An interesting perspective, Irfan, but I'm not sure it will get much traction with most Australians.

Hindu and Christian extremism are simply not considered a threat in Australia. Hindu violence is mostly confined to targets in India, and while there are extreme Christians in Australia, they are generally not violent.

The only type of religious violence that Australians would think of as targeting them in particular is that of Islamic extremism, so that's the one we automatically focus on (and fear).

And now I'll leave before the usual suspects start posting.

Cheers,

Rhys.

I wondered, no offence, who are these christians who are terrorists?
Who have you been listening to young Irfan?

Christians come in one category, or they are not christians.
That category is as followers of Jesus Christ.
We arent sword swingers as are many Islamics.

Jesus said to "enter heaven you must be born again"...John 3:3.
That means, we invite in, in prayer Jesus as our Lord and Saviour and receive what He did on the Cross with His Shed Blood... and then we receive The Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit keeps us on a narrow path indeed.
No violence is that path.

Is it not so that Islam has a global conquest plan that quietly works day and night to 'displace' all national governments and all beliefs to bring them all under the Allah/Mohammed/Koran banner?

I apologise again for any offence but many of us do know the plan and those who write in support that plan.
In 26years as a born again christian Ive never met a bomb thrower, or a machinegunner, or a subversive-to-democratic government man or woman, or a wife persecuter, or an honour killer...
Theres none of those in the committed christian camp.

i.e. the hard line jews waged an on going terror campaign against the transplanted poms before they were finally rid of them. Militarily, if U won't fight man to man and want to hide inside a uranium plated tank, then they will strike u where they can. Politically it says, do not vote for people who send planes with ionising weapons to lay waste to our villages, defile our environment and mutate our children for generations to come.

The terrorism inflicted by the anglo/n.americans on civilian populations is largely hidden by the political slime in the media.

And as the people are one eyed and rush to judgment when only provided half of the story, they continue to vote for war criminals of the red and blue variety who hide their evil deeds and only show the attrocities of the hard line Muslims, which is used in turn to further justify their ongoing illegal war of occupation.

And why do they want this? War is an expensive business is it not? Well, some commentators suggest geo political control and others this plus a significant share of the vast fossil fuel reserves.

So, the Ruskies and the Red Chinese arm the Iranians who in turn arm the fighters from Iraq to Afghanistan.

It makes for a very profitable business for the military industrial complex who make money hand over fist and along with their slimey fossil fuel mates, in turn donate to those of the red and blue political persuasion who will commit to the ongoing fighting.

anglo/n.americans elevated saddam, & armed him with BIO WMD's, not hard line Islamists.

And the n.americans trained Osama et al.

And, when even some of the generals came out and said in advance, "but we completely disarmed saddam post GW1," the media continued to beat the b.s. story drum to frighten morons into voting for blair, bush and howard.

No, in Australia, u don't have to scratch too deep to get some people shooting the Original Australians.

Those who support terrorism and terrorists reflect a set of characteristics which are incompatible with democratic values.

It does not matter the source and passion of the terrorist fervor nor the belief of the terrorist in the righteousness of his cause.

What does matter is a terrorist is prepared to put his personally held values above those who might dissent with his view.

Gibo “who are these christians who are terrorists?”

I can suggest IRA, who had links and finance from Libya’s President Gaddafi.

The US seems to suffer a lot of home grown “terrorists-in-all-but-action” with their fundamentalist sects and the extremist militias who like to play war games in the woods.

Representing the Jewish faith, one of the founding fathers of modern Israel, Menachin Begin was, at one time a listed terrorist.

Religion alone does not make a terrorist but a lot of terrorists with allegiance to a single religion, unfortunately cast the shadow of suspicion over the moderate followers of that faith. Then it becomes a responsibility for those moderates to standup, separate and isolate themselves from the terrorists who act in their religions name.

We must not shrink from applying the most extreme possible options and resolutions when dealing with those who support terrorism in any form.

In short when it comes down to the wire, in dealing with someone intent on murdering others, the effective option is to kill them first.

Gibo you are wrong, the Christian terrorists would include George Bush, Rice, Cheney and others , John Howard, Alexander Downer and others, Tony Blair and others, all of these either talk to their Christian god every day or go to church and pray to the same God, indirectly they have killed more people than any terrorist, the Christian religion is no better than any other, people tend to look one way only, there are two sides to every story, but you only read the story the press want you to read.

SORRY Irfy.. you are wrong.

1/ You can and do have Hindu's who are terrorrists.... in fact they are hunting down and persecuting Christians in Orissa province now. I'm not aware of any conflict between Hindu holy writ and acting like that against non Hindu's..but I'll appreciate anyone showing me such.

2/ You can have Muslim terrorists, and they have just caused an unspeakably evil massacre of innocent people in India/Mumbai.. in complete accordance with..but not remotely on the scale of, that done by their own so called prophet..and in complete accordance with Islamic holy writ, properly interpreted.

