Yes Viking...I'm a bit concerned about Examinators "In depth" study, which has not bought him/her to the conclusions which one would expect such study to do.

Examinator, could you please have a look at the following:

Surah 9

-Historical background and context
-Chronological position (when 'revealed') relative to the other surahs
-Focus on verses 29 and 30 and indicate by what criteria you would not consider

"fight those who do not believe in Allah and the last day" (V29)
and "May Allah destroy/curse them(Christians and Jews)" (because they believe in a Son of God)

.. to be extremely dangerous for non Muslims today?

May I suggest that you also do the following:

1/ Find a serious Muslim or a few even, don't say anything about your own position or beliefs, then ask them "does the Quran apply to today"? If the answer is 'yes' (as it was for me speaking to a Saudi, Omanite and Afghan a week back and a Libyan Student last friday)

2/ You might then ask if V29 and 30 are included in that "applicable for today"

3/ You could ask also "Have these veses been abrogated by any other?"

Then, you might like to try to find any 'command' even remotely resembling those sentiments in the words of Christ, Paul Peter or any other new Testament writer.

When you say:

"both contain passages that are, well violent, anti social and down right primitive by modern standards." aah.. perhaps, but you are not picking up on the utterly important differences.

COMMANDS/STATEMENTS/PERMISSIONS.

Quran 9:29 is a command.
Quran 9:30 is a 'desire/hope/wish/goal'
Quran 19:88 is an explosive statement, abusive and is utterly vilifying hate speech towards Christians.

Please show me anything remotely resembling those in the New Testament?

9:29 is a 'great commission to violent Jihad till the end of the age'
Jesus 'Great Commission' was simply "Go into all the world,(preaching) making disciples".

How was this practiced by the apostles and early church? Simple.. they proclaimed the Gospel of repentance and forgiveness.

There is no need to be fascinated or to add this teaching about the one true Church to your collection. This teaching is knowable and public knowledge got all loyal Catholics. You can find this teaching on many a Catholic website. Surely, an educated man like you Pericles has come across this publicly known teaching of the Catholic Church before?
You are the one who fascinates me. You said that "oddly" you haven't come across this teaching before !! Wow!! You really do need to read what the Catholic Church actually teaches before you play the alleged impartial expert mate.
Yes all those recognsied as Popes by the Catholic Church were Popes. You do need to check the Vatican website and see for yourself in order to answer your question. It is there.
Abuse doesn't invalidate what authority Chrsit gave int he first palce. Popes and dustmen alike all have to answer to God at the judgment if they die in unrepented serious sin. That is also Catholic teaching.
By you naming those who have sinned doesn't in any way exempt you from adhering to the Gospel as shown you by the Church.

For anyone here,the proof lies in the fact that the Catholic Church alone corresponds exactly to the exact religion established by Christ. Why go anywhere else for religion? Now the Christian religion is that religion which—
(a) Was founded by Christ personally;
(b) Has existed continuously since the time of Christ;
(c) Is Catholic or universal, in accordance with Christ's command to go to all the world and teach all nations;
(d) Demands that all her members admit the same doctrine;
(e) Exercises divine authority over her subjects, since Christ said that if a man would not hear the Church he would be as the heathen.
Now the Catholic Church alone can claim—
(a) To have been founded by Christ personally. All other Churches disappear as you go back through history. Christ said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." There are many claimants to the honor of being Christ's Church. But among all non-Catholic Churches, we find one built on a John Wesley; another on a Martin Luther; another on a Mrs. Eddy, etc. But the Catholic Church alone can claim to have been built on Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and one-time Bishop of Rome.
(b) To have existed in all the centuries since Christ.
(c) That every one of her members admits exactly the same essential doctrines.
(d) To be Catholic or universal.
(e) To speak with a voice of true authority in the name of God.

Back to the topic, this is not a religious or ethnic matter but rather a social harmony topic.

I don't think Muslims or any other minority in Australia are victims because there are enforcable anti discrimination laws. The issue of prejudice and fearing the 'other' will always be there and seriously its a shared responsibility between 2 groups:

a) Community leaders to promote harmony and dialogue.
b) minoities leaders to activey praticipate in the development of the community.

But then there is always the Boaz model: "My God is better than yours".

Peace,

The following is the text of an email I sent Camden Town Council.

Dear Sir,

You should take note of the following article about CAMDEN that was posted on the "Online Opinion" website:

'SWEET JESUS, NOT ANOTHER 'RAGGER'

See: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7522

Perhaps you should request the opportunity to reply.

Yours sincerely

viking13 asks me what race Islam is. You only have to read this thread to know many oppose a school in Camden because it will be have people who are "different". Exactly how is never explained but I'll hazard a guess. They aren't white. That's racism, viking13.

As to "unAustralian" I have more in common with a Muslim worker than I do with an "Australian" boss.

A study of One Nation showed its supporters came from the middle class (much as Hitler's did initially) and sections of the working class (the less well educated, the non-unionised, and those in regional areas,) again much as Hitler's did initially.

Seneca says: "A person wearing a headscarf is sending a signal indicating their difference and superiority to those not so attired."

My mother was a non-catholic and she was forced to wear a scarf to turn up at church with me. Practising Catholic women wore it as a sign (mistakenly in my view) of reverence. Surely we could say the same about Muslim women? We are never going to address women's oppression by forcing them to stop wearing what they want.

I was taught by nuns who wore outfits that looked like burkhas and were probably driven by the same incorrect rationalisations.

Hagana Bet says: "Yes of course, racism and bigotry is the catchcall when a Council does what it is supposed to do, make decisions based upon the wishes of the majority within a community."

Actually part of the democratic process is or should to exercise the so-called will of the majority (is opposing the school in Camden what they got elected on by the way?) in a way that respects the minority and operates within the law and accepts the minority too has the right to organise and become the majority.

But why do you call those who want to set up a school as a vocal minority? Why do you see it it in us and them (ie racist) terms?

Also Hagana Bet, Hitler was constitutionally elected. Does that make his policies appropriate? Of course not