose the violent message of Islam.

In reply to RubySoho's post of Sunday, 13 April 2008 1:13:54 PM

Actually I do think that the Malay Muslim (not Malaysian) hatred or dislike of Australia has a lot to do with Islam and it this twisted victim mentality which seems to permeate the Muslim world which was easily inflamed by the former Malaysian Prime Minister. Why else would the adherents of a so-called "religion of peace" find it so easy to hate or dislike another people and nation, especially when that country had been supportive of their own nation in the past? (In 1965 Australian troops served in Borneo as part of Commonwealth forces during the period of Konfrontasi between a belligerent Indonesia and Malaysia.)

I brought the Malay Muslim opinion into this discussion because Malaysia is seen as a "moderate" Muslim (dominated) nation. One can only imagine that the popular opinion regarding Western nations is far more hateful in less moderate Muslim-dominated nations.

You also mention in your very last post that, "I truly believe that films like Fitna make an already dangerous and fearful situation so much worse. In my honest opinion, I think the more the West demonises Islam, the more Islamic fundamentalism will increase".

Could it be that sympathy and support for Islamic fundamentalism arises independently of films like Fitna or the Danish "Mo" cartoons? Was it "revenge" for the Danish cartoons that led the Sudanese authorities to act so appallingly in 2007 during the case of British teacher Gillian Gibbons and the teddy bear that was to be called Mohammad? Or a desire to distract attention from the actions of the Sudanese government in allowing the murder and repression of non-Arabs in Darfur? Are people in the West somehow supposed to ignore actions like these - both Darfur and the teddy bear incident - when they are orchestrated by governments that call themselves Islamic?

And what too are we supposed to make of the peddling of the vile anti-Semitic fabrication known as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as an historical fact in much of the Arab world? Ignore that as well?

As an American who happens to be a lover and admirer of almost all things traditionally "Australian", I hope that most Australians will never be naive enough to believe in the utter nonsense that "Fundamentalist" Islam is a "religion of equality and tolerance." I have a degree in Mediterranean history, as well as a special interest in the legacy of the Ottoman Empire and the Muslim invasions of India. I have spoken to many Muslims in many countries, read the Quran in its entirety . . . more than once . . . something I know many Muslims have not done, and spent a significant portion of my 57 years studying the history of Islamic sects, from both Muslim and non-Muslim sources. From my own experiences, I can tell you that those who believe in, and interpret, the Quran in a literal fashion simply cannot be trusted . . . at least in a collective sense. Their leaders and clerics are liars and con artists. The Quran itself DICTATES a literal interpretation. And, by the Quran's own definition, any Muslim who does not believe in a literal interpretation of the Quran or its "divine" origin, "uncreated" by man, is not a "true" Muslim. They are "heretics".
As I write this, I have a translation of the Quran by the renowned Iraqi scholar, N.J. Dawood. In the very beginning . . . after, "In the name of God the Compassionate, etc.", we find, "This Book is not to be doubted." There is no equivocation, no room for analytical disputation. Hypersensitive Muslims will ALWAYS accuse the critics of the Quran of taking passages "out of context" . . . regardless of the academic qualifications of the particular critic.
Do not tolerate that which should not be tolerated by any civilized democratic people. Islam is NOT "just another" monotheistic faith, "like" Christianity or Judaism. It is starkly different. Do not make the mistake that Europe is making. Please! Do not allow the cancer of Muslim immigration to grow in your beautiful country. These people really do contain a "fifth column."

Dear Ruby.

HAD you said “God 'permitted' Israelite men to MARRY captive slave girls after a month of mourning” I would not have objected. (again.. because it is true)

BUT.. you didn't say that. You said the following:

You said God 'COMMANDED' Israelites to murder and RAPE. You said this command was 'frequently' given. (reality was not murder but execute)
The word..even in your quote, is MARRIAGE with all the associated privileges and responsibilities.

After a month of mourning, a person has the presence of mind to realize that her future is only in one direction. She has mourned, done her sums..and knows.. “apart from my master and this people, I have, and am nothing.”

She adjusts to this and it is more believable that she would willingly (begrudgingly) marry the man by this time.

Islamic traditions expect us to believe that Saffiya “willingly” married Mohammad and had sex with him 3 days after he slaughtered her husband.. this after he has already killed her father previously.

You should note this very carefully, in contrast to the Islamic practice by Soldiers who DID take advantage of female captives 'on the battle field'.

I would say 'rape' because these women have just been traumatized, families killed, by what stretch of imagination can we believe they would willingly give their bodies to the killers of their families immediately? I suggest that the level of trauma would be similar to a full force punch in the face by a man who then says “I want sex”! Of course..she will say “no way.. get lost you loser” err...'yeah'.
Sources:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muwatta/029.mmt.html#029.29.32.95
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/093.sbt.html#009.093.506
Surah 23:5-6
Surah 33:52
Mohammad approved full intercourse by his soldiers on the women of the Mustaliq tribe after the battle. He only dissapproved of coitus interuptus, not full intercourse, justifying it by saying
“No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it."

Ruby, thanks again. I wonder if we needn’t agree about the virtues or dangers of Islam itself (its scriptures, say) but just see if we can agree about what to do?

For example, we might agree that we should be alert to the dangers but nonetheless willing to engage in dialogue. Dialogue doesn’t have to be premised on total trust, does it? I suspect that several of us here on OLO who, shall we say, have reservations about Islam would still be prepared to be gracious and communicative with Muslim people we come across. Some of us might even agree with you by promoting dialogue.

However, we might not agree with your diagnosis/analysis of the situation. For example, it now seems to me that Islam is designed to function as a theocracy. Sharia is so comprehensive, there’s no other environment that can accommodate it. For “theocracy”, read “conquest”, whether by overt trauma or stealth. They might even “dialogue” their way to conquest, since there are always plenty of naïve liberals prepared to sit across the table from someone who looks exotic.

Still, even with this, dialogue is a good idea. Talking just has to be better than not talking. Non-Muslims must simply ensure that their brain is entirely engaged throughout the exercise.

Perhaps your next article would recommend dialogue regardless of one’s judgement about Islam? For consideration.

Excuse the “we” please, everyone, I’m really not pretending to be a spokesperson, but just surmising.

Pax,

Sonofeire,

With your background and knowledge why not write a piece for this journal.

I share your concerns BTW.

This is one the best and most open countries on earth,currently populated by warm and caring people.It is the only continental mass that has no land boundaries with anyone else, and a unitary system of government, and a single language --well sort of.

It should be haven for all sensible people,who just want to live their lives to the fullest, and not have their standards of living corrupted by people who have other agendas and /or just dont fit anyway.

But I am afraid our politicians and other elites are slowly screwing it up, with the lax immigration policies towards Islamists, together the manipulation of the refugee mechanisms by the arab/muslim controlled UNHCR.

That should stir things up.

It IS interesting, Ruby, that when it is put to you that the context of the Qu’ranic passages in the film is consistent with Muslim scholarship and interpretation, you continue to ignore the reality of Islam.

Now, you ignore the very helpful colour put forward by camo. Insisting on context for Fitna, yet persisting in not affording the same luxury for the Bible.

Below, I have enlisted the help of Dr. Thomas L. Constable’s “Notes on Deuteronomy” (summarized below), to show how to read the passages that you have used to demonstrate (falsley) Christian reliance on the OT to justify blood-letting:

Chapter 7 is a logical development of what Moses said in chapters 5 & 6 (the Commandments). God had called on His people to acknowledge that He is the only true God and to be completely loyal to Him. What follows is a warning to the Israelites not to forget what God has done for them.

7:1-10

Moses mentioned seven nations that resided in Canaan (v.1), but as many as 10 appear in other passages (Gen 15:19-22; Exod. 34:11; Num. 13:28-29; Judg. 3:5). Perhaps Moses named seven here for rhetorical purposes, seven being a number that indicates completion or fullness. One reason for the total extermination of these idolaters was their evil effect their corrupt worship would have on the Israelites and their relationship with Yahweh (v.4). They deserved to die for their sins (9:4-5) and for their persistent hatred of God (v.10; cf. Gen. 9:25-26; 10:15-18; Exod. 23:23).

Note the *divine intervention* required to achieve the victory of the Israelites over their enemies, they were out-numbered, out-sized and lacked confidence.

Jews and Christians are not commanded to annihilate our enemies. Such devastating destruction is in God’s hands, a judgement that Christian and Jews also fall under if they do no remain faithful to the commandments.

In particular,

“You shall have no other gods before me” (Deut 5: 7)

“You shall not make for yourself an idol…You shall not bow
down to them or worship them;” (Deut 5: 8-9)

...to be continued

Rache,

I just can’t let you get away with the absolute rubbish, in fact straight out lies, you have posted about the sanctions regime. Just about every single thing you said is flat out wrong.