3/ You canNOT have 'Christian' terrorists. Such a term is an oxymoron.
You can only have 'people calling themselves' Christian who might perpetrate evil and terror.

The reason is simple.. 'CHRISTian'... is a name for those who follow Christ..NOT for those who do NOT follow Him.
So.. if language and reason mean anything.... and Jesus said "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword" and "as the Father sent me, so I send you"....and many other statements of that nature.. it is clear that there is no such thing as a 'Christian' terrorist.

When discussing the IRA and other such alleged 'Christian' groups, one needs to do 2 things.

1/ Determine their true agenda. (Criminal/Political/Religious?)
2/ Compare and contrast them..with JESUS...

If they fail the Jesus test..they are NOT Christian and no amount of repeating such a thing will change that.

Please.. don't look at Christianity in 'cultural' terms. It is invalid.

Thanks for providing the opportunity to clarify one burning issue, Gibo.

>>I wondered, no offence, who are these christians who are terrorists? ... Christians come in one category, or they are not christians. That category is as followers of Jesus Christ.<<

This, as we know, is the standard Boaz Defence.

Not as famous as Petroff's Defence, perhaps, or Paulsen's Variation on the Sicilian. But pretty familiar around these parts nonetheless.

At its foundation, it says that any un-Christian behaviour cannot, by definition, have been carried out by a Christian.

The Crusades weren't waged by Christians, because they didn't follow Jesus' rules of peace and non-engagement.

Northern Ireland wasn't infested with Christian terrorists, killing and torturing each other, as well as any handy civilians who were passing, because that simply isn't Jesus' way.

Now we get this, from today's newspaper.

"The influential Muslim Jama Masjid Trust, which runs the 3ha Badakabrastan graveyard, said it would not bury the gunmen because they were not true followers of Islam. Hanif Nalkhande, a spokesman for the trust, said: 'People who committed this heinous crime cannot be called Muslim. Islam does not permit this sort of barbaric crime.'"

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24742322-25837,00.html

Can we just run that one again, in Super Slo-mo.

"People who committed this heinous crime cannot be called Muslim. Islam does not permit this sort of barbaric crime."

Works for me.

Incidentally, I do recall that it used to be standard IRA practice, not only to happily bury their terrorists in holy ground, but also to glorify the occasion, as if they were interring heroes.

Interesting comparison, really.

Poly/Boaz

The ultimate get-out-of-jail-free-card:

>>>You canNOT have 'Christian' terrorists. Such a term is an oxymoron.
You can only have 'people calling themselves' Christian who might perpetrate evil and terror.<<<

This has to be the biggest lie you have ever told. If they believe in Jesus, god and worship the bible - they are christians.

You just have to be one of the most hypocritical people I have ever encountered and the LEAST christian of people.

Think on this written by a Christian:

" “Those Christians” make me uncomfortable because their actions cause me to consider my own. To analyze my actions, I listed bad behaviors often associated with Christians:

Mistake #1: Thinking non-Christians are morally or ethically inferior to believers. I’ve made this mistake by not recognizing God can teach me through unbelieving friends. Some time ago, I offered to make photocopies of a booklet for one such friend. He replied, “No, I’ll buy my own booklet. It’s copyrighted, and I want the author to get his royalties.” My friend’s integrity amazed me, and my own lack of regard for the writer’s livelihood shocked me. This conversation was a poignant reminder: Everyone I encounter has a lesson to teach.

Mistake #2: Believing some sins are worse than others. Probably no one would admit to this attitude. But again, I’m guilty of this mistake due to my dismissive attitude toward sinful thoughts. When someone cuts me off in traffic, I feel entitled to anger. Bitterness, jealousy, and envy seem like “no big deal” because I haven’t done anything wrong. But then I remember coveting—forbidden in the Ten Commandments—is usually a thought, and many of the other nine can take the form of thoughts, too. Suddenly, those sinful thoughts don’t seem so little anymore.

Cont'd

Cont'd

Mistake #3: Thinking Christians earn a “spiritual rank” through works—or lack thereof. Everyone’s heard the terms: the ungodly, baby Christians, backsliders, legalists, heretics, those who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk, and, of course, the spiritually mature. Since I’ve used only one or two of those terms in my entire life, surely I’m not guilty of this mistake. Yet, in some ways, I am. I gravitate toward the spiritually mature, believing only they can teach me. And I often overlook God’s power evidenced in new Christians. Because they see God’s Word with fresh eyes, new Christians astound me with their scriptural insights. Much like the remedy for Mistake #1, I need to remember God teaches me through many people, and he can definitely use a new Christian to reinvigorate my faith.

