CJ Morgan's earlier statement rounds off the entire definition of "Islamophobia" where addressing "if the subjective fear is based on a rational premise". For me CJ's statement, and the example of comparative absurdity in an Islamophobic reference to Nazism in this context, tie off a definitional loose end on "Islamophobia". My own distinctions between "reason" and "emotion" here probably seem too purist, but they also demolish Islamophobes' claims flat to the ground when we read the directly absurd claim "fear of Islam is rational".

The most sickening aspect of the Islamophobes' fear-mongering hysteria and promotion of hatred is that they will sometimes provoke some defensive and retaliatory response among some Muslims and their allies, however minor amid a general attitude of forbearance and self discipline. That dynamic would be the self-fulfilling prophecy Islamophobes most enjoy ("Look! They're shooting at us - in Kandahar!"). Such is also the spiral of hostility sought by the cynical, dishonest and power-mad manipulators behind all political campaigns around religion and fear.

Perhaps equally reprehensible in such campaigns are the fundy, "born-again" evangelist "Christian Soldiers" who address any other religions - and often traditional Christian denominations too - as mere targets for conversions. I recall many such sickoes from uni: they regard their mission as just some exciting contest for souls, where conversion affirm their sense of "victory" and supremacy; it's actually a big business.

States need to assert their responsibilities in cases like this, as in Indonesia, where such activity is formally prohibited by law and the perpetrators even jailed and/or deported. In other cases of Indonesia's religious-based destabilization of Muslim and Christian communities, local thugs involved in forced "conversions" have been tried, jailed, and sometimes shot too. Of course, the death penalty is another contentious matter, but the Indonesian response to such destabilization by fanatics is largely exemplary.

James Sinnamon/daggett/et al: << Christopher would surely have demonstrated some comprehension of the 9/11 controversy after more than 3 months >>

If you're referring to your profoundly stupid "9/11 Truth" thread, I began reading it thinking that you seemed a tad obsessed with your conspiracy theories. When I last looked at it I came to the opinion that you're a full-blown conspiracy theory nutbag, and therefore not worth bothering with.

If you're bored with beaten up by Paul.L, go and find another wingnut to play with. This thread's about Islamophobia.

ISLAM the GAZA ATTACK and QURAN SURAH 9.

Understanding the above related incidents will assist us in understanding what and how the future of any Muslim community in Australia could develop.

1/ HAMAS declares the 'treaty over'

GAZA (Reuters) - Hamas on Thursday declared an end to a six-month-old Egyptian-brokered ceasefire with Israel in the Gaza Strip, raising the prospect of an escalation in cross-border fighting.

Quran Surah 9:1

1. Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allâh and His Messenger (SAW) to those of the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh), with whom you made a treaty.

OUTCOME. As for Mohammad, so for Hamas..WAR! Mohammad chose his moment better than Hamas though.. when he was strong. With Israel though, there will be no humiliating 'Yarmuk'...no..more likely a destroyed Gaza, deserved completely by those to declared the treaty 'ended'..ie.. Hamas.

COMMENT: When the Muslims of Mohammad's day or those of HAMAS's day end a treaty.. the result is the same. It means THEY intend to attack others.

In terms of Islamic theology and doctrine. Unless a 'treaty' exists between the Ummah and Dar ul Haab, then a state of war exists.(declared or not).

Western minority Muslim communities will argue that they have an implied 'treaty' with the 'infidel' states.

The current thinking is "Ummah" -related as per Kalim Siddiqui, founder of the Muslim Parliament of Britain:

<<He underlines that Islam is a "political religion", which,
according to him, implies that Muslims in the West, for instance in Great Britain, should develop their Islamic identity and culture as part of the worldwide Umma. The first step towards this goal is to create and INSTITUTIONALIZE a unity at the national level, which was
attempted by Siddiqui by his creation of a "Muslim Parliament", in 1992>>

If that Institutionization gains sufficient momentum, eventually there will be a 'declaration of end of treaty' towards we non Muslims.
I would rather fight the battle with a sappling than a grown tree.