For starters, the figure you claim for excess deaths is hotly disputed.

"Sanctions and Childhood Mortality in Iraq," a May 2000 article by Mohamed Ali and Iqbal Shah in The Lancet, conducted a comparative analysis of the more than two dozen major studies that have analyzed malnutrition and mortality figures in Iraq during the previous decade. It estimated the most likely number of excess deaths among children under five years of age from 1990 through March 1998 to be 227,000.

UN Resolution 712 (1991) confirmed that Iraq could sell up to $1.6 billion US in oil to fund an Oil For Food program. By 1996 this figure was $10.4 billion per year, by 1999 it removed the ceiling altogether. The Government of Iraq procured food and basic medical supplies in bulk and was responsible for their distribution in the 15 central and southern governorates, and to UN warehouses in the northern cities of Kirkuk and Mosul.

A study of childhood mortality in Iraq concluded that in southern and central Iraq, infant mortality rate between 1994 and 1999 had risen to 108 per 1,000 . Child mortality rate also drastically inclined from 56 to 131 per 1,000. But in the autonomous northern region during the same period, infant mortality declined from 64 to 59 per 1000 and under-5 mortality fell from 80 to 72 per 1000.

The differential between child mortality rates in northern Iraq, where the UN managed the relief program, and in the south-center, where Saddam Hussein was in charge, says a great deal about relative responsibility for the crisis.

Medicines can’t be made into WMD’s and they were not banned. However precursor chemicals which may be used to manufacture medicines but could also manufacture WMD’s were banned. The medicines themselves were never banned.

I’d suggest that you show us where you got your ridiculous information.

referenced in this post.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions

... continued

Deuteronomy 15:12-18

Slaves had rights in Israel. God did not condemn slavery as an institution. However slavery in Israel amounted to voluntary servitude. All slaves went free at the beginning of each sabbatical year. God strongly forbade the enslavement and oppression of individuals. Israelites could sell themselves as slaves as well as hired men and women.

This stands in contrast to the lack of dignity accorded to the common man in contemporary cultures of the Mosaic age.

(See Exodus 23:10-11 and Leviticus 25:1-7).

The cities far from the Promised Land, in contrast with Canaanite cities (vv. 10-15), were not as degenerate as the Canaanite towns. Aramean women adopted the religions of their husbands. Thus the women and children of these more remote lands did not have to die.

21:10-14

Israelite men could marry women from distant conquered cities taken as prisoners of war provided they did not already have a wife. Such a woman had to shave her head and trim her nails. These were rituals of purification customary in the ancient Near East. She received one month to mourn her parents (v.13). This may presuppose that they had died in the battle or, more likely, that she was cut off from all ties to her former life.

“Such kindly consideration is in marked contrast with the cruel treatment meted out to women captured in war among the neighboring nations…”

“This legislation could have two basic results: the men would be restrained from rape, and the women would have time to become adjusted to their new condition.”

Edwin Yamauchi “Culural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World”:

“One of the most important and difficult tasks in the interpretation of the Scriptures in general and of the passages that deal with women and marriage in particular, is the need to discern which elements are cultural, temporary, and variable, and which ones are transcultural, timeless, and universal.”

The NT dramatically elucidates the relevance and interpretation of these passages for Christians, although it requires disciplined exegesis for the non-believer.

Well said Paul L.. you show the value of this forum, where people can independantly check the RUBBISH that is trotted out so often by 'leftys' who seem to believe the slimmest shred of anything which can be used against those they consider 'enemies'.... Rache.. I think you might like to re-think what you gave us there.

KATIE O.... you warrior you :) (PTLx100) way2go mate.. as for me, I don't even try to put the situation with the slaves in any better light than that which is pretty clear from scripture. It is so much BETTER than the non Israelite and Islamic approaches it beggars belief. The idea of taking in a captive person... from the rubble of war and brutality.. and our trying to comprehend the psychological/post traumatic experience/feelings of such women is rather unrealistic.

RUBY.. I (and I suggest every Christian in Australia) am/are still waiting for a very clear apology about the 'frequent rape command' vilification. "Murder" was also too much. 'execute' would be admissable. Unless you are happy for us to use the same terminology LOUD AND CLEAR about Mohammad? but of course... truth is still truth, so in his case, when he had kaab Bin Al Ashraf 'murdered'... it was actually "murder" the Islamic source uses that word.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4436
On this matter, it might be said that there is the 'easy' way and the hard way. Its better to do something willingly than be forced...right?

Now that you have been shown the incorrectness of what you said, you can no longer claim you are acting 'in good faith and reasonable' by refusing to apologise.

Patronizing git.

Boaz i have nothing to apologise for. I have backed up my comments with passages from the Bible. As I have already stated, I refuse to get into a slanging match with you and I will not play this 'my religion is better than your religion' nonsense.

I stand by my original statements.

Ruby, I’m not sure that “My religion is better than your religion” is necessarily as childish as you make it sound. In fact, I think your critics’ complaint here is that you haven’t accurately represented the religions that subscribe to the Old Testament. Still, you’ve reached an impasse.

My own knowledge is far less detailed than that of the people you’ve been corresponding with – but I would say that there is a difference between incorporating a female captive into the community via marriage, and rape. More important, there is a difference between the view that God will avenge or punish (whatever) and the view that religious people should avenge or punish etc on God’s behalf.

No doubt it sounds odd for God to say, “Thou shalt not kill, so leave it to me”, but it’s still safer than a general licence (or, worse, a mandate) for believers to kill non-believers. Anyhow, I think that most times God threatens violence in the Old Testament, He actually relents – as though violence goes against His grain. I’d appreciate a similar reluctance on the part of many Muslims: their eagerness to kill is very disconcerting.

What do you think of my earlier suggestion that we (all of us) try to figure out WHAT TO DO, even if we cannot agree about the pathology of the situation that confronts us? By the way, are you yourself a Muslim? Excuse me for not knowing. In case it isn’t evident, I’m a Christian.

You mention dialogue, but what does this dialogue look like? Who will be involved - just the people who don't need to be? No point talking to hard-liners, and they wouldn't show up. Personally, I think it's the big middle-group that needs to be reached, but how does one get them involved in "dialogue"?

Pax,

Dear Ruby

You have come onto this forum with a goal of defending Islam, and attacking a film which is critical of it, and then, in the process, you actually attacked the Bible, which is quite fine with me, except where you say it says things it does not.

Not only did you say something it did not say, you chose something which contributes to the view that Christians believe in a God who 'promotes rape'...even 'COMMANDS' it.... now that, I'm afraid is:

a) Untrue
b) Vilification
c) Holds those who believe the Bible up to public ridicule and contempt.
d) Is VERY likely to incite hate toward Christians because of what they allegedly believe. (That God commands His people to rape)

After all.. "who in their right mind would believe in a god who commands his people to RAPE enemies" is the actual implication of what you said.

Now..you might be of the view that you have nothing to apologise for, but it was pointed out clearly to you that the bible does NOT 'command' Israelites to "rape".

If we notice that other non Christian contributors manifest a higher than usual level of contempt and hatred over this, then it becomes a serious matter.
Ginx seems to be at the head of the pack so far.

You concluded in your article as follows:

<<Fitna is a call to arms for those who hate Muslims, but unlike a real documentary, it does not analyse its subject, it does not defend its premise with more than the most superficial evidence>>

but are guilty of that very thing yourself in your attack on God, Christians and the Bible.

Last chance......to apologise.

C'mon boaz, if this stuff isn't permissible to state about religions:

"a) Untrue
b) Vilification
c) Holds those who believe the Bible up to public ridicule and contempt.
d) Is VERY likely to incite hate toward Christians because of what they allegedly believe. (That God commands His people to rape)"

Then I rate this post of yours as the number one example of hypocrisy I've seen on OLO.

And there have been many, many examples.

As for ugliness, did you go through here yet?:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

There you go. More cruelty than you can poke a stick at, this time, with a Christian instead of Islamic bent.

Look, boaz, end game here is quite simple - nobody is denying there are violent strains of Islam out there. Nobody is denying there aren't heinous Islamic regimes out there. Hell, I don't think anybody is denying that at this point in history, it's Islamic movements which are more likely to incite violence.

But your constant claims that Christianity is lily white, and Islam is 'evil' as you've often said, appear childish after a cursory glance at history.

You've admitted yourself, that the vast majority of muslims are harmless.

I can link to your comments, if necessary.

And if, as you acknowledge, most muslims aren't evil, then why can't you understand, it's none of your damn business what they believe?