Mistake #4: Believing I’ve arrived spiritually. I sometimes zone out for the reading of familiar Scripture during my pastor’s sermon, thinking, Yeah, yeah, I’ve heard this one before. I became aware of this when I asked my church’s youth group to recite John 3:16 together. The teens rolled their eyes and practically yawned out the words. I wonder if I sometimes wear that bored facial expression in church. My poor pastor!

I’d previously pretty much dismissed a lot of my own unfortunate behavior. I wonder how many people have noticed my bad attitudes, bad facial expressions, and maybe even bad actions, and said, “That’s how Christians behave? I don’t want to be like them.” I’m actually grateful to have read about the latest antics of the Phelps family; their bad behavior helped me recognize behavior I need to change. “Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting” (Psalm 139:23–24).

The next time I read a story or hear a conversation about “those Christian jerks,” I’ll try not to smugly nod in agreement. Instead, I’ll listen carefully. After all, they just might be talking about me.

Blessings,
Holly Vicente Robaina"

http://blog.todayschristianwoman.com/walkwithme/2008/02/christians_behaving_badly.html

Ojnab.
All I know is that there are Christians, people on-fire for Jesus with the Holy Spirit in their lives (the born againers)
...and 'christians' who merely relate to Christianity because they live in 'christian' countries but lack that personal relationship with The Lord.

As for the Mr.Bushs and the Mr.Blairs...only The Lord knows where their at in their relationship with Him.

The West was attacked Sept 11, 2001 and something got done about it.

Wherever it manifests, evil still has to be tackled by good men.

If leaders dont pray about events/troubles and dont get a clear Answer from God as to direction; and go ahead and make their own decisions sometimes the decision is not the wisest that gets made.

In retro...did the USA make the best decision in going into Iraq? Maybe yes and maybe no.

Sadam had to be displaced though a huge toll in lives was paid.
We have to let God Judge those who sent in the troops.

Committed christians are mostly gentle but as my wife says, we are not a doormat for the evil of the world to trample their wicked feet on.

Islam would have the world incorporated into Islam.
Thats the great unwavering plan.
Night and day, without failing, her great wheels quietly turn towards that end.

In this conceptual but intellectually barren invention of Irfan Yusuf of the UNIVERSAL EQUIVALENCE OF TERROR, i.e., Hindu, Muslim, and Christian terrorists, he attempts to hide the deadly terrorism of his own, of the fundamentalist Islamists who are waging a holy war against Western civilization of which he is its ungrateful beneficiary.

No civilized person who has even a modicum respect for the achievements of the West in almost all fields of life, should allow himself to be conned by this grand deception of this basically true believer of Islam clothed deceptively in moderate clothing.

http://kotzabasis4.wordpress.com

PERICLES... well done :) you add to the melting pot of truth here.. by highlighting some important points!

POINT 1
"any un-Christian behaviour cannot, by definition, have been carried out by a Christian."

No Pericles..this is not right. ALL Christians manifest 'UN'Christlike behavior at times.. we are not 'He'.

I didn't say what you said. I said "Christian + Terrorist" is an oxymoron. Let me hasten to add "IN PRINCIPLE".

We find ourselves faced with a number of definition problems. Some people consider George Bush to be a)Christian b) Terrorist.

POINT 2 In Principle.. Islam permits terrorism. It even says so...specifically- and here it is:

Surah 8:12

Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil TERROR into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

Now..the standard "Pericles Defense" is..that these are 'obscure' verses :) sorry old son..nothing obscure at all.

The standard Islamist apologetic is "This is not true Muslims" ..

THE CHOICE IS YOURS.. "Believe" the Quran or believe the spin dished out by its supposed followers.

But wait..there's more.. I didn't even use Surah 9... amazing.

The Ultimate Spin.

"People who committed this heinous crime cannot be called Muslim. Islam does not permit this sort of barbaric crime."

COMMENT absolute, utter, unadulterated, RUBBISH!

PROOF "He (Mohammad)then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, They were put in 'Al-Harra' and when they asked for water, no water was given to them." Abu Qilaba said, "Those people committed theft and murder, became infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His Apostle ."Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 234:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/004.sbt.html#001.004.234

Does not compute, Boaz. And you know it.

You can bleat all you like about ancient texts saying what you want them to say.

But if I want to know how a watch works, I go to a watchmaker.

I don't refer to ancient texts that describe water clocks, or those candles with stripes on. I don't study the intricate carpentry of a Swiss cuckoo clock, or the engineering of Big Ben's internals.

I go to a watchmaker.

If it is mechanical, I will talk to Patek Philippe, or Vacheron and Constantin. If it is advice on mass production of digital movements, I'd go to Casio.

Similarly, if I want to know what contemporary Muslims think about terrorism, I would not search through ancient texts. Nor would I ask the terrorists themselves – I already know what they think.

Nor – and this is important, so I hope you still have your listening ears primed and ready...

