Dear Pericles... you said:

<<How do you reconcile these two positions?>>

Those positions of course being:

1/ Exposing Islam

2/ Not condemning Muslims.

I generally distinguish between the nominal cultural Muslim and the radical and assert that the Radical is the one following the letter of the Quran.

You, on the other hand, like to tell us that what Christians did during such adventures as the Crusades tells us about Christianity.

So, your criticism of me, stems from this consistent approach of not being able in your own mind to differentiate between the nominal and the radical of either faiths.

Now..just because you cannot see any difference between criticising a faith system, and criticizing "all" it's adherents, does not mean it is impossible to do.

I would welcome criticism of Christianity, and engage with such critics... I have nothing to be afraid of, embarrased about, or in dire need of rationalization. Such is not the case with Islam as a religion (using it's Quran and Hadith and early History (Sunnah)as the determinant.

In this article.. it is clear that what I've been saying about Islam, is reflected in the words of the Muslim author.. (you might need to re-read it) So..what more is there to say.. "I was right" :)

Much as you are loathe to admit this, the evidence speaks for itself.

You say you don't find anything threatening in the article?

<<In late 623, angry Muhammad started denouncing many of the Jewish customs he had adopted and ordered assassinations of those critics and poets who mocked his creed.>>

If you couple this with RMIT Islamic society's claim:

"Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have an excellent example to follow for whoever hopes in Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much."
Qur'an 33:21

Oh wait...that is the QURAN's claim about him.

Soooo....let me see if I've got this.

1/ MOhammad is a great example.
2/ He assasinated those who mocked him.

and you don't find any threat ? :) you better join Larry, Curley and Moe as the 4 stooges old son.

Shame on you Boaz, you are slicker than a .... really really slick thing (apologies to Baldrick).

>>I generally distinguish between the nominal cultural Muslim and the radical and assert that the Radical is the one following the letter of the Quran.<<

And you then go out of your way to point out that all Muslims must, by definition, be radical, because they are bound to follow the letter of the Qur'an.

>>I've been saying all along that Islam contains teaching and commands, (not suggestions) to impose it's rule on non Muslims. That is clear from the Quran which means it is not a temporary or occasional thing, but a world view.<<

You specifically describe them as "commands, not suggestions"

What is this supposed to mean, except that i) Islam says do this, ii) because it is in the Qur'an and iii) Muslims must obey, otherwise they are not Muslims.

You very frequently point out to anyone who will listen that the backsliders of your own religion cannot be called Christians, because they do not obey the rules that Jesus laid down. In fact, that is how you excuse kiddy-fiddling priests, is it not?

So if a) Christians are those who follow Jesus and the teachings of the Bible and b) Muslims are those who follow Mohammad and the teachings of the Qur'an, how can you avoid the obvious conclusion that your remarks are aimed at every practising Muslim?

>>You, on the other hand, like to tell us that what Christians did during such adventures as the Crusades tells us about Christianity.<<

It is true that I tend you use the Crusades as an example, specifically in order to mimic your logic.

If you insist on branding Muslims with the deeds of every Islamic terrorist, it is only fair to brand every Christian with the Jerusalem massacre of 1099.

Good for both goose and gander, Boaz.

If you were to be honest with yourself, you would admit that all of this ranting is just the venting of your hatred for a religion you dislike, because it is not your own.