You can't call it 'evil,' that's their right to believe that. You're not the 'belief police.'

There's ugliness in both religions boaz, and damned if I'll sit by and watch you launch hateful smear, after hateful smear on Islam, calling it 'evil' while refusing to see the slightest bit of ugliness in your own book, when it's self evident.

There's no such thing as a definitive religion. Only interpretations - witness the many strains of Christianity. Despite the evidence in the link above, I'd not tar Christians as evil, to do that would be to commit your sin.

Of course they're not. Of course the religion itself can't be evil. But if you can call Islam evil, then deal with it when it backfires.

Just looking back at RubySoho's post of Monday, 14 April 2008 4:55:37 PM and in particular this section: "I do think something needs to be done about the prevalence of radical Muslim clerics and I wish I knew what the answer is. But I truly believe that films like Fitna make an already dangerous and fearful situation so much worse. In my honest opinion, I think the more the West demonises Islam, the more Islamic fundamentalism will increase".

The problem is Ruby that the so-called "radical" Muslim clerics (in truth they are reactionaries) are a dominant element in contemporary Islam, or are the ones who are seen by Islamic communities and their media and the West in general as opinion-leaders. Take Sheikh Yousuf al-Qaradawi as an example. The Egyptian preacher - now based in Qatar - has in the past been defended by current London Lord Mayor Ken Livingstone as a "moderate". Yet he is on record as a man who endorses and provides a theological justification for the following:
• suicide bombings of innocent civilians,
• the execution of homosexuals under Islamic rule,
• domestic violence against women under certain circumstances, and
• the promotion of female genital mutilation.

In February 2008 Qaradawi was refused permission to enter Britain, because of Home Office fears that his views "could foster inter-community violence". Yet this action was condemned by The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) - the United Kingdom's largest Muslim umbrella group with over 500 affiliates - which noted that Qaradawi enjoyed "unparalleled respect and influence throughout the Muslim world" and that to refuse him entry would (apparently) send the wrong message about the country's traditional right to free speech.

I wonder if the MCB - to paraphrase you - might also believe that not allowing Livingstone's "moderate" Muslim leader into Britain is somehow demonising Islam?

Boazy: << If we notice that other non Christian contributors manifest a higher than usual level of contempt and hatred over this, then it becomes a serious matter. >>

No hatred, Boazy - and just the usual level of contempt for the Islamophobic drivel that constitutes this excuse for a discussion. Your particular preciousness in this thread is a bit extreme though, to the point of hysteria.

I think I'd rather watch this feeding frenzy from the shore, thanks.

B_D, TRTL, Ruby, CJ (if you enter the water), Ginx, Katie, Paul, Savage Pencil, bigmal, sonofeire et al:- What do you think should be done?

I ask because I don’t know.

Whether or not Islam is “true”, it is clearly dangerous – right now, and in a large number of countries. It’s not going to be banned, so how is it to be made benign? How rendered harmless, without damaging its innocent adherents? Ruby, there doesn’t seem to be an Islamic Reformation on the horizon; in fact, it seems to be getting worse.

What can be done outside of Islam, to reduce the provocations that just bring out Islam’s worst?

What must be done to protect non-Muslims (and, for that matter, those Muslims who are not dangerous)?

If these questions are loaded or skewed, I’m sorry and I’m happy to read additional or better questions. I’m just looking for peace here, nothing more. But, we need to try to be practically constructive, instead of just trading blows and debating the pathology of the situation.

Pax,

Goodthief you think that the passage I quoted from the Bible refers to simply “incorporating a female captive into the community”? Gee what a nice way of saying “forcing a woman who has just seen her entire family annihilated to marry you and then having sex with her whether she wants to or not”. Then there’s the story of Sodom and Gomorah where Lot is visited by two of God’s angels. This is what happens when the sexual deviants of Sodom hear about the presence of the angels,
Genesis 19: 4-8:

5They called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

6And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

7And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

8Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Hmmm. Okay, so Lot, who God loves so much he has entrusted in him the care of two angels no less, offers up his virginal daughters to be RAPED. Would Lot do this if he thought God would disapprove?

I find the Bible no more and no less misogynistic and barbaric than the Koran. I have already stated that I am an atheist. It amazes me that so many of you think you have the right to criticise Islam and the Koran willy-nilly but if someone dares mention some questionable passages of the Bible- and yes there are many- then you threaten legal action. Honestly, grow up. If you can dish it you should be prepared to take it.

I’m sorry if this sounds harsh, but Boaz your determination to dwell on what I consider the least important points in my article is very frustrating. Goodtheif, I do appreciate your comments and still intend to address them

Oh wow- a fantastic introduction to the debate, of course, meant to stifle it, the magic word "Islamophobia". Next thing everyone who is keen to discuss Islamic negatives will be labelled "racist". Despite the fact Islam isn't a race- but that hasn't stopped those who are uncomfortable having the Religion of Peace examined.

Key words for the apologist left: inject the two key words above, and turn purple with rage and foam at the mouth when "Islamofascism" pops up.

Let's have some CONTEXT, please!
In the story of Lot, he understood the status of his guests. In the culture in which he lived, he felt a sacred moral and spiritual obligation to protect them against the demands of a wicked mob . . . even above the safety of himself or members of his family. He was trying to appease the crowd, if necessary . . . even by sacrificing the chastity of his daughters . . . in order to fulfill his primary obligation to protect the honor and sanctified beings who were his guests. But of course, it was his guests who protected him.
There is nothing in the scripture to indicate that the God of Abraham TOLD Lot to let his daughters be raped. It was Lot's decision to suggest to the mob that his daughters be taken as a substitute.
I am so sick of hearing the constant whining of Muslims and the apologists for their 7th century Charlatan-created faith. Despite their arrogance, exaggeration and lame boastfulness about a quixotic Islamic "Golden Age" that existed more than a thousand years ago . . . an empire which was started and maintained by naked imperialism and pillage . . . these people have had a collective inferiority complex ever since the beginning of the decline of the Ottoman Empire. They act like vicious petulant children whenever they get "offended". "Allah" does not need these "enfants terrible" to defend him. If they had possessed the vision of a James Madison or Benjamin Franklin hundreds of years ago when they still had some real power, they would have created a free and democratic culture strong enough to prevent European intervention and rule. They would have enjoyed the benefits of their own Industrial Revolution, instead of achieving it in bits and pieces only after Europeans began to introduce it to the Muslim world.
It is absurd for anyone in a democratic society to claim they have a "right" to NOT be offended by the mere expression of opinion in the public sphere. Three cheers for Blasphemy!

Boaz

Some on the left see no problem in lying or misrepresenting. Just like Islam the end (winning flawed arguements) justifies their devious goals. Often their goal is to justify their own lifestyle because they know one day they will face a righteous holy God. They reject His wonderful gift of salvation and put themselves in His place as a god. They then like to pretend that all religions are the same being blinded to their own pathetic dogmas.

Ruby,

As an atheist, you should be able to recognize that applying rigorous scholarship to the Qur’anic passages is not criticism. When the conclusions drawn by Muslim clerics and scholars about said passages are not flattering to Islam or support the “Religion of Peace” propaganda, this is still not criticism. The Qur’an has been given the benefit of the doubt, held up to scrutiny by it’s most qualified observers, and failed the test.

Sonofaire – thank you for summing up Lot. In a wider context, the story of Lot demonstrates God’s righteousness: his indignation over the ungodly, the patient burning of his anger, and ultimately, his judgement brought to bear.

Ruby – Lot’s daughters weren’t raped but lived only to seduce their father (Gen 19:33-38), and from this incest produced the Moabities (see 2 Kings 3:4-5) and the Ammonites (see 1 Samuel 11:1-15) – who became thorns in the side of Israel until the Israelites dealt with them, in each case for the greater glory of God (2 Kings 3:24 and 1 Samuel 11:11).

Misogynistic and barbaric is a rather strange charge to apply to the inhabitants of 2000 + BC. Cultural anthropologists might not quibble with you over this. However, if this is still the landscape in 2000 + AD, something has run amuck. Take a quick glance at the values and politics of the “Christian” countries and then compare that to the Muslim countries.

Other OLO posters have made the assumption that you are Muslim. If you have any integrity as an atheist, you should recognize that staunchly defending one ideology while attacking another, is not fence-sitting.

goodthief – my first and perhaps only call to action here is to pray. For living out my faith, I am guided by the Sermon on the Mount. Inspired by the fate of Lot’s wife, my prayer today will be for obedience and trust

This has come down to nothing more than "my Church/faith/religion is bigger/better/more valid;-than yours".

Pathetic!

PaulL and BOAZ,
Firstly, I never initiated any figure. The number of 600,000 stated was in the original article and my response was to BOAZ’s opinion that the number was “bias” because he swept it aside as if it was of no consequence.