I wouldn't consult a Christian evangelist.

As far as I am concerned, your outburst says more about you, your character, and your understanding of Christianity, than it does about Mumbai terrorists.

>>The Ultimate Spin. "People who committed this heinous crime cannot be called Muslim. Islam does not permit this sort of barbaric crime." COMMENT absolute, utter, unadulterated, RUBBISH!<<

These insults of yours, Boaz – and the above is a direct accusation of mendacity against an individual – are nothing but noise and hot air.

Pure, unmitigated, soap-box rabble-rousing.

And I'm sorry, but weasel-worded redefinitions of “what you mean” cannot hide the reality.

>>I said "Christian + Terrorist" is an oxymoron. Let me hasten to add "IN PRINCIPLE".<<

“In principle”, Boaz?

Your principles, I'm afraid, lie in tatters around you, as you desperately try to spin your way out.

You blatantly, shamelessly and with malice aforethought attempt to justify the most arrant double standards.

One rule for Boaz, and another for the rest of the world.

If you ever had any credibility, I'm afraid that this latest outburst - coupled with your barbaric attitude towards torture - it is now just a memory.

Now dear Pericles.. precious as your articulate responses are.....

you said:

"Similarly, if I want to know what contemporary Muslims think about terrorism, I would not search through ancient texts."

aaah... at this point you should have stopped, thought, and gone in a polemical direction rather than an ad hominem.

You SHOULD have said: "I goto respected commentators about Islam, and seek their opinion"

You would of course not goto current respected commentators who simply fit your profile of "inclusiveness and western minority demographic status" ..no..you would consult those to whom most modern Muslims appeal for final arbitration.

-The 4 major schools of Islamic jurisprudence.
-Paramount commentators/historians like Ibn Kathir. (who Muslims will name as "the Mt Everest of commentators" ie.. high and lifted up.

Then, you would find that my opinions and observations are in complete harmony with their views.

You see..where you go wrong, is you:

a) Look at things from a secular viewpoint.
b) Don't seem to consider that 'most western Muslims' are a demographic minority and tone things down for western audience consumption.

But... in spite of the personal attacks on me.. I appreciate the diversity of opinion.. after all.. how can truth be recognized unless it has a backdrop of falsehood.. like personal attacks :)

Good old Irfan. Never one to resist jumping to a conclusion.

Strangely enough the Indian authorities still haven't determined the facts. But let's not wait for that shall we Irfan?

Instead, riffle through your pile of well worn racist/religious pap articles and change a few words and Bingo! Another accurate piece of dog excrement to publish!.

I note you didn't include atheists or dope smokers in the groups of terrorists. Good. The former wouldn't follow such religiously insane dogma and the latter would spend months planning it and forgetting it each day thus never getting there. I'm with these 2 grups.

Not Irfan. He's an urger. Sits on the sidelines and invents hatred. Good on your Irf. Reliable and regular. Like a good laxarive.

Sorry, Boaz, but playing the ad hominem card doesn't earn you any points here, given your track record.

>>aaah... at this point you should have stopped, thought, and gone in a polemical direction rather than an ad hominem. You SHOULD have said: "I goto respected commentators about Islam, and seek their opinion"<<

No, that's what you do, Boaz, not me.

I listen to real people, who have a respect for their fellow humans.

Not a bunch of religious closed minds, who can only think in terms of theological argument. Angels on the heads of pins, and all that.

You would like to believe - and indeed have us all believe - that we should live in fear and trembling of Muslims. You regularly mount your soapbox, and spout your doom-laden analyses of this text, or that interpretation.

To me, your arguments simply form a closed loop. Everything is self-referential.

It says this in the book, so it must be so.

Or not so, if it says something contradictory to your belief.

None of this has relevance to the real world, that real people have to live in.

Which is why I listen to people with goodness and - yes - love in their hearts, rather than those who can only think in terms of conflict and hatred.

So, when someone says that Christianity is about loving your neighbour, and forgiveness, and charity, I listen.

Equally, when someone says categorically of Mumbai's violence that "Islam does not permit this sort of barbaric crime", I listen.

Because if religion is to mean anything positive in this world, these are the words that need to be out there, front and centre.

Of course, if your idea of religion is to encourage violence, confrontation and the elimination of all opposition, that's your prerogative.

And your practice also, it would appear.

To me, Boaz, your views on religion are very much part of the problem, and will never be part of a solution.

And if that's ad hominem, so be it.

Well said, Pericles.

Let me ask you this question, boaz:

Do you believe that it is impossible for muslims to become decent, non-violent, loving people?

Is it possible for them to have an interpretation of their religion that does not permit violence?

And for the love of logic, don't give me the koranic/biblical rubbish. I know you're primed to say that if they're 'true' muslim followers, they must be violent.
We're discussing the here and now, a simple yes or no will suffice. There is no 'right' answer, only your opinion.

