CJ... I agree with you (partly)..AND the Wikipedia definition.

yes.. "genetic predisposition" is incorrect.. it is not islamophobic however, it is simply 'wrong'. 'Cultural' predisposition would be correct.(in varying degrees across the whole community)

Lets test the Wikipedia definition in regard to the Quran?

1/ "dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, to the fear and dislike of all Muslims,"

COMMENT. In the case of the secularist who does not know Christ as his Lord.. this might be true. For Christians it is a case of hate the sin, love the sinner, for Christs sake.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/quran_teaches.htm

umm..where is the 'Hate' CJ? Amazingly, and irrationaly, you claim that drawing attention to hate speech in the Quran is.. 'inciting hatred',- truly the mind doth boggle..and boggle more.

Here are the verses pointed out to me (in all sincerity by the way) by the "Men in white" at the MBS festival. I've never used them myself (prior to meeting them), but I might now.

88. They say: "((Allah)) Most Gracious has begotten a son!"
89. Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous!

look at John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son...."

WOW.....want more ? read on......

90. At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin,
91. That they should invoke a son for ((Allah)) Most Gracious.
92. For it is not consonant with the majesty of ((Allah)) Most Gracious that He should beget a son.

Check this also, 'The Ultimate Crime'
http://www.allaahuakbar.net/SHIRK/crime.htm

But of course.. little is said of "Christ-phobia" in the Quran or the more enthusiastic elements of the Muslim community...maybe it's time it was?

I notice Wiki does not use the term 'irrational' in regard to dread and fear....but I'll use it of you.

Boaz, for someone who denies that they have a "dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, [a] fear and dislike of all Muslims", you sure do put on a convincing display of exactly that.

You disguise it as pseudo-erudite discourse on the meaning and relevance of the various scriptures, but underneath it all is a fundamental, all-consuming fear and hatred of Islam, that is blindingly obvious to all but you.

It is fascinating that your latest hobby-horse is the sudden recognition that there are Islamic verses that say things like "we don't believe Jesus was the son of God", and that Muslims are told that to say otherwise is, in their eyes, blasphemy.

Blasphemy, incidentally, still commanded the death penalty in Christian Scotland until the eighteenth century.

You fail to see what to me are the overwhelming similarities of the two religions. Shirk talks about the crime of denying the existence of Allah, the Bible says the same thing about God.

"I am the LORD thy God... Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"

The difference here is in the subjective interpretation, of course. It is impossible for a religious person to hold the two beliefs simultaneously, so each finds the other's interpretation to be threatening.

To an atheist, of course, these are simply two versions of the same story, and as such of interest only in that it is their similarity that causes so much pain and anguish.

But I guess that is the nature of religion. If you're not on my team, you need to be eliminated before the world can be at peace.

The great paradox.

Thank you CJ, Wikipedia will suffice as the word probably isn't in the dictionary.

Sounds the opposite to an element of what constitutes an assault. If the person being assaulted feels threatened the action can be deemed assault.

So -- dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, to the fear and dislike of all Muslims," This is classic neo-think i.e. Political Correctness. How is this to be proven? No problem -- CJ and others now have permission to pretend as if any criticism about anti-social behaviour, or mass murder based in religious philosophy is promulgated by dread or hate. Presumably if one both dreads AND hates it doesn't qualify. Presumably the left of politics can denigrate Christianity at will because they do not hate or dread Christians. Artists can create obscene art depicting Jesus and not hate or dread Christianity. Leftists are masters at accusing others of wrong doing when they have done the same.

If someone dislikes only 30% of Muslims that they meet are they in the clear?

If I tell CJ I do not hate and do not dread, (in fact I spend less than 5 minutes in a month thinking about the religion) I will be called a liar.

'stating that it also refers to the practice of discriminating against Muslims by excluding them from the economic, social, and public life of the nation.' -- My auto mechanic is Muslim. Eight days ago I supported a Muslim lay person trying to deliver a religious lesson to some very disrespectful individuals.

Wow.

I want what Cowboy Joe's having - not.

continued (OLO time limit)

The point is CJ that name calling can be effective, as there is little defence in countering your verbal abuse. Such behaviour stifles debate and is counter productive to social advancement. Example, Bill Cosby has made statements about black American males that almost no one else could make and get away with it. In other words, hundreds millions of people would be labelled racist and shouted down from the rooftop of every electronic media outlet if they said exactly the same thing. We have had a similar example with the young Indigenous woman who has spoken out about the insidious nature of a welfare mentality and the officials who manipulate the situation for their own self interest.

How can any reasonable person conclude this is desirable? Is this what Australian democracy has become? The only religion you can criticise is the one (Christianity) that initiated democracy and the only religion you are not allowed to criticise is the one that has the stated aim of eradicating Christianity, Western democracy and destroying Israel?

Professor Anne Sophie Roald writes that steps were taken toward official acceptance of the term in January 2001 at the "Stockholm International Forum on Combating Intolerance

Is it possible that CJ exhibits intolerance by maligning & labelling individuals after reading one or two of their thoughts?

Cowboy Joe: << Is it possible that CJ exhibits intolerance by maligning & labelling individuals after reading one or two of their thoughts? >>

Quite possibly, but I'd counter by saying that it's often very easy to detect bigotry and ignorance in one or two posts by certain individuals here at OLO :)

( Besides which, it's very easy to access far more than "one or two" of anybody's thoughts at OLO: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=25681&show=history )

For example, the notion of working with the Muslim "culture" for 13 years is nonsensical. Islam is a religion that crosses many disparate cultures, nationalities and ethnicities. To suggest that anything about Islam is "genetically" inherited is not only Islamophobic, but also racist. Face it, Joe - you're a classic bigot when it comes to Islam.

I don't need to "malign and label" you, Cowboy Joe - you do a very good job of it yourself.