I’m so relieved to find that the true number is “only 227,000”. What a relief! I guess that 227,001 must be your limit of concern.

As for the assertion that just about everything I said was straight out lies, I’m afraid I must concur with articles in such “leftist” publications as the British Medical Journal that describe deteriorating medical conditions due to “shortages in adequate drugs, anaesthetics, insulin, cancer drugs or basic surgical supplies” and “skyrocketing incidence of typhoid and other infection diseases” that led Iraq from having the healthiest population in the region in 1990 to being equivalent to Sudan and Yemen.

The argument that conditions in the North were somehow better (ie not as bad) doesn’t excuse the sanctions themselves.

It’s like taking a fence away from the top of a cliff and parking an ambulance at the bottom instead.

There are numerous undisputed references to the results of banning of chlorine and bombing water treatment and sewage plants as there also are about Saddam’s willingness to exploit the sanctions regime for his own personal gain.

Are you both implying that the sanctions had no discernible effect on the innocent population and were somehow a good thing? They were certainly good for Saddam and good for creating more enemies for the West but they didn’t help the supposed WMD situation much did they? Only politicians have anything positive to say about them now. Politicians and their apologists anyway.

(Continues..)

(Continues)

I also tend to agree with the attitude of Denis Halliday, who was the UN Humanitarian coordinator in Iraq from 1997 to 1998 but who resigned over those “genocidal” (his words) economic sanctions and was later awarded the Gandhi International Peace Award for his efforts in drawing attention to this matter.

Obviously his opinions don’t count for much in your view of the world so shoot this messenger too – what does he know anyway?

Much of my information comes from things called “books” and documented independent eyewitness accounts. You may be shocked to know that all the world’s knowledge isn’t contained in cyberspace generally or even Wikipedia in particular.

Hey, maybe I could start my own site and quote myself from it as required- would that make it more believeable?
Links come and links go but the truth tends to stick around much longer and resurfaces from time-to-time. You've made up your minds on this matter anyway.

I also enjoy it when you try to label people with some sort of “leftist” tag, as though that has any significance. What it really shows is that you have no real opinion of your own other than maintaining some sort of status quo. Just sweep aside anything that doesn’t fit and move on, no matter how significant it is.

If you want to use these forums as some sort of evangelical pulpit to justify your own prejudices by labelling millions of people as misguided child-molesting potential atheistic killers or by simply disputing everything that isn’t the official Red, White and Blue version of history that’s fine by me. Call be a soft lefty but you place yourselves in a special category too.

I suspect that if all those evil people suddenly laid down their AK47s and Korans in favour of Bibles and Big Macs, forgot the recent past, joined hands with us and sang Kumbaya it still wouldn’t be enough to satisfy you.

BIG LIE OF THE DAY - as reported in The Sydney Morning Herald article "Islam passes the democratic test … just" published April 16, 2008 (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/04/15/1208025189868.html). This is a direct quote from Samina Yasmeen, the Pakistan-born director of the University of Western Australia's Centre for Muslim States and Societies: "I would argue that Muslim majority states do show a lot of tolerance, not only of the Muslim community, but also of the non-Muslim community."

Um, exactly what would these Muslim majority states that show a lot of tolerance for their non-Muslim communities be? Surely she couldn't have any of the following in mind - Saudi Arabia? Iran? Pakistan, maybe?

Rache,

You posted a list of things, including drugs, which you insisted were banned, which absolutely were not. You now refer to shortages. Are you a liar or just too thick to get your fact right?

The information that I supplied came from the Lancet. Not a noted right wing journal.

I’ll say it again slowly for you. The northern regions were better off because the drugs and food and other things were handed out by the UN. Everyone got their fair share and there was enough to go around. Elsewhere Saddam was in charge and he ensured that aid was not distributed equitably.

So what we are saying, and it is borne out in the Lancet study, is that Saddam was responsible for the negative effects of the sanctions. There was enough foods medicines and materials to go around. Saddam just didn’t dispense it. He wanted the sanctions lifted and knew the best way to do so was to start starving people.

If Saddam had actually disarmed immediately and not interfered with the weapons inspectors then sanctions would have been lifted. But he never would co operate. What does that tell you.

>> “There are numerous undisputed references to the results of banning of chlorine”

There are also numerous undisputed claims that Saddam used chlorine to make chlorine gas, which he used to gas the Iranians. Not a nice way to die.

Halliday was castigated up and down the UN for his ridiculous use of the term ‘genocidal’ in referring to the sanctions regime. If he had applied it to Saddam it might have been warranted.

>> “Much of my information comes from things called “books” and documented independent eyewitness accounts. You may be shocked to know that all the world’s knowledge isn’t contained in cyberspace generally or even Wikipedia in particular.

The UN’s resolutions including the sanctions regime in Iraq are available online. Show me where soap and other such things were banned

Dear Ruby
Unimportant2u?=Vilification2me. None would wish to be identified with a God who 'commands' Rape.

-you are not 'getting' where I'm coming from. There is a very nasty chunk of legislation out there, which I abhor, and any person with a shred of care for this state (Vic) should also abhor because it is definitely 'abominable'... it is, (no surprise) the RRT2001 with amendments.

That law, is the one which allows each of us, to call to account those who represent our faith and religions with a view to inciting hatred, contempt, ridicule etc. While on the surface it might seem 'good' section 9 shows the utterly pernicious nature of it.
“Motive” is not relevant?
This law, was promoted primarily by 2 groups.

-Jewish_lobby
-Islamic_lobby

They saw this as a means of preventing 'anti_semitic/Islamophobic' public_speech, and it became manifest in what looked like a vexatious conspiracy between the ICV Vic and the EOC against 2 Christian pastors, who were put through a $500,000 pergatory.

I resolved long_ago, that this atrocious law must GO! (At_least_section9) which MUST be amended to read “Truth is always a defense, and motive is always to be taken fully into account along with all circumstances of the case”

My posts re Ruby should be seen in this light. The worst that can happen is she might be called for mediation, a one_on_one to discuss/resolve the matter. If she refused this, she could be in contempt, and that could be costly. (even_involving_ jail).. All this of course, presupposes that any complaint re_what she published, is taken up by the EOC.
I suspect, that the EOC is not the 'equal' opportunity commission, but the SELECTIVELY equal opportunity commission. Time_will_tell.

Goodthief. 'What_must_we_do'... Matthew 28:19-20_Luke 24:44-49 BUT. also. Acts 16:37!
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=16&version=31

Law_is_also_important.

Ruby, -Lot etc is a 'report' about events, not a command. That's key.
Lean the diff between 'command, report, permission, concession' it will surely help.

Hello all, and what to do depends on your appreciation of the problem.
One thing is for certain, however. Because no two religions can agree on very much, none of them can be trusted with political power, as oppression for out-groups and dissenters will inevitably result.
Most religions have passed through to the point where they do not have political power - although it was a bloody struggle to get them there.
The exception is Islam. Islam was a political system from the outset, so its transition to a non-political system will be the most difficult. Islam is well established in many countries as a political system. Islam is used by many 'liberation' groups, such as Hammas, so the west's left will have difficulty seeing past this to realise Islam's threat.
Wasn't it the Renaissance's great contribution to humanity that people were to live without the fear of their religion's hold over their lives? Has cultural relativism eliminated this truth? Why can people not see that all religions' rule by fear has to be eliminated?
All I knew about a few years ago about Islam was the name Mohammad, that their was a book called the Koran and a place called Mecca (and a lot of bad stories I tried to ignore).
So a few years ago I started reading about Islam, and I've never come across such a load of violent rubbish in my life.
What I think needs to be done is to expose Islam for what it is - expose what is in there. So the project is to take all the violence, anti-semitism and mysoginy out of the Koran, which would leave Muslims with a book they could be proud of. The stuff taken out should be published separately, so that people in the west won't take years to see what is in Islam.
I imagine that very few Muslims will appreciate this at first. But it might just take off. And it might just force Muslims to see what is in their holy book, and decide that taking it out might be a good idea.

BD: Absolutely. The Great Commission. And I’m loving Acts 16:37!! Hear, hear! I hope others can see that “warrior” needs to be understood in the context of the NT, lest we be accused of being Zionists in the pejorative sense.

Ruby, to help you unravel the above, and since you’re on the KJV, try Romans 8:

35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

36 As it is written:

“For your sake we are killed all day long;
We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter”.

37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.

38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come,

39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Ruby, you write as if your atheism puts you above all charges of bias, or confers unique powers of insightful and balanced analysis. In effect, it does nothing but blinker you to the truth and justify an obstinate aversion to the facts.