Do you think it's possible for them to make a non-violent interpretation?

Also bear in mind, that if you do say that "if they do, they're not following the qu'ran," you're effectively saying no just picking a fight, because such a thing is an insult - just as when people say you're not Christian for inciting hatred. How do you feel when non-christians say that huh? Tend to dismiss them, because you think they don't really understand the foundation of your belief?

If your answer is "yes, it's possible" then I'd ask, what your end-goal, on a global scale is.

As pericles says, you're not encouraging the moderates, you're fanning the division, thereby making it impossible for moderates to increase in influence.
Thus, you make a world with everlasting conflict the only possible outcome, unless Islam is eradicated - an alternative which I'd say is just as heinous as the dogma of the fundamentalist Islamic preacher.

There is a third way - you can endorse moderacy instead of ridiculing and playing down its significance. You don't even have to give up your jihad against fundamentalist Islam.

But that's not your end goal at all, now is it? Admit it - you're aiming for the destruction of Islam, not peaceful integration. Not because you say it's impossible, but because in your words and actions, you make it so.
It clearly is 'possible' for muslims to be non-violent and accepting, but you won't accept that.

As someone said once, "Moral Equivalence Alert" !!

Typical of the Islamist apologist, Irfan.

I'm sure there are a lot of decent Muslims out there, who just want to make a living like anyone else.

Unfortunately their toxic faith has not had a reformation, and so they will suffer until they can bring themselves to overcome the extremists in their ranks.

Froggie,
The flaw in your argument is the questions
"What do you define as a Muslim...Christian et al?"
My mum a 7th Day would define that either Polycarp’s lot or Catholics are true Christians.

Objective analysis would find that there are either no incontestable Muslims or Christians etc. In truth Christians are almost as internecine and fractious as Muslims. Each practitioner sees themselves as belonging to the most appropriate (correct) flavour e.g. you don’t hear I’m a charismatic Christian but the real Christians are the Quakers. Therefore the truth is in the eye of the beholder.

I know “Good” Muslims leaders who condemn polygamy, genital mutilations etc.
BTW they aren’t necessarily minorities in their communities. In fact the opposite applies.

Many of the ‘barbaric’ practices are more culturally than religiously enforced.
In the same way Christian purity (al la white supremacy) stem more from cultural up bringing than the religion.

The only way these diversities make sense is their common human link in our need to group identify for protection, our need to understand and thereby have some hope of control over our existence.

In short some people need religion and to validate their version they either defend aggressively or proselytize. Like all on going structures they tend to become rigidly hierarchical and dogmatic. Which spawn new variations "more in touch with the people" or "God's real meaning" and the cycle goes on.

Examinator
You seem to be an intelligent and reasonably well informed person.
However, your knowledge of Islam might be a little deficient.
Might I suggest that you investigate Islam a little more deeply?
The following link could be a good start:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam101/

A good book to read is "The Islamist" by Ed Hussein, which gives a bit more background as to the political/religious mindset embodied in Islam.

I recommend that you and others read it thoroughly.

I am sure that once you get started you will come across many other sources of information about Islam which will help you to appreciate the danger it represents to our secular western democracies.

Hi TRTL.... welcome to a side discussion :)

You said:

1/Do you believe that it is impossible for muslims to become decent, non-violent, loving people?

ANSWER.. of course I don't, and many are. Look at F.H. -a delightful person. The issue I'm afraid must be explored in terms of the second part/question.

2/ Is it possible for them to have an interpretation of their religion that does not permit violence?

Firstly, there is no 'requirement' that every Muslim 'must' be violent.
To suggest so is to misunderstand the nuances in that faith.

But it also depends on how much leeway you are prepared to allow between the documents/contexts of a faith, and the behavior of it's followers.

There must come a line where one can no longer be described as a Muslim or Christian or Sikh... because their behavior bears no marks of the foundations of the faith they claim.

Reason must be used here.

In Islam.. even FH will concede that there is a time for violence killing and war. He would also (I'm sure) agree that such violence "call to arms" applies to every able bodied Muslim. That is the case where Muslim lands are under military threat from "Dar Ul Harb" (the infidel powers)

Such a call to arms is clearly 'defensive' and would not require "Muslims" in general to be any more violent or warlike than any other soveriegn nation.

This is probably not the place to give a detailed explaination (for the 500th time :) but if you reflect on the following, it might help.

1/ Mohammad is the defining example for all Muslims.

(all Muslims will agree on this, though they might not agree on some aspects, claiming they were 'a privilege just for him' surah 33:50 and 51 are examples of that)

2/ Thus.... you can look at his example as a model for Muslim behavior.

3/ Read Surah 9..."very" closely and with background information from say Ibn Kathir and Maulana Maududi. (the first 30 verses are enough)

You will then understand it all :)

No boaz, I've no interest in scriptural side-discussions. They have some relevance, but your mindset is one that gives them far more credence than they deserve.

