Thankyou. I have mirrored you at churchrewired.org Andrew

I thought this was a very good article on this topic until I read the last line.

The trouble is that there has been such a large volume of single events of single muslim doing acts of violence against others, muslim and non muslim alike.

The auther also makes no mention of the inherently violent nature of the koranic trilogy either, which is the source of the violence they seem to be copping the blame for.

Godbotherers are godbotherers no matter what magical superfriend in the sky they profess to hear voices from. They are all insane. As are all people who hear voices in their head and talk to non existent imaginary friends. Children excepted of course.

I dont want to understand muslims or jews or christians or any other airy fairy superstitious nutters. They are all evil and elitist and foul minded bigots who want to force their sick views onto the rest of the world and subjugate us to their sick and twisted morality and show the same submissiveness to their leaders that they do. Sorry some of us have minds of our own and will make our own decisions without reference to some idiotic preacher with a coke habit and a few little boys stashed out the back.

We will be led by science and reason and use our knowledge to improve our lives and the lives of others. Not murder them and spite them because they dont believe as we do.

I dont care what you believe in and if you want an abortion or not. I dont care if you pray to mecca 3 times a day or go to mass and eat bickies and wine. I dont care if you want to worship cows or not use electricity every saturday. I dont care if you want to refuse medical care or if you drink the purple coolaid.
JUST KEEP IT TO YOURSELF.

Teuku, you forgot to mention the big sin of Islam: it's people sit on huge oil reserves. The West has long drawn on its own resources - science, technology and reason - to steal it off them. That seems to upset some Muslims.

Well said Mikk, although I would add that keeeping it to yourself also means not indoctrinating your children with this drivel - that's known as child abuse.

MIKK

Godhaters are god haters no matter what lies they profess to deny their Creator. They are all insane. As are all people who make up fairy tales as to the world coming about through a big bang. I mean how childish can a person be.

I don't care what adult fairytales you believe in. Just stop spreading your crap to our children.

Unfortunately, Mikk, there are important differences between Christianity and Islam. After five hundred years of internal schisms and struggles against science, Christianity has become so attenuated that it exerts very little authority over most of its nominal followers: take the proportion of self-proclaimed Catholics who practice birth control, for instance. Islam is much stronger and more authoritative for most of its believers, as shown by polls of what Muslim immigrants and students believe is acceptable, and the outrageous statements which its religious leaders are allowed to get away with here and overseas. This means that an expansion of Islam results in much greater erosion of individual freedom than a corresponding expansion of Christianity.

I have no doubt that if humanity survives and progresses for another hundred years or so, then Islam will be in much the same position that Christianity is in now. But an awful lot of suffering and misery -- mainly on the part of Muslims themselves -- will take place before that day is reached. Christianity has largely outgrown its megalomaniac delusions: Islam has not.

<"Unfortunately, Mikk, there are important differences between Christianity and Islam">

The only important difference between the three factions of the Abrahamic cult is the time line, other than that, they are one and the same. When you have a history only exhibiting violence and suppression, no amount of excuses can overcome the factual reality. As they say, if you support terrorist organisations in any way, you are guilty by association. Continuing to excuse the actions of so many believers from all factions is no different to providing monetary, physical or emotional support and guilt by association. The belief in god is psychologically destructive, a refuge for all the evil despots of the world and the excuse they use to continue terrorising the planet in the name of their mythical god.

Let me put it this way: in an Islamic society, people like runner would be in charge.

An interesting and informative article that provides a fascinating insight into how some Muslims categorise variations of their faith and communities. It's certainly a refreshing variation on the usual monochromatic (and usually negative) version we tend to get from most non-Muslim authors writing about contemporary Islam.

Some excellent comments, particularly the last couple from stormbay and Jon J - the latter of whom is frighteningly (and hilariously) correct, I think :S

Thanks, Teuku Zulfikar.

Most reasonable people would agree and accept that Muslims like any other religous people are not homogenous and their beliefs can manifest in many different ways. Look how many sects exist under the umbrella of Christianity all with their own interpretations of the Bible.