But there are commonalities. From a Muslim point of view, we are infidel. Our status all the worse for being women, born Muslim, and yet to ‘revert’. In a Muslim-majority country, under sharia law, it is death or punitive taxes and persecution for me. Take a look at some of the Open Doors literature:

http://www.opendoors.org.au/

For a growing audience, the content of Wilders' film has been accessible for some time and I suspect this is the reason for a fairly subdued reaction in Europe.

I have spent a good portion of 2007-08 working (unpaid) with Muslim women seeking asylum in Australia. One has a death-penalty awaiting her on return to her native country (for adultery), another faces death for apostasy. Cases like this are being heard in Australian Refugee Tribunal courts everyday.

My view of this was formed when mainstream Islam didn't react to "those cartoons" when major Egyptian newspapers published them. The riots occurred months later. It was obvious mainstream Islam didn't care, so what were the riots about?

I later realised I had seen that sort of behaviour in a different context. Right now we are seeing it with the Tibetan demonstrations. The riots were an exercise in politics, designed to give a politician oxygen. Here in Australia we saw the same thing when a politician vilified some potential visitors in order to win an election. He dehumanised them by claiming they threw their children overboard, and later treated them in a manner I had not seen in Australia before. As a political manoeuvre it was a wild success. In this context creating enough fervour over some has-been cartoons to get some of your supporters killed must rank as a home run. Fitna is an example of the same thing, but Wilders falling popularity means Fitna is a failure. He could learn something from his Islamic counterparts.

The extreme parts of Islam look to be functioning like we did a few hundred years ago, when Kings appointed themselves head of the church and the pope used the Spanish inquisition to throttle his opponents. In other words, when there was no separation of church and state. Todays political imams are still functioning like it was the old days, when people who criticised the political process were heretics who could be stoned to death, when power was accrued by clever orators making connections to the powerful or to the masses, as opposed to being elected and then staying in power only if you did good things. In other words without any of the checks and balances we have today in Western politics.

Given the non-reaction to the cartoons, I'd say mainstream Islam has moved on. Even in Iran modern politics is replacing the old ways. My prediction is the extreme imams will die off with the current generation, and so will any reason we have to blame Islam for politically driven atrocities.

Ruby, I must have missed the atheist statement, sorry.

katieo makes an important point about the lack of current relevance of your criticism of the Lot episode. The apparent savagery of the Old Testament is not preached as a guide to living. The Christian’s guide to living is in the other material katieo has referred to: the Sermon on the Mount and the assurance of Christ’s love for us. This is the predominant theme of the gospels – but I assume you know this? You don't regard Christianity as savage, do you? The gospels as a call to arms?

Then, there is rstuart's point about the separation of church and state. Isn't it clear that sharia is designed for a theocracy? Where else can it be accommodated?

There is another important difference between the Bible and the Qu’ran. Apart from literalists who regard the Bible as effectively etched in stone by God's own hand, adherents tend to ask “What is God saying to me now, in the Bible?”, not simply “What does the Bible say?”. It’s risky (ie can lead off in all sorts of directions), but so is literalism. Most, I think, accept some degree of risk and responsibility.

The way the Bible itself came into existence encourages this – several books, several authors, a variety of literary forms, different degrees of claimed divine input or inspiration, developed and consolidated over a long period (centuries).

By contrast, the Q’ran is claimed to have been delivered by one angel to one man over a relatively short period (20 years?). This is a very different pedigree – one which doesn’t readily permit any departure from a literal reading. I understand that there was a short period in Muslim history when interpretation was welcomed, but that the practice was overtly cut off. So, the savagery of the Qu'ran is of immediate relevance to the world.

Meanwhile, what do you suggest be done?

Pax,

sonofeire, That’s a very cool post.

katieo, I’m all for prayer, but we need to do something else as well. I shouldn’t say “something more”, should I? I’m looking for ideas about what action to take. Thank you for including Romans 8: the discussion needs some real beauty.

camo, Thanks for having a go at what to do. Exposure, certainly. Removing passages from the Qu’ran? Hardly. Ain’t our book. Expose to whom?

rstuart, You say “mainstream Islam has moved on”. I wish you were right, and I even hope you are. But, I think mainstream Islam is actually the problem. Whatever their beliefs, they should be condemning the extremists audibly – explaining why the extremists are not good Muslims, using the Qu’ran against the extremists. (Then, enter Boaz, who would say, perhaps rightly, that such an argument simply isn’t available because of the Qu'ran's content. Still, I’d like to see mainstream Islam try. I’m afraid they have a lot of growing up to do first, as we can see from sonofeire’s last post.)

Ruby, I'm afraid your task is now becoming more difficult. Good luck.

Pax,

Goodtheif, if I knew what needed to be done, then I would be working for the United Nations, not posting comments here. Look, I am not saying that Christians or Jews follow the Bible literally, in fact I said the opposite in my article. The point is that it is not the Koran or the Bible in themselves that are the problem, it is the way people manipulate them to suit their own agenda. They are just books. That is all. Just books.

This dialogue has deteriorated to a level that has absolutely nothing to do with my original article and as such I see no point in continuing here. Thanks again to everyone who read and commented.

Dear Ruby

you did indeed say that Christians don't follow the bible 'literally'....
but unfortunately, you made a claim which places all Christians in a very poor light.. and you have left unfixed a claim which is untrue and unsupported, and which now will linger in the minds of all who read it.

"GOD COMMANDED HIS PEOPLE TO (murder and) RAPE ENEMIES"

Your assertion is not only untrue, it is damaging to the public perception of all Christians.

Consider this. If I happen to go door knocking (which I don't) and say "Good evening, I'm BD from your local 'Denomination X' church, may I speak with you about the Gospel"?

The resident might respond with "Get the hell out of my face, I don't want to talk with people who believe in a God who commands his people to murder and RAPE" !

What's to say after that?

Your 'rape' assertion is beyond the text and is damaging to the safety and acceptance of Christians and the Gospel in society on the social level.

If you are an atheist... I have no idea why you would make a defense of Islam as you have done. Islam places YOU in the 'worst case' basket... you are (according to the Hook handed Sheikh Abu Hamza al Mazri)able to be either killed or taken and sold as a slave in the Market.

So... I want you to retract your claim about "and rape".
One thing you mentioned does deserve further comment though.

“forcing a woman who has just seen her entire family annihilated to marry you and then having sex with her whether she wants to or not”.

She has not "just" seen them killed. She has had a month of grieving.
I doubt she is 'forced' as it would mean immediate freedom from her slave status by law. I doubt an Israelite would jeapordize this simply for a forced quickie.

What you described is 'Islamic' practice in Mohammad's day supported by specific Quranic verses (23:5-6), not "Israelite practice in Moses day"

Passy

Sorry for the delay in response.

You infer I am a “troll”. It is you who is trying to divert this thread away from the subject in question.

I have never said “class is irrelevant”. Those are your words. What I meant in my post was that the situation today concerning the “working class” has changed immensely, and for the better, in the hundred and fifty or so years since Marx wrote “the Communist Manifesto”.

So much so, that "classes" themselves are hardly recognisable, compared to the situation in those days.

My belief is that genetics lie at the base of why society operates as it does.

Attempts to “engineer” society to eliminate the influence of genetics are doomed to failure for obvious reasons.

The concept of communism, a fine ideal to be sure, cannot survive outside the imaginings of its admittedly idealistic proponents.

Your comment that “Socialism has never been tried” is correct. Ask yourself why.

My answer: it never will be, as it conflicts with nature.

Read this:
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1985-01-24notinourgenes.shtml

All your other questions/propositions are simply your interpretation of events, based on your own particular world-view. Other people may interpret them differently.

In a way, I feel sorry for you, because your ideology will never succeed, and you are simply wasting your time.

As far as the actual subject of this thread is concerned, I think that the author is trying to defend the indefensible.

Read ”The Islamist” by Ed Hussein to understand why.

As regards the subject of Socialism and Communism, in their many and varied manifestations, I suggest you write an article for OLO so we can know exactly what your thoughts are, and what you are advocating for society.

Your hijacking of other threads to disseminate your ideas does you no credit.

The lengths to which you go, Boaz, to defend the indefensible, are sometime truly epic.

>>One thing you mentioned does deserve further comment though.
“forcing a woman who has just seen her entire family annihilated to marry you and then having sex with her whether she wants to or not”.
She has not "just" seen them killed. She has had a month of grieving.<<

Did you actually write that with a straight face?

So, in your book, you have no objection to "forcing a woman who only a month ago saw her entire family annihilated to marry you and then having sex with her whether she wants to or not"

No wonder you think it's OK to beat your daughter.

