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.