Judging by your answer, your conclusion is 'yes' muslims can be peaceful, non-violent people, and of course there is some leeway.

Thus, you accept that muslims can be peaceful people. That is what I was trying to ascertain.

Now, when you make commentary that is hostile to all muslims, and say things like "ISLAM IS EVIL" (I can link to this comment of yours if you dispute it), you are of course aware that you are marginalising moderate voices?

You are aware that such commentary will exacerbate the conflict, are you not?

And do you accept, that Islam will never be 'wiped out' and would you state categorically that your goal is peace, not the removal of Islam in its entirety?

If your goal is indeed peace and your concern is for a stable civilisation with freedom of religion, then wouldn't the following points be a given:

1. If Islam is always to exist alongside Christianity, we must find ways to work together.
2. I'll agree fundamentalist extreme Islam is a problem. All the more reason to encourage moderates to speak loudly.
3. If indeed it is possible for muslims to be peaceful, as you accept, then clearly, point 2. is possible under the right circumstances.
4. On a global scale we can't simply shun Islam, as globalisation won't allow us to simply ignore people. Thus, point 2 is an inevitable necessity, though there are disputes on how to achieve this difficult goal.
5. Your actions and comments however, render point 2. impossible.
6. Thus, you're ensuring perpetual conflict.

Thus, you're not interested in objectively pursuing peace. You want victory over Islam and any influence or power removed from the group - effectively making Islam a vassal of Christianity.

Of course, it's no wonder you delve into scripture instead, because using modern logic, the warlike aspects of your approach are painfully obvious to see.

froggie,
Thank you for your kind comments,
But indeed I have and continue to read books on Islam.
As a matter of fact I am in contact with several 'high profile' Muslims inlcluding A uni lecturer in Islamic studies, a community leader, a newspaper editor and a Lecturer in middle eastern philosophy whose opinions vary greatly on some topics. I have a practising Jewish daughter plus Jewish contacts.
Most of which send me Christmas greetings which puzzles me as I am a secular Humanist. I'm from non-jewish Latvian/Aussie Christian stock.

Might I suggest that if you get the bulk of your information from the sources you recommend you're geting a very lopsided view.
I would recommend Judith Miller's 'God has 99 names' (a NYT journo with 30years in the area (she explains the differences). Tariq Ali's 'clash of Fundementalisms'( he is an ex Pakistani Muslim now a non-Muslim author in England) he does a similar thing.
"the isral- palestine Conflict" A harvard History Prof.Offers an informed historic perspective of the region. All are current.
They all agree on one thing that there are a number of factors that make SOME Muslims terrorists and that there are lots of on ground differences between Muslims of different cultures.
I take no sides in the argument, only to note that both sides are culpable and show idiocy

Wonderful article - I've been taking the same line as a teacher of Comparative Religion at High School and University plus letters to the editor of "The Australian" which get ignored. The enemy is extremism and we must work to promote tolerance to counter it while tackling the root causes of extremism with like-minded allies in other continents because they are there even if the media rarely mentions them, for example The Cordoba Initiative in the USA. That's why I teach Comparative Religion and my students go out to meet people of different faiths or they come in and talk to us.

I'm a Christian but I fear the Christian commentators are a cop out by saying that Christians are not guilty of war and terror. Remember Matthew 25:27 ? That one verse has been used to slaughter Jews in pogroms for 2,000 years even though the gospel writer probably made it up according to Biblical scholars. What about the guy in the USA who killed two people outside an abortion clinic and went to the "gallows" saying he was a martyr ? Then there was the born again dictator in Guatemala who slaughtered indigenous people there not so long ago. Apartheid South Africa ? Others have mentioned George Bush so no need for more on that.

It's no good saying that they are or were not Christians. Most Muslims in the world disown the groups promoting terror as Qur'anic teachings are against everything that Islam stands for, but it is easy to distort texts just as all sects do, whether promoting violence or not, and for many Australians who have never had Muslim friends, it is easy to tar all Muslims with the same brush.

Hi TRTL....

Ok.. in response.. as a matter of DEBATE.. i.e.. truth/falsehood.... I hereby ..absolutely and without the slightest mildest most miniscule blip of apology declare that my opinion is: "Islam" is Evil (as a religious faith and as a social/political system...

On the basis of the things "Islam"..the faith...says, and what it's founder....did.

I can also say that:

"Islam" contains some high and noble notions about God, and some notions of human behavior which are of value.

I can also say that "Many people calling themselves Muslim, are very nice, pleasant, fun people."