PaulL, call me thick and intellectually vacuous too but I think Rache is essentially correct in listing those items.

It’s true that the UN never published a specific list of banned items but everything Iraq imported was subject to dual-use provisions.
If anything could possibly be used for WMD or military purposes it was banned.
Some sites kept progressively updated lists of individual items that were subject to these provisions and that's where Raches seems to have got some of that information.

Iraq could buy vaccines and antibiotics but if you can’t have parts to repair refrigerated trucks to transport them or cold conditions to store them, they aren’t much use.
One of the medications banned were for anti-anthrax use so could be potentially used to protect Iraqi troops in case they used certain biological weapons. Bowever, hypodermics to inject the existing stocks were thus banned.
Likewise, insulin was OK but without the syringes to inject it. It’s not much use.

Parts to repair damaged water plants were OK but not the parts to repair the damaged power plants to run them and so on.
The chlorine mentioned was a primary ingredient for water purification so water borne diseases became rampant.

Interesting that UNICEF and the UN independently published mortality figures of up to 500,000 years ago and how that number seems to have gone down since.

Some of those unusable goods were warehoused until they could be used so Saddam was accused of stockpiling them and withholding them from his people.

Here are just some references to dual-use items and sanctions generally.
http://harpers.org/archive/2002/11/0079384
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0711d.asp
http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990322/gordon
http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2002/sc7623.html
http://www.acp-cpa.ca/Iraqsanctions.htm
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/File/pdf/Spring2001vfpnews.pdf
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0401c.asp
http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=115
http://www.geocities.com/iraqinfo/index.html?page=/iraqinfo/sanctions/sanctions.html
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/themes.html

Hi there Perilous

once again.. you miss the point. (why I'm shocked.. u've never done 'that' b4)

In another thread you claim I believe there were no religious overtones in the Crusades...I've never said that. I've always maintained that the Crusades DID have a religious element, which was sidelined eventually or.. blurred by lust for territory and power. I've also said simply compare the actions of the Crusades with the teaching of Christ and draw your conclusions about the "Biblical" nature of them or not.

Enuf on that.

The point I'm making with Ruby is that she made a claim which is:
a) False
b) Damaging.

I freely concede that many comments I make about "Islam" are damaging, but I contest that they are 'false' which is rather important.
But that's a different and long and separate debate.

You are making the same error Ruby did, you are equating the process of captivity, grieving and then marriage with:

"A COMMAND TO RAPE"

and no matter how repulsive you personally find the idea of captivity, grieving and marriage as described in the Old Testament...it is at WORST a 'concession' "you may" ..it is not a 'command'...there is a world of difference.

Look at the facts and describe them as colorfully as you like.. call it 'horrific, terrible, uncivilized' add as many adjectives as you wish...but do so on the basis of the FACTS...not on popular anti Biblical Anti Christian mouthing off.

I take that approach when I criticize Islam and I request the same approach when criticizing my own faith.

"That"...is the point.

Wobbles

From Harpers>> “Chlorine, for example—vital for water purification, and feared as a possible source of the chlorine gas used in chemical weapons—is aggressively monitored, AND DELIVERIES HAVE BEEN REGULAR. Every single canister is tracked from the time of contracting through arrival, installation, and disposal of the empty canister. “

Just for starters you should recall that Hussein used the sanctions system and preferential oil contracts to buy favours across the world. The French, Chinese and particularly the Russians received very valuable contracts for Iraqi oil. Many individuals given preferences on oil contracts made tens of millions of dollars without ever shipping a barrel.

From The Future of Freedom Foundation >> “Based on a survey of nearly 24,000 households, it concluded that for central and south Iraq the under-age–5 mortality rate averaged 56 out of 1,000 in the period from 1984 to 1989 and 131 out of 1,000 from 1994 to 1999 — an increase of more than 130 percent. Comparing mortality during the sanctions WITH AN EXTRAPOLATED TREND LINE, IT ESTIMATED 500,000 excess deaths of children under the age of five from 1991 to 1998. IT WAS CAREFUL NOT TO ATTRIBUTE ALL OF THEM TO SANCTIONS.”

If you have any articles that actually reference united nations documents banning soap, bandages, sanitary towels, toothpaste and toothbrushes, baby food, blankets etc please let me know as I don’t have time to read all of your unreferenced material.

I would also note that it always the case that early articles by reporters are almost always less reliable than those that come later. Reporters are always under deadline pressure and as such don’t always have all the information.

The Lancet study of 2000 found that childrens mortality under the UN’s care actually improved, whilst those under Saddam’s care worsened significantly. The obvious difference is that the UN didn’t have to buy the support of the Baathists and the other favoured members of the society, and was therefore was more likely to distribute the aid equitably. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673600022893

Goodthief, I'm not a marketing person, but I can see a few audiences for The Humane Koran (working title only).
Firstly, as many have said here, many Muslims appear not have read their Koran. Good, I say. These Muslims won't miss the bits they haven't already come across, and will have a better read.
Secondly, there are Muslims who want their religion not to be able to be used by militants who wish to use the violence found throughout the Koran for their own ends.
Thirdly, there are non-Muslims who want to find out if what they've heard about the Koran is true. These come from two ends of the spectrum - those who have been told that Islam means peace, and those who have heard bin laden and crew claim Koranic support for their actions. I'll show both that the Koran has both (although almost none of the first, and great floods of the latter).
Finally, the biggest audience for The Humane Koran are those in non-Muslim countries who, once seeing for themselves the reams of violence in the Koran, will demand that Muslims choose to remove the violence from their religion.
And it may just be that Muslims might react against those claiming Koranic support for violence against other Muslims, and demand a stop.
I don't expect it to be popular at first, but I hope it catches on. After the Koran, it's all the Hadith, and that's a much bigger project.

Once and for all, Boaz.

>>I take that approach when I criticize Islam and I request the same approach when criticizing my own faith.<<

It is not your faith that is the focus of criticism, Boaz, but the manner in which you use it.

It should make absolutely no difference to anyone what religion an individual follows. Everyone should have the right to indulge their need for a spiritual support structure without interference, so long as it does not involve breaking the law.

Unfortunately, there is a segment of the population to which it seems to have a fundamental and visceral objection to this approach, and that is the followers of a different religious subset.

Even this isn't a problem, until and unless the law is broken.

At that point religion is no excuse, and they become common criminals.

Ruby Soho

For somebody so excited by defending Muhammadism you are remarkably ignorant about it. First of all, they think The Koran is the actual word of Allah spoken 1400 years ago. Unlike Xianity, they do not see issues of translation, metaphors, etc. The Koran has not been subjected to the same extraordinary high levels of critical scholarship that The Bible has over the past two centuries. Why? Because scholars are scared to death of the fate The Koran demands for scholarship. Beheading!

Ruby, you are clearly a thoughtful and curious young woman, so let us hope you can free yourself of the cerebral porridge that afflicts you at present. You need to apply your critical skills to your OWN religion; Leftism

Marxism is far more evil than Xianity, Judaism, and Islam combined.

Marxism (and all its Leftist bastard offshoots) is the 4th Abrahamnic religion. Indeed The Holocaust began with The Communist Manifesto. Marx’s writing are full of democidal demands, not to mention a maniacal hatred of Jews. And Hitler admired Marx very much, though loathed - quite rightly - International Communists.

I have quite a theory about Marx’s Judeo-Xian hangups, which I see projected throughout his whole ideological project. His utopian eschatology, messianic zeal, intolerance of heresy, romanticisng of the proletariat, etc. etc. all add up to a young Herr Marx very much screwed up by his family ‘trying too hard’ to be Xian and not Jewish. These same hangups are bequeathed to his modern day cultists; Leftists

But that will have to wait for another day.

What happened to the post of Boaz_David of 19/4/2008, 9:39:31 AM?

Was it censored?

A new On Line Opinion comment was posted by BOAZ_David.
Article: 'Fitna' fits-up Islam
Forum link: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7216
Posted: 19/4/2008, 9:39:31 AM

Ruby, In case you’re still monitoring …. I know you might have felt besieged, but it’s a shame you’ve bailed. Never mind. Some important points were made, which I hope you’ll consider even if you don’t respond.

Granted, there are non-religious agendas afoot, managed by people who will manipulate anything that can be manipulated. The problem some of us have been trying to point to is that the Qu’ran is itself one of the reasons Muslims seem so easy to manipulate. That, and the coercive way in which Islam seems to be managed – I mean, just being “told” and the apparent absence of an opportunity to question. This is important.

Camo, I shouldn’t argue with you just because I don’t share your optimism. Better to wish you luck!

Next time.

Pax,

Philip Tang, "What happened to the post of Boaz_David of 19/4/2008, 9:39:31 AM?".

