(They're hardly going to drop their religion and proclaim the glory of yours. Drop the "my religion is better than yours" crap and talk sense).

It can't be denied that other people are CAPABLE of making non-violent interpretations.

There is no umpire or arbiter of what's right.

There are no rules on how you can or can't follow the religion, as evidenced by the many kinds of muslims listed in Pericles's opening quotation. Gay muslims exist, therefore anything is possible.

The lines are not black and white. The only sure thing here is that there are idiotic approaches to the situation which can only result in more violence.

My conclusion is those who make out that Islam is a monolithic evil enemy have no solutions to the fact that we live in a globalised world.
They have no answer to the fact that we CAN'T just ignore them and hope they go away.
We CAN'T allow the fringe movements to define the majority, or it's us that creates a bigger enemy.
Combat extremism wherever you find it, but leave the moderates alone. It's the ONLY way forward - the only result of these hostile approaches can be more violence.

Have you stopped to realise this? Can't you see that's the only possible result of pushing them too far and putting them in a box?
Even if you BECOME right, and Islam does become a monolithic front, then you're still dumber than the people who said they weren't.
Don't you see this is the end result of making life more difficult for so many people?
You really think an "I told you so" will really help you've helped make this the only possible result?

The fundamentalists want this. It seems polycarp, you want to give it to them. That's why I fight your approach.

I don't want to give them what they want.

You do.

The "push back" approach only works when you push the right people. Push the wrong people, and you just push them in the wrong direction.

So stop acting like children. Examine the consequences of this approach.

Nursel,

I wrote this partly because you claimed OLO is supposedly a quality e-journal. Yet I find your article hollow; dishonest and poor in analysis.

(1)... You mentioned "root-cause of violence".
You're not even remotely close to definitively identify a root cause of violence. Yet you leaped to an unknown "international legal system". Are you for real??
I think your "legal system" is hollow, only high-sounding gibberish with which you'd hoped to gain some semblence of credibility when writing.

(2)... Use of Islamophobe labels
When is criticism of Islam not IslamoPHOBIC, Can you tell ??
It is very typical of pretenders, to say "I am an atheist...", to claim neutrality, as if that puts them on a morality high-ground, making it easier to throw stones and label their opponents below.
Anyone who pretends to promote anti-violence, equality and justice, who then also attack opponents with sweeping labels; is disingenuous and cannot be trusted.

(3)... Diversity in the Muslim world
You listed roughly more than 40 Muslim types. But do you really know 40 different Muslim individuals, all with very diversed non-Islamic characteristics??
Or ummm..., did you simply made them up to score points??
Or... may be you actually referred to just a handful of Muslims that you know?? Like ONE single Muslim who is not sure she's a Muslim; who never read Koran; a liberal & secular Muslim; a leftist socialist Muslim; a Muslim with reality-show-addictions; a homosexual Muslim; an arty funky Muslim; a feminist Muslim; sexually liberal Muslim; a Muslim who drinks alcohol....and the list goes on.
Further on:
* Among more than 27 million population in Saudi Arabia, how many diversed homosexual Muslims are there??
* What happened to that Muslim who was caught drinking alcohol??
* When was the last protest match by marginalised feminist Muslims??

Nursel,
Come on, give us a break and come clean with some honest facts, some integrity.
You cannot always count on the likes of Pericles for moral supports.

If your article is trashy, you don't honestly want "better quality audience" on OLO, do you??
What's "better quality audience" to you??

I don’t think that TRTL’s comment should stand unsupported as they might lose their impact so consider this again:

“We CAN'T allow the fringe movements to define the majority, or it's us that creates a bigger enemy.
Combat extremism wherever you find it, but leave the moderates alone. It's the ONLY way forward - the only result of these hostile approaches can be more violence.”

If this remark was written in regard to humanity as a whole it’s pretty certain that most of us would see the sense in it. We don’t let ourselves be defined by the misguided, the aberrant, the mentally unsound, or by the sociopaths, psychopaths and the deranged. Rather than decry humanity – in its entirety – as a failed experiment that should be scoured from the face of the earth, we look for solutions, deterrants, and strategies.

We would all like to believe that our own personal beliefs represent not only the truth but the standard by which truth can be measured. Who amongst us espouses a cause, a political policy, a belief or a religion passionately believing it has no merit or is incorrect?

Over the last fifty years technology, communication and increased education have all combined to make us more and more aware of those around us. The poster who admitted he has only recently become aware of Islam is like millions of others - encountering things for the first time because our communication is expanding. More and more people who sincerely believe that their truth is THE truth are encountering each other. We have to find way of dealing with that other than wiping each other from the face of the earth.

It is not, as we are all aware, the extremists of any movement that are going to build assimilation and tolerance. Let’s, by all means, condemn and deter them. But denying that moderation exists and searching out differences rather than commonalities is, as a couple of people have pointed out, extremist.

Only by discouraging extremism and acknowledging moderation WHEREVER IT EXISTS can peace be achieved.

TRTL says:

"There are sections of the Qu'ran which forbid violence."

Unfortunately this is not true. The over whelming bulk of the Koran is violent towards non believers and jews- full stop- as this assessment in the New English Review reveals

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/28244/sec_id/28244

OZZIE....... I see you have be exercising some skills there.

1/ Let me mention some thing which might or..might not mean something to you.

2/ If you were associated with the period concerned, then you would be aware of a pattern of behavior by some from that time which incuded torture, both psychological and physical. (there is no other word for it)

3/ I hope for your sake, that you don't know the person and had nothing to do with sadistic behavior.

4/ If you are not directly connected to that place and people then I advise you to forget all that you have seen fit to look at -it doesn't concern you personally.

6/ Does this mean anything to you "The Count of Monte Cristo" ?

If you have a personal interest in the matter rather than just curiosity you can email me at polycarp111@yahoo.com

F.H. I welcome your attempt to interact re 9:29
Your problem with the provided explanation is that it does not address the use of the verse by Al Mughirah during Omars invasion of Persia.
No amount of contextual 'fantasies' can change the fact that Mughira directly linked the invasion (offensive) with 9:29
I'm happy to debate this to the bitter end :) but with you there is no bitterness.

I think that Islamophobia is far more likely to incite violence in Australian society than the religion of Islam ever will.

TRTL sums it up well.

The volume and instensity of Islamophobic sentiment expressed in this forum attest to the truths in Nursel Guzeldeniz's perceptive article.

Allah help us :)