HERE IS THE PROBLEM. All that said..... your point was:

1. If Islam is always to exist alongside Christianity, we must find ways to work together.

Actually.....no. We can tolerate each other IN THE context of a secular state....only. There is no 'work' which we can or should do 'together' apart from simply getting along reasonably and not try to force people (with the threat of violence) to believe 'our' version, not treat 'the other mob' in a bad way (like dropping pamphlets in the letter box of whites in Auburn telling them this is a MUSLIM area...get out or else" kind of thing.

Then you said:

You want victory over Islam and any influence or power removed from the group - effectively making Islam a vassal of Christianity.

RESPONSE. We already have 'victory' over Islam on the spiritual level. Christ is already victorious. But then.. "influence" and "Power" ? ooooooh YES you betcha. But NOT as 'vassals of Christianity' there is no such concept. Simply as equal citizens UP to the point, where they seek to influence Australia in Islamic ways politically/socially.

Shock horror...for me this means NO Muslim schools..not a single one.
Reason? Because...they teach ISLAM and by definition.."Islam" is evil from a Christian perspective. "May Allah destroy them"(Christians and Jews) Surah 9:30 should be enuf for you to realize this!
Or..the "The last hour will not come unless the Muslims kill the Jews"

If that does NOT worry you...then Mein Kampf was totally misunderstood and did not mean 'eliminate the Jews'.

So *bOAZy* Is there a connection with this view of yours regarding Islam and the "Vision of Risen Lordy" by the mysterious 500?

If so, was it for them new information or more say a Blessed Affirmation and confirmation of that which "they" already knew and were aware of generally speaking?

Typical drivel from Irf - It's rather banal to say there are terrorists fighting for more than one cause, but Irf will try it on anyway...along with supposing a few things, to show us that he knows a little about Mumbai, but not anything that might be happening right now...
Many of those posting have tried to prove that other religions, but not their own, produce terrorists. Not very convincingly. And atheists like myself also have to deal with the fact that the greatest mass murderers of the last century were not believers of any god.
(It is instructive to note that communism believes in the virtue of revolutionary violence, and does not expect everyone to cooperate: those who won't cooperate need to be murdered. Fascism believes in the virtue of violence for social control. Both believe in the virtue of violence for expansion.)
The only religion, on the other hand, which regards violence as a virtue is Islam. Chritianity has its fantasiesof violence (the apocalypses), and Judaism has a lot of now-out-of-date violence to deal with. I'm not aware of any encouragement to violence in Hunduism or Buddism, but I'm open to hearing of any.
But Islam posits that violence is a superior virtue, and puts no time limitation on its use. Indeed, all four Sunni law schools prescribe murder as the correct response to a Muslim leaving islam, as per their reliable hadith (of which I have a copy). Islam needs to be exposed for what it is - theocratic fascism.
And someone wrote, our world is too small to have both capitalism and radical Islam - do you think Islam, radical or otherwise, has any problem with capitalism? Absolutely not. Islam, radical or not, only has a problem with capitalism which it does not control.

No surprises here, then.

>>I hereby ..absolutely and without the slightest mildest most miniscule blip of apology declare that my opinion is: "Islam" is Evil<<

I've no idea what caused this sudden confession, Boaz.

But here's some news: we know, already.

The more interesting aspect of this is your stated objective. Which appears to be tolerance, evidenced by "getting along reasonably and not try to force people (with the threat of violence) to believe 'our' version, not treat 'the other mob' in a bad way"

In summary, they're ok if they don't make trouble. Or proselytize with a half-brick in their hand.

I'm sure that they would ask no more and no less from you, Boaz.

But then you move into more familiar Boaz-territory, which has absolutely nothing to do with tolerance and harmony. And everything to do with preventing them from living their lives in the manner of their choosing, even without the hint of trouble-making and proselytizing with that half-brick.

You generously allow that they may live...

>>Simply as equal citizens UP to the point, where they seek to influence Australia in Islamic ways politically/socially... this means NO Muslim schools..not a single one<<

Would you allow that in order to bring this state of affairs about, we should simultaneously close all religious schools?

Because your "rationale" is...

>>Because...they teach ISLAM and by definition.."Islam" is evil from a Christian perspective.<<

I suspect that Christianity is also, in some eyes, seen as evil too, Boaz.

So by definition these are insufficient grounds to ban either Muslim or Christian schools.

Oh no, it's bloody surah bloody nine again!

>>Surah 9:30 should be enuf for you <<

What a surprise!

You're like one of those old 78 rpm records, stuck in a groove so long that it can't be moved on, no matter how hard you nudge the turntable.

And if that analogy is anachronistic - so much the more appropriate.

>>If that does NOT worry you...then Mein Kampf was totally misunderstood and did not mean 'eliminate the Jews'.<<

Now, that's just plain offensive, Boaz.

Isn't it.