Good question. I have noticed this has happened to several times before (4 or 5). Each time with a different poster. I have reported it to OLO on each occasion I noticed. I didn't notice BOAZ_David post had gone missing as I don't pay any attention to them, but I did receive the same notification as you and now I see that it is indeed missing.

I doubt it was censored given the broad range of posters and their history. Graham Young's initial response was along the those lines - ie that it was "deleted", but other people from OLO have responded to my queries and it seems that was not the case. Maybe it was posted and then went missing, but if so no one has complained about it in a later posting. My best guess is that these notifications are sent out in error.

If so it is a bug in the software. If, like me, you find this annoying, complain to OLO via their feedback page. In the feedback put a whinge at the top explaining what happened, then copy & paste the email you received. Do this often enough and their programmer will fix it - assuming Graham passes them on. No programmer likes to see repeated reports of bugs in their code.

goodthief,

I have been reflecting on Ruby's movie review. She acknowledged it as piece of propaganda, then reviewed it as a documentary. Criticising it as a poor documentary is like criticising a car as being a poor implementation of truck. In the case of a piece of propaganda, complaining that it is biased and unbalanced it like complaining that water is wet, or a beach is too sandy. All the statements are true, and all utterly beside the point.

If she wanted to review the movie could of done better. It would of been interesting to see it compared to a Michael Moore piece, for example. But she didn't. In fact it looked to me like she was using the "review" as a vehicle for getting commenting on the Wests reaction to radical Islam. The comments on her piece seem to be a reaction to that, and as such doesn't seem out of place to me.

PaulL,
"I'll say it again slowly" but I already said that there was not a specific UN list of banned items. The contents of individual contracts were subject to “dual-use” provisions by the Iraq Sanctions Committee which was mainly controlled by the USA.

http://www.scn.org/ccpi/UNandUSreports.html

For a quick general background on dual use see

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/paper.htm

Sections 3.2, 5.3 and 5.6

As well as chlorine I can show you where baby milk powder, morphine and even lead pencils were banned under these conditions but it seems that you have already made up your mind.

I see you had a go at Denis Halliday’s resignation earlier why not include his successor, Hans von Sponeck, who also resigned from the same position for the same reasons
http://rwor.org/a/v23/1130-39/1132/sponeck_iraq.htm

Jutta Burghardt, head of the World Food Program in Iraq, followed a couple of days later.

You must know something they didn’t.

Wobbles
The fact remains that Saddam was a homicidal maniac, and if he hadn't represented such a threat to World peace and had acted in favour of the welfare of his people, it wouldn't have been necessary for the West to take any action against his regime.
To pin the blame for Saddam's actions on the West is typical leftist twisted thinking.
I distinctly remember at the time the mantra against taking Saddam out militarily. "Give the sanctions time to work" was the cry from the soft left.
Unfortunately the left is all heart and no brain.

rstuart, I agree with you. In my first post, I said the film should not be critiqued as though it were a movie or a documentary, but Ruby would have none of this. I don’t know enough about her to know if she would cynically use the review as a pretext, but on the other hand nothing surprises me any more.

Also, I think the West’s reaction to radical Islam is entirely understandable, and it is only natural (although maybe irrational) for the West to extrapolate to Islam generally, even before we hear what Boaz_David and PaulL have to say about the Muslim scriptures. Of course, once we hear this additional material, the prospects of change within Islam seem slim.

Do you still believe mainstream Islam has “moved on”? In the West, at least? I certainly hope you’re right, but I'm not convinced. I’d like very much to hear more from mainstream Muslims. I don't mean Waleed Ally, he's not mainstream, I'm not sure how many Muslims he speaks for. I’d like to see the extremists openly and obviously and constantly marginalised, but I haven’t seen it yet.

Pax,

Wobbles,

And how about I say it even more slowly. Don’t ... send ... me ...links ... to ... left ... wing ... polemics. Bert Sacks article was absolute, unadulterated propaganda. The Global policy forum is also an advocacy group. Indeed in the first article, statistics which were relied upon by the author were produced by extrapolating data. This is a highly suspect practice and can be manipulated in whatever manner you wish to produce the results you want.

How seriously would you take a report that was published by a right wing think tank like the National Civic Council?

“ >> As well as chlorine I can show you where baby milk powder, morphine and even lead pencils were banned under these conditions ”

That is what I want to see. Not an assessment by a soft lefty with an axe to grind. I understand the concept of dual use. Show me something authoritative if you have it. I am beginning to suspect you don’t.

What I know about the UN is that it is largely a waste of space as it is currently formulated. The UN is pervasively anti-American and anti-Israeli. The very fact that undemocratic nations get a vote in the supposed pinnacle of democracy makes the UN a farce.

The recent choice of an anti-Israeli American Jew, Richard Falk, to the post of UN advisor on the Middle East had nothing to do with his experience and everything to do.with his political orthodoxy. See, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23557033-21147,00.html

Hmm... seems all my posts to this thread are being censored....

now that would be a bit sad.

cheers.

B_D, Censored, are you serious? That would be worse than sad.

If the administrators are doing it, surely they would get in touch with you and explain. Surely?

I've encountered a glitch lately, where some of my posts only get up on a second attempt.

Hope you can sort it out.

Pax,

Hope it's a false alarm, Boaz.

>>Hmm... seems all my posts to this thread are being censored....

now that would be a bit sad.<<

More than sad.

Unless you are being abusive, which would be out of character.

Let us know what you find out, won't you.

goodtheif, 'Do you still believe mainstream Islam has “moved on”?'

Yes, I believe it is moving on. By "moving on" I mean withdrawing from the political arena. This is happening rapidly right now in Iran Indonesia. I think that Australia's ditching of our Mufti was also a great example of this.

What allows this "moving on" to happen is the development of a stable western style political system. Where there isn't one, such as in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan the old ways still prevail. But given the opportunity, Islam, just like Christianity, de-fangs itself and gets out of the political arena. The wars and mayhem then become the responsibility of the politicians.

An excellent example of this is the US, where we had prominent Christian leaders behaving just like a radical Imam. Pat Robertson's cheer leading the Iraq invasion and sub-sequent torture of prisoners comes to mind. Yet we don't blame the extreme Christians for actions of the US's political leaders. We know and understand that its the responsibility of the political leaders alone. Likewise we don't blame Islam for Turkey's recent attack on the Kurds, despite the fact the Turkey's ruling class is mostly Muslim.

Finally, this means you WON'T hear prominent Muslims condemn the actions of the radicals. This is not because they don't speak out. Its because they see the handling of this sort of terrorism as part of the political arena. And they when they speak, they don't get up and say "I am a Muslim, and I condemn this". They say "I am an proud Iranian, and these guys are criminals". Or, in the case of the US, they aren't speaking up as Christians, condemning other Christians. They stand up as US citizens, and condemn the actions of their politicians.

goodtheif, 'Do you still believe mainstream Islam has “moved on”?'

Yes, I believe it is moving on. By "moving on" I mean withdrawing from the political arena. This is happening rapidly right now in Iran Indonesia. I think that Australia's ditching of our Mufti was also a great example of this.

What allows this "moving on" to happen is the development of a stable western style political system. Where there isn't one, such as in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan the old ways still prevail. But given the opportunity, Islam, just like Christianity, de-fangs itself and gets out of the political arena. The wars and mayhem then become the responsibility of the politicians.

An excellent example of this is the US, where we had prominent Christian leaders behaving just like a radical Imam. Pat Robertson's cheer leading the Iraq invasion and subsequent torture of prisoners comes to mind. Yet we don't blame the extreme Christians for actions of the US's political leaders. We know and understand that its the responsibility of the political leaders alone. Likewise we don't blame Islam for Turkey's recent attack on the Kurds, despite the fact the Turkey's ruling class is mostly Muslim.

Finally, this means you WON'T hear prominent Muslims condemn the actions of the radicals. This is not because they don't speak out. Its because they see the handling of this sort of terrorism as part of the political arena. And they when they speak, they don't get up and say "I am a Muslim, and I condemn this". They say "I am an proud Iranian, and these guys are criminals". Or, in the case of the US, they aren't speaking up as Christians, condemning other Christians. They stand up as US citizens, and condemn the actions of their politicians.

OK Boaz, now you know that you haven't been censored, you can re-post with impunity.

Where were we?

Ah yes. You were going to explain how there is a difference between Fractelle's cherry-picking of Bible texts, and your cherry-picking from the Qur'an.

Then you were going to come back to me on how you have no objection to "forcing a woman who only a month ago saw her entire family annihilated to marry you and then having sex with her whether she wants to or not"

I await your response without bated breath.

