BIGMAL.... I can raise you a few more.....

CHALLENGE.. to any MUSLIM.

1/ Denounce Military violence to extend the rule of Islam!

ME.
I hereby absolutely and without reservation DENOUNCE Military or civil violence to extend the 'rule' of Christianity. It is abhorrent, unGodly, and without Biblical foundation. Any Christian who wishes to take issue with me on this, may make a time and place and I'll be there to argue it.

2/ CONDEMN UTTERLY, POLITICAL ASSASINATION in the name of ISLAM.

ME. Without reservation..I absolutely CONDEMN and REJECT assasination of political enemies in the name of Christ!

3/ CONDEMN UTTERLY, (Pre-pubescent or underage) CHILD ABUSE by OLD MEN - THEIR MARRIAGE, SEXUAL consumation and/or divorce.

ME.. I utterly condemn the practice of old men 'marrying' little children, it is unbiblical, outrageous, degenerate and disgusting.

4/ CONDEMN UTTERLY THE PROMISCUITY IN MUSLIM RELIGIOUS LEADERS.

ME.. "I condemn completely any extra marital sexual relationship by a Christian, and the marriage of any Christian to more than one woman at the same time"

THE PROBLEM...is... for each of these points.. the Quran and/or Mohammad's example.. ALLOW such things.

Expecting a high profile Muslim who's address might be known to say such things would be like pulling a well rooted wisdom tooth.

As soon as critics of critics of Islam realize these things...the allegation of "Islamophobia" will dissappear.. as BigMal said.

I agree. Once Muhammed's deranged message is exposed for what it is, "Islamophobia" will be a thing of the past. Hopefully, this will occur in our lifetime.

In the debate recommended by Ludwig, there were bodyguards to protect one of the debaters, Daniel Pipes. He mentioned one Sudanese Muslim reformer Mohammad Mahmoud Taha who tried to give a different interpretation of the Koran.

What Daniel Pipes did not mention is that Taha was executed by the Muslim government of Sudan in 1985.

http://platform.blogs.com/passionofthepresent/2007/01/islamic_pacifis.html

An honest interpretation of the Koran and the hadiths necessitates one to conclude that Islam, like Nazism, espouses violence to achieve its aim. Like Nazism's objective of having a pure Aryan race, Islam aims to set up the community of believers (ummah) through shariah law.

It appears that there is no way of reforming Islam; much as Nazism was destroyed in a war, Islam has to be treated in a similar manner. The places that spreads this ideology of hate and murder are the mosques, maddrasahs (Koranic schools), Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran.

To respond to a few posters:

GZ Tan, I think you're missing my point. You're talking about 'weakening' Islam. I never said any such thing. I said that I think all major religions have multiple interpretations and I think people can look into a religion and see what they want.
What I said was, that if people such as yourself see Islam as only a 'bad' religion, then perhaps, we can encourage the peaceful types. You may see this as 'subverting' the religion to something else. I see it as promoting a more peaceful aspect. In any case, our end goal is the same.
However, I never said anything about 'weakening' Islam. Practitioners would quite rightly find this insulting and never take part in it. However, those who follow peaceful interpretations would accept encouragement of their kind of Islam - but not if it was said to be 'weakening' their religion.

Quite an important difference. Those who are interested in simply seeking harmony between religions can see it.
Those who would prefer to convert others to their religion, tend to refuse this option, because it doesn't suit their preferred result - something I have little patience for.

Philip Tang - so what that proved to me was that it was possible for Taha to espouse a different form of his religion.
The powers that be didn't want this and he was assassinated. Very regrettable. However, it shows me that with different people in charge, it's possible for other interpretations to exist.

Polycarp, I don't disagree with your recent post, however I'd take some note of the 'extra-marital' bit. Frankly, provided they're not harming children or forcing people against their will, people's sexual habits are their own business.
None of yours or anyone elses.
I'd scrap that one, but concur with the rest, however you need to also acknowledge that those who do speak out risk the fate of Taha, as mentioned by Philip Tang. As you yourself screech so often, we're dealing with a political element as well.

Cont'd.

Cont'd.

The other key point is that when moderates attempt to defend their religion, you and others attack them.

Witness every attack you yourself have made on people such as Irfan Yusuf.

If you want moderates to speak out against the bad aspects of Islam, then I agree, it must happen.
However, to make this environment possible, we have to stop damning people who do defend their faith.

Why?

-Because when they speak out against the radical elements, they are effectively aligning themselves with the western forces opposed to these radicals.
-They can't align themselves with people who refuse to listen to any defence of the religion without attacking them.

Anyone can see this would be tantamount to giving up their religion - something they would be no more willing than you, to do, polycarp. Nor should they - however, deep down, this is exactly what you want. You're goal isn't just to get them to be peaceful, it's to convert them. Which is why we have a problem.

Add to that the fact that they may be murdered for speaking out, and it's not the simple, easy thing you suggest.

Mil-observer:

This is a semantic argument. The soldier does feel fear, he doesn't act upon it. Everybody feels fear, it's part of our chemical makeup, thus, it's natural.
Fear can be defined as pure emotion, or it can be defined as categorising something as a threat - something which all people and countries do. The soldier is at war because his country has a 'fear' that there will be negative consequences if they do not enter combat.

It seems that Prof Haslam is incorrect, at least as far as our resident Islamophobes are concerned. Fear of Islam feeds their bigotry, but they claim it is a 'rational' fear, given the heinous nature of the Muslim religion.

However, it's only rational if the subjective fear is based on a rational premise. This, I would submit, is not:

<< ...much as Nazism was destroyed in a war, Islam has to be treated in a similar manner >>

It seems to me that, despite their various affectations to 'rationality', our resident Islamophobes share with their fear a propensity to imagined confrontation. Just as well they're invariably sitting behind computers fantasising rather than out on the streets enacting their fantasies, I guess.

TRTL - as ever, very well said.