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,