Hi everyone, I thought I'd done a post to this thread, but it appears to have been swallowed. BD hasn't been censored, but something weird is happening. If you have lost posts and want to tell us about the experience, please go to http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1714. We're trying to work out what is happening, but we're mystified at the moment.

Pericles

That is choice: "how there is a difference between Fractelle's cherry-picking of Bible texts, and your cherry-picking from the Qur'an."

I can't wait for Boaz's explanation either.

Thanks for making me laugh - this thread has been a scant on humour.

;-D

FRACTELLE.. (and Perilous)

the difference with my cherry picking :) is that it will withstand cross examination.

Seriously.

Fractelle quoted some words of Jesus "I came to bring a sword".. and she implied that this could be used to justify 'violence' in the name of Christ.

CROSS EXAMINATION.

Fractelle..
Q) Did you read the whole thought expressed by the Lord Jesus?
A) No....
Q) Do you know "who's" sword Jesus was referring to?
A) ummm.... The christians? (questioning look)
Q) Fractelle.. when Jesus goes on to speak about those who hate the gospel, attacking those who believe in Christ, persecuting them, does this not suggest that the 'sword' Jesus referred to is in 'their' hands?
A) (slightly red faced)....err..I guess so.
Q) Fractelle..this is not a laughing matter.. please answer "yes".. or "no" (to quote the defense attourney at the current terrorism trial when cross examining the prosecution key witness :)
A) Well..I won't disagree with you' (to quote the said witness)
Q) (His honour speaking) Fractelle.. just answer the question!

and so it goes on.

In short, when I quote from the Quran, it is supportable by context, cross reference and history. The quote you gave us from the Bible.. was not.

PERICLES.. the post which has dissappeared contained this:

"In the great state of Victoria, it is ILLEGAL to falsely vilify the faith of another"

Tragically for us, the pernicious RRT also makes it illegal to CORRECTLY vilify a faith. i.e. "truth" is not a defense.....if the intent was to incite hate, seriously mock or hold up to public ridicule and scorn and contempt.

I also asked: "Does anyone 'now' believe that God commanded the Israelites to RAPE other tribes, based on Ruby's statement"?

I maintain, exposing doctrinally based child abuse is in the public interest.(Thus legal)

Thanks rstuart. Even if Australian Muslims took issue with extremists only on political grounds – law and order – I would still prefer that they do it more audibly. However, they still need to be marginalising the extremists (if you will excuse the tautology) within Muslim circles. Doing it constantly and obviously. If they are already doing it, then I need the media to expose this. I really don’t like decent Muslim people copping the flak for what the extremists do.

Fractelle, I was actually surprised when you took a literalist approach to Jesus’ sword. You might recall that, when questioned (either by Herod or Pilate) about being a King, He made it clear that He was not speaking about this world. His words about justice are very material and terrestrial, but His words about war are clearly spiritual.

If you wish to turn Jesus into a war monger, you will have to do a great deal of distorting. Here, “distorting” includes reading literally some text that is clearly not intended to be read literally.

(I realise some Christians have also done this, by the way, but that doesn't excuse you doing it.)

The Qu’ran seems to be different. I don’t especially want it to be different, it just seems to be in fact. One lump of text delivered to one man by one angel over a [relatively] short period of time. And it is still taught essentially by way of recital. The Islamic scriptures just don't invite interpretation. I'd like to think this may change, but it won't be easy or quick. Assuming it's possible at all.

Just because all these books seem silly to you doesn’t mean there are no differences. Some of these differences are significant, and B_D seems to me to be pointing this out quite methodically and conscientiously.

Pax,

Boaz, I believe my articled read thus:

"The Old Testament frequently instructs the Israelites to murder and rape other tribes".

And yes, I stand by that statement. It does. Whether you like it or not and no matter how much you twist and distort the words to make them mean something more acceptable to you, there is no getting past it. That's what it says. Plain as day.

Ruby

HYPOCRISY

Jesus had much to say on the subject, particularly those who preached but didn’t act on their proselytising. Boaz have you forgotten what Jesus had to say about the pharisees? For surely you are one.

“Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.’”
Jesus Christ, Mark 7:6

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. (Matt. 7:15)

Boaz your heart is far from Jesus and inwardly Boaz is ravening; particularly at women who dare to claim equal status to men and judgemental of any who disagree with his narrow and literal interpretation of the bible.

I made reference to Jesus “coming with a sword”, below are the lines in full context. Anyone can see that they may be used to justify violence against any who do not accept Jesus, including family. Therefore my use of this is entirely relevant.

"10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
I came not to send peace, but a sword. ... A man's foes shall be they of his own household.

10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it."
.
.
.
.

Any and all religions have been used to incite violence against others.

Like Ruby, I stand by everything I have said and my right to say it.

Pericles:

<<It should make absolutely no difference to anyone what religion an individual follows. Everyone should have the right to indulge their need for a spiritual support structure without interference, so long as it does not involve breaking the law.

Unfortunately, there is a segment of the population to which it seems to have a fundamental and visceral objection to this approach, and that is the followers of a different religious subset.

Even this isn't a problem, until and unless the law is broken.

At that point religion is no excuse, and they become common criminals.>>

This is beautifully spun non-partisanship, and even if I don’t agree with what you say, the conclusion is relevant here.

Taking Pericles’ argument ipso facto, Ruby, your obstinate obsession with OT literalism and denunciation of Christianity is criminal in the state of Victoria.

A truthful and honest engagement with your statement requires at least an admission that “there must be more to it than that” in the light of BD's post.

If you have any perspective left on this, take a look at the Hamas charter, Articles 20, 28 and 31. Your written statement has it’s home there.

http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html

John Greenfield:

<<Ruby, you are clearly a thoughtful and curious young woman, so let us hope you can free yourself of the cerebral porridge that afflicts you at present. You need to apply your critical skills to your OWN religion; Leftism>>

Thanks John for your post.

KatieO. Not once. Not once have I denounced Christianity. That is your own imagination. I am simply responding to Boaz's incessant demands that I apologise. I didn't write the Old Testament Katie. If you have a problem with it I suggest you take it up with Jehovah.

Fractelle, You say –

<Any and all religions have been used to incite violence against others.>

I think we all know this, and I don’t recall anyone suggesting otherwise. In fact, the principle is not limited to religions, is it? People will get violent over anything they feel passionate about.

This isn’t the problem: the problem is that, on the basis of an unreasonably literal reading of the passage you’ve quoted, you’ve decided that Jesus is just as great a war monger as Mohammed. This is an unreasonable point-of-view. Jesus’ life and Mohammed’s life were different – you know this, right? Jesus’ words, taken holistically, and the words of the Qu’ran, taken holistically, are different – you know this, too, don’t you?

You’ve been doing more than say both religions are used to incite violence. You’ve been accusing the Christians of hypocrisy because they criticise Islam. But, the Christians have not claimed that they have their house perfectly in order: we claim that Islam is dangerous.

Aren’t you concerned at just how easy it is to use the Qu’ran to incite violence? With the New Testament, you need to distort; but it seems that the Qu’ran just drives the message home, and does not invite interpretation.

You conclude -

<Like Ruby, I stand by everything I have said and my right to say it.>

Of course, but it’s not the point. You can say the world is flat, if you like, or any other silly thing, but you can’t reasonably expect people to swallow it.

Pax,

Froggie,
I agree totally that Saddam was a homicidal maniac, but he was the homicidal maniac that we sponsored, helped into power and supported morally and financially while it was in our own best interests – never really caring for the interests of innocent citizens in the region. I never blamed his actions on the West.

The Threat to World Peace claim seems a bit of an exaggeration, considering he wasn’t even a threat to his own neighbours. He had a “beware of the dog” sign out but had no dog to back it up and of course oil played absolutely no part in what has happened.

I only responded to this issue because the attitude of some is that we share no historical responsibility for the anti-Western attitudes of parts of the Middle East and that any subsequent antagonism from them must be entirely unprovoked.

What’s with this new “soft left” reference that keep popping up now? Is it the new buzzword for anybody who dares to be critical of the official propaganda line?

What's the correct term for somebody who wholeheartledly swallows the media-run view of the world and refuses to challenge anything without some sort of self-defined evidence.

I had toast for breakfast thing morning - in front of independent witnesses - but there are some who would assert otherwise, without some sort of authoratitive evidence to back up my claim.

Wobbles,

Were you being rhetorical with your question: "What's the correct term for somebody who wholeheartledly swallows the media-run view of the world and refuses to challenge anything without some sort of self-defined evidence."

Well you didn't place a question mark after it so I guess, it was rhetorical.

But, I don't care, the answer isn't "hard right" (whatever that means) the answer for someone, who never questions, or doubts or has no ability to look at an issue from all sides is:

Gullible.