Christopher wrote, " When I last looked at it I came to the opinion that you're a full-blown conspiracy theory nutbag, and therefore not worth bothering with."

So, you keep saying, but as I said, you have yet to demonstrate any basic comprehension of your own of the 9/11 controversy.

Christopher wrote, "... go and find another wingnut to play with."

Why would I be interested in 'playing' with a seeming imbecile, whose only emotional response to the atrocity of September 11, the subsequent loss of civil liberties and the subsequent "war on terror" with the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, is to have been "entertained" or "amused"?

Christopher wrote, "This thread's about Islamophobia."

Of course it is, Christopher, and "Islamophobia" has nothing to do with the belief that "Islamist" (if you insist) extremists perpetrated the September 11 terrorist attack as well as the London Tube bombings and the Madrid train bombing?

To peddle such lies, whether knowingly, or in wanton ignorance, which are responsible for so much death and destruction, whilst posturing as a virtuous politically correct anti-racist seems to me to be amongst the greatest of hypocrisies.

As it happens, this is exactly what is also peddled in that 'politically correct' propaganda arm of Bush's New World Order, namely Rupert Murdoch's News Limited.

In spite of Polycarp's bloodthirsty rants calling for endless crusades in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and elsewhere, I think his concerns about "Christian" nations being demographically overwhelmed by people from Islamic cultures are legitimate.

Mark Steyn said this on ABC Radio National's Counterpoint on 15 November(http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2008/2444672.htm):

"(Islam is) the fastest growing population group on the planet. By some accounts it's up to 25% of the global population now. It's the principle source of population growth in Europe and it's the principle source of population growth in Canada now, and whether we like it or not, Western societies are going to be grappling with the question of Islam and the accommodation of Islam for many decades to come. ... Islam has tremendous cultural confidence and a tremendous demographic wind at its back and western civilisation is faint-hearted, on the ropes and in deep demographic decline and so they don't really need to fly planes into buildings, because in cities like Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Malmo in Sweden, most French cities, most German cities, Manchester, Bradfield, Sheffield in England - they will be taking possession of the keys to those buildings simply through demographic advance in the next few years."

I couldn't tell whether or not Steyn welcomed this. However, I fail to see why one group of people who are prepared to restrain their population numbers, namely Europeans, should, as a consequence, become minorities within their own countries.

daggett: populations do not stabilize or moderate when they are subjected to ongoing warfare, uncertain nourishment and other such urges into diaspora. On the contrary, populations often spike upwards in response to such conditions, because people generally perceive a need to ensure a basic triumph of human life over adversity: procreation is the surest way to do that, and that is a good, life-affirming response in the circumstances. Check the population spikes of post-Shoah Jewish people, for example, or of China after the devastations of Japanese imperialism, civil war and cultural revolution. Expect Gaza's populace to make a similar response after repeated large-scale terror and embargo there, and Iraq after its post-2003 bodycount of 1 million-plus. It seems at best premature, if not offensive, to assume that demographic stagnation or regression is a good thing; again we seem to be returning to that poisonous, anti-human Malthusian stuff even in this non-global-warming-scam thread.

I should add that European population declines are hardly the result of some "effort to restrain population numbers"; such declines are due more to greater egotism and near-compulsory commitment to full-time employment among both parents in western nuclear families. Cultural factors confirm such basic degeneracy e.g., married couples proclaiming proudly that they intend to have no children; inefficient and elaborate IVF and surrogacy treatments, and; notions of same-sex marriage. Many acquaintances of my own age are horrified to learn that I have children: they accept the idea that children are like an affordable luxury for rich oligarchs, not underpaid menial workers like myself.

Finally, your quote of Steyn's comment "the question of Islam" has an especially sinister ring to it, echoing earlier ages' rubbish about "the Jewish question", "the Irish question", etc. All very Malthus or, perhaps in Steyn's case, rather Kapo?