Odd argument, Themistocles.

>>Mustafa asserts that "despite there being no consensus on what it means to be Western or Muslim...many Muslims, including myself, have no qualms about being Muslim and Western". Indeed, Mustafa may not have any "intellectual qualms" about committing this intellectual "felony" for which PAUL. i. put the handcuffs on him. But if he was offered PORK what would he be, more Muslim or less Western or vice versa? And whatever the choice he would knock off his own proposition.<<

Where would that leave vegetarian "Westerners"? Those of my acquaintance would shudder at the idea of being told to eat meat of any description, but that would not change one iota their religious leanings.

I think the most staggering hypocrisy of all this is the contemplation of generations of Christian missionaries who, over many decades, changed the social habits of countless hapless "heathens", without so much as a by-your-leave. Now, of course, it is all about "assimilation" - where was "assimilation" when the objective of Christianity was to enslave its opponents?

"We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property... and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery" Pope Nicholas V, Dum Diversas 1472

The language here is clearly that of a fanatical religious leader, obsessed with wiping out any opposition to his own interpretation of "divine will".

In what dimension, I would be interested to hear from our resident apologists, does this differ from what we are hearing today?

I know that two wrongs do not make a right. But it is easy to see how the present protestations of Christians ring somewhat hollow in the context of religious fanaticism down the ages.

Religions were created to discipline people by different prophets at
different periods and at different regions.History tells us that religions have been the cause for repeated wars and calamities.Religions have miserably failed to enlighten people and usher in peace.Today religions are practiced in a ritualistic fashion and religious tenets are not followed at all by the majority. Let us not worry about religions any more. Let us think of humans and their welfare.Mankind does not need so many religions in the present scenario. Let us analyse the ways and means of unifying people.Let us not distinguish ourselves from one another by the peculiar way of dressing or lifestyles.It leads only to immeditae alienation.
Let us practice HUMANISM to reduce the evil influence of religious fundamentalism and save the world from further calamities.Let us identify ourselves as human beings and not as muslims,christians, hindus, sikhs etc

Pericles, I don't see Pipes, or Spencer for that matter as rabble-rousers, and I certainly don't see any similarities between the positions of Jews pre-WWII and Muslims now. Jews weren't saying anything like this Jordanian cleric, for a start:

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1761.htm

Jews were near the top of learned society at the time (and still are), given their propensity for learning. Muslims are the exact opposite. The "youths" rioting and burning cars in Paris have no analogue in European Jewish history.

Whatever "bad press" Muslims have gained has been brought about by their own actions. It is not just Christians who feel threatened by the utterances and actions of Muslims.

Whatever "goals" Christianity has they are not being violently enforced, with the sole exception of a tiny minority attacking abortionists. The numbers are minute when compared to daily attacks on Hindus, Animists, Christians and Buddhists by Muslims, typified in the following:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Persecution/Default.aspx?id=111710

To summarise: Mosely's campaign was against an imagined enemy. Pipes' is against one of a group of possible future enemies (some might say a "clear and present danger") who are in large numbers in the west (again, a clear difference with the small numbers of Jews at any time).

HOORAY :) Pericles is getting close!

Steven first.

It should be noted by all, that to utter what Steven did here:

"a seventh century psychopath" (referring to Mohammad) is without a word of exaggeration, enough to get him torn apart and killed by an angry mob...such as ...this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1xhmJ4DDmY

It is with this in mind, that all of us who are opposed to the political and social advancement of Islam, whether we share the same outlook or not, work toward the same goal.

I have no objection to Steven's (Or Ginx's)sometimes colorful descriptions of me, because I desire the same freedom myself.
If however that which we oppose ever gained sufficient power, we can see where it would lead in living color.

Now..best 4 last.. Pericles.

He quotes a Pope.. well done. Then, he asks 'what is the difference between what we are quoting from the Quran and Hadith..and what the POPE said?
ANSWER.. 'very little'

SO...WHAT? here we must ask the ALL important question.

Stevens quote from the Quran shows clearly what must happen to those vilifiying Mohammad in the here and now.......from mohammad's own lips.

Now..I challenge ANYone to show anything even remotely like it from the lips of our Lord, (where it is intended to be literally carried out in this life)

Kaysar pulled the old 'part of a parable' trick in the other thread.
(Luke 19:11-27) he quoted only v27
The disciples thought the kingdom was coming IMMEDIATELY, Jesus told the parable to show it was NOT, but in the end it would..and judgement would be done. For this life, he did not command even a feather to be used in anger against anyone, even his own mockers and murderers.
Neville_P ..do you get it...'yet'?

Where are you, Mustafa? There is a great deal here for you to address. Unless your article was intended to be no more than a cat thrown among the pigeons, you should be engaging with some of the points being made.

For example, please demonstrate from a credible survey of Qur’anic verses that Islam is benign – interested in peace, compatible with a secular democracy such as Australia – and that the vast majority of Muslims in Australia see it this way.

bennie, I love your posts. No irony intended. I really wish you were right.

Ezhil, you recommend humanism. I tried that, in a couple of posts. Generally speaking, I could not get the atheists on board. They tend to be evolutionists, so they don’t see that there’s anything special about humans. So, unfortunately, it was back to the fray.

Pax,

Viking13 says:

"Whatever "goals" Christianity has they are not being violently enforced, with the sole exception of a tiny minority attacking abortionists. The numbers are minute when compared to daily attacks on Hindus, Animists, Christians and Buddhists by Muslims..."

OK then, let's look at recent US history to see how many have died at the hands of the Christians. One million dead in Iraq looks pretty horrific to me. Thousands dead in Afghanistan. Supporting Saddam Hussein to invade Iran with millions killed as a result. Placing a blockade on Iraq which killed 500,000 innocent Iraqis.

Invading Vietnam and unleashing a war which killed 2 million Vietnamese. Carpet bombing Laos and Cambodia killing tens of thousands. Supporting Pol Pot in his murderous attack on Cambodian society.

Invading Grenada. In effect invading Nicaragua through support for murderous right wing military proxies. Invading Somalia.

The list is much longer but this might give you some idea of the murderous nature of the US regime.

Gee, those Christians not only were a blood thirsty lot. They remain a bloodthirsty lot.

Actually to see it in terms of religion is really to miss the point. US imperialism is the real danger to the world.

Its coming conflict with Chinese imperialism makes the world a very dangerous place.

And Paul L my point about burning books and explaining Hansonism in class terms (a perfectly acceptable approach, one which you adopt without knowing it, by the way) was to say that a fascist potential exists in every class society in the Western world and that some Australians (who are presently mired in Islamophobia) are possible candidates for adopting fascist ideology and practice if the economic situation worsens markedly.