Polycarp, you say "good grief, how has it taken you so long to get this?"

It hasn't taken me long. It's patently obvious and I've always been aware of that. I've never denied the existence of these lunatics and I've always believed this is the reason why the majority moderates are afraid to speak out.

Now, your turn.

Good grief! How as it taken you so long to realise that this is the reason why they're not speaking out, instead of this scriptural rubbish which can be interpreted in any way anybody wants?

How can you honestly say "How can you only now realise this!" with such a straight face, when the point I was making was that the moderates aren't the problem, it's the fringe elements?

Polycarp... I mean, really - can't you see the foolishness of this? My point is at odds with yours. You're claiming it's because of the text that the movement in its entirety is bad. I'm claiming that there are dangerous fanatics who spread fear amongst the reasonable majority.

And it's the fanatics who are willing to use the scriptural things to attack others. That I can accept.

All the more reason to rubbish such a scriptural mindset, even if we must study it to understand this pathological problem.

Meredith - I wasn't targetting Christians in their entirety. I was targeting those who paint a simple view of a clash of religions.

(See above)

Most, but not all, of these people tend to be fundamentalist Christians with a one-track mind. I've no problem with reasonable people of any religion.

I just dislike nutbags who take all this ancient voodoo stuff seriously, and use it to try and hammer other people.
There are plenty of dangerous muslim fanatics out there doing it.

Though there's a few fanatics of a different stripe doing it right here, too. Granted, they don't use violence as far as I know, but they attempt to mobilise public opinion which can lead to ostracism, begetting violence.

Better to combat this fanaticism wherever you see it.

We have Keysar Trad describing white people as Dregs.
We have Hilali's comments. We have the supposedly moderate Auburn muslim leader asking for Lebanese rioters to not be jailed by rewarded.

Bush-Basher,
True, you didn’t technically call anyone names but I can see you well knew what I meant… It’s cool you will join me in condemning Trad…*if* he wrote a nasty hate speech. Well he did and here it is:

“The criminal dregs of white society…“
http://worldwar111.blogspot.com/2006/02/racisim-islamic-response.html

Bush-Basher, condemn away… Pericles?

Kactus and JFrum, I agree. Seems most people agree that dislike of Islam is ok and not Islamphobia. The majority seems to want Muslim-moderates or apologists to take responsibility and make some positive steps. This OLO article supports Trads racist-Islam, here’s a chance for them to start…

Sedat, Do you mean Lebanese riots after Cronulla? Locals labeled *white-supremacists* for one day of deeply regretted drunken violence over long-term attacks on Cronulla's women and a life-guard... Yet the Auburn revenge-attacks shut down East-Sydney and were a whole week of stone cold sober calculated vandalizing and violence and they‘re not criticized but termed heroic by the new Mufti, I'd laugh if I didn't want to cry.

Drunkenness is never an excuse but that proud soberness is chilling as there is full intent with no remorse.

TRTL, Yes, sorry, I jumped to fast. I'm Atheist and generally ignore religion until they’re killing over it. So I ask you to add up the tally list for who’s killin’ everyone these days… Like the Christians are slaughtering the odd abortionist here and there but the Muslims are in a murderous frenzy. It fries my head, when people say they are all equally as bad… Religious death tolls these days say different.

We can’t rid the people of beliefs, we can just do our best to protect secularism. Which is starting to slip right now with Sharia-courts in the UK and Aboriginal-courts in Oz. Also the Christian-right and Humanist-left in a sense.

I think Muslim apostasy is in urgent need of help and our government should be lobbied to help people leave Islam in safety. I also think we need to protect secularism by strengthening any laws that may allow any religious legislation slip by.

Problem wise? Islam is it due to its urgent death-toll.

I am still waiting for the auther Nursel Guzeldeniz to provide just one example of an Muslim country that behaves in the manner she wishes.

There are at least 52 countries that are members of the Organisation of Islamic Countries so she has plenty to chose from.

Bearing in mind however it would have to have the same standards of democracy and openess as exists in the country she chooses to live in.

Come on Nursel-- pick one

Dear Spikey.. quite a good point.. speak more about love than hate.

Specially at Christmas time.

I know one thing. The Love that Jesus epitomized and spoke of is the only one which can redeem lost souls and renew broken societies.
It would make an interesting topical study "Love.. as Jesus spoke and lived it".

TRTL... now that we are in agreement that the 'lunatics' are the problem, and that they intimidate the moderates.. we can now progress to the next level which is the 'ideological'.

THAT....is where the moderate Muslims struggle in combatting the loud raucous voices of the radicals.

You see.. the basis for the radicals position is in fact the Quran and Hadith.. even correctly interpreted.

One classic example that I'm sure u've seen by now is this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVF1zAEwEyY

What we need to focus on..is his use of Mohammad's personal example in asserting his position of justifying slaughter of non Muslims.

Now.. if a radical says this kind of thing to moderates.. would you expect a moderate peace loving muslim to condemn his own prophet to the face of such a person?

Therein lies the difficulty. IF.."Mohammad did it" then.. as Quran 33:21 says

"Ye have indeed in the Apostle of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah."

I don't mean to sound 'same old' here..but perhaps you could investigate this yourself a little? Why not ask some Muslims this simple question:

"Is Prophet Mohammad the defining example of how a Muslim should behave and act?"

Then.. you could add (if ur cheeky) "Even in war?"... and you could ask them if surah 9:29 should be understood as Caliph Omar understood it when he was invading the Persians :)
But u'll probably find that very few of them even know the hadith on which this is based.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/053.sbt.html
Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386: Please read this to see how they interpreted Quran 9:29

Porkycrap: << ...now that we are in agreement that the 'lunatics' are the problem... >>

I'm also in agreement.

Trouble is, Porky doesn't realise that he's one of the 'lunatics'.