Islams biggest defenders are human secularist. The reason is their warped sense of morality that allows them to murder the unborn by the millions with little to no conscience. They hate the righteousness of Christ and refuse to turn from their self indulgent lifestyles despite it leading to destruction. Their only pathetic attempt in justifying Islamic terrorism is to use selective history in demonizing Christians. Many of them go to the grave at the hands of Islamic terrorist still holding on to their hopelessly flawed false dogmas.

Secular humanist are totally dishonest when they distort the teachings of Christ. They know that without Christian teaching their is no absolutes which allow them to play god. Wherever they have tried they create a death culture (violence, abortion suicide, euthenasia.

Secular humanist only agree with the adamic nature doctrine when it is applied to Christians. That is why while they are rotten inside they have to create false morality trying to portray themselves as the peace loving saviours of the planet.

In many ways Islam is more honest than human secularism. At least anyone with commonsense can see what we are dealing with unlike to secularist who parade their sel righteousness.

But *runner* if U knew the fate of a child was to be born, enter a church school only to be raped by a paedophile priest,
(no not a homosexual, a paedophile)
have their complaints covered up by other nefarious priests, despair of life and commit suicide, don't U think that the medical waste bucket might be preferable?

And say, from a Hindu perspective, the Soul is eternal and will have another opportunity to enter the prime material later on in any event.

Thus, it is only yr own "warped" God concept that gets U into such a knot. And what religion are U exactly? And, does all this "murder of unborns" as U put it have something to do with a belief system about baby Jesus coming back?

To me, these dogmatic, blind faith beliefs of yours are yr graven image. And because U refuse to use and develope your brains with logic, critical thinking and science, u "miss the point"
(the definition of sin from the Greek) and consequently do not grow and evolve, resorting to the same tired old parrot mantras that you copy from someone else.

Fundamentalists may wear different clothes and mutter different prayers, but in principal you are all the same to me.

As for religious schools, as stated on previous occasions, I'd ban the lot of them and allow comparative religion only in co-ed schools. They are a curse, a blight, a pox and stone around the necks of our children.

Yes, sexuality. It's more for pleasure and stress release than it is for procreation, at least for us at present. Why not just adopt a rug rat before it is left to starve and do the world a favour?

A swallow does not make a summer. However many swallows do make a summer.

9/11 and thereafter, the number of unprovoked killings of non-Muslims by the Muslim militia is prove that Islam is at war with the non-Muslims.

The Muslims (Arab imperialists and their stooges) has always been at war with the people of Hindustan. After over 900 years of warfare and slaughter, the people of Hindustan(India) have remained steadfast to the culture and religion of their fore-fathers, unlike the Byzantine empire and Persia where the people are subjugated and have become Muslims.

The Mumbai massacre carried out by the Muslim militia is the wake-up call to non-Muslims that the war against non-Muslims has started. (They targeted Jews, Americans, British, East Asians and local Indians.) The Koran is their war manual and the schools of warfare are the mosques.

The Muslim militiamen allowed 17 Russians to go free because of the way the Russians dealt with the Muslim militia in the past.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023768.php

The former Soviet state has never been hesitant about meting out retribution on Islamic hardliners. When Islamic fundamentalists kidnapped four Soviet diplomats in Beirut on 30 September 1985, KGB responded with characteristic vigour.

After clandestine negotiations failed to secure the men's release, Soviet agents grabbed half a dozen fundamentalists in West Beirut and reportedly sliced off a few of their fingers, sending the severed digits to the fundamentalist leadership with the message: "Release our people or you'll get your people back piece by piece."
Three of the kidnapped Soviets were eventually freed after the KGB threatened to go in shooting. The fourth captive died during the kdinap.

No more Soviet citizens were kidnapped in Lebanon, even though dozens of Americans, Frenchmen, Britons and others were held, in some cases for six or seven years.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2742/is_/ai_n24993269

Lesson is one has to be more brutal than the Muslim militiamen to be successful. Polycarp’s method of ‘Love thy neighbour’ just won’t do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_Broken_Hill

Muslims have already committed a terror attack in Australia. I can't find any similar motivated mass murder in Australia.

The other few cases were committed by a lone nutcase.

Only muslim terrorists alone were planning to kill 1000 people in Australia. No one else.

We have a few money laundering Tamil Tigers involved in people smuggling and financing foreign terrorism as well. These should be dealt with just like the muslim fanatics should be dealt with.

Irfan the facts and speculation surround ing Liep Gony are as follows.

20 Sudanese filled with race-hate chased two white guys in Noble Park a suburb made good mostly by European people.

Liep Gony is alleged to have been an African gang member possibly of the same chaser gang.

Gony dressed like a rapper and attracted attention. He caught himself in teh world of racist rape and kill whitey lyrics.

He was loitering at a train station looking for people to harass which African criminals are notorious for. 2 victims of racism snapped after enough anti-white bigotry and allegedly hit him witha pole.

What is anyone doing at a train station but not catching a train? Looking for trouble.