The unfortunate reality is the growth of fundamentalist Muslims over the past 20 years due to a number of global political and economic stimuli, not least including the failure of the West to address the issues concerning Palestine.

Whatever the factors that feed fundamentalism - poverty, injustice, political and cultural characteristics - the fact is that the world watched when thousands of Middle Eastern people were televised cheering when the planes flew into the twin towers.

While the West has been guilty of many horrific crimes either overtly or covertly (under the guise of Christianity), the fact is that our thoughts and attitudes are shaped by various events and our perceptions are very much in the eye of the beholder.

Of course, it is unfair that moderate Muslims are not separated from the more radical elements. We in the West, seem to have no trouble distinguishing the more radical groups within Christianity but perhaps it is because we know them better and with integration and education those prejudices will be diffused.

I wouldnt have expected anything less from you runner. Pray for my soul did you?

Teuku conveniently forgets to mention that the crimes committed by a minority are committed in the name of a majority of silent Muslims who are purpotedly exploited and denigrated by the infidel West. And it's this silence or sotto voce position of the majority of Muslims that make them complicit to the criminal actions of the minority. Just remember that this majority of Muslims are still to be convinced that the 9/11 attack was perpetrated by radical Muslims and not by the conspiratorial duo of Mossad and the CIA.

http://avant-gardestrategies.typepad.com

mikk

Believe or or not yes.I wish none to rot in hell although we all deserve it. Thank God for His mercy in sending Christ.

Jon J writes

'Let me put it this way: in an Islamic society, people like runner would be in charge.'

Why won't you secularist tell the truth. Under Islamic law I would be beheaded for my belief in Christ or at best treated like a dog. You secularist with your willingness to murder the unborn have a lot more in common with Islam than what I do. You believe in just as many lies as what Islam teaches. Islam teaches Mohammed was a prophet from God. You make up fairytales to explain origins and deny your Creator. YOur moral relativism eases your consciences from a multitude of evil but does not change the fact that one day you will give an account before your Maker. Hopefully you will come to your senses before that day.

runner
You claim that in Islam society you could be beheaded for your beliefs yet you harbour an almost unhealthy hatred for secularism. Don't you understand that secularism in those nations would mean that you would no longer be beheaded for your personal beliefs.

Would you rather that Christians continue to be persecuted in places like Iraq and Iran? I am sure you are not advocating we start beheading or outcasting those who might not share your views. To hold one's own views up as the only truth goes against the Christian ethos of charity, humility and humbleness.

Secularism is the only way forward to peace, accepting each other for our beliefs an end to the hatred.

Secularism is our Saviour!?

Which flavour? Soviet, Nazi, Khemer Rouge or Christian based Western models?

We might be pluralist, but, secularism is not what we have or deserve.

God save the Queen, and bless our Pope and save us from those who want to negate history!

Pelican

YOu write

'Don't you understand that secularism in those nations would mean that you would no longer be beheaded for your personal beliefs.'

That might be true but I would also have had a good chance of being murdered in the womb like tens of thousands do here today. My point is that Islam and secularism both have intolerant death culture ( the very thing the fundamentalist secularist accuse Christians of).

runner
No society is perfect whether it be secularist in nature or dominated by one powerful religious group.

Secularism is the condition where there is a separation of powers between religion and State. I can see where there may be some grey areas in legislating to ensure that in becoming secular we be careful not to turn a blind eye to practices that also go against issues of human rights or democratic freedoms. I watched a documentary the other day and it nearly bought me to tears to see a screaming child being forced to undergo genital mutilation.

I don't think I have ever met a fundamentalist secularist but I can name a few fundamentalist Christians and Muslims. Abortion has been carried out for centuries even in Christian dominated nations, the mere fact of being Christian or Muslim does not prevent abortions it merely pushes them underground.

As for death culture it is only the fundamentalists Muslims that kill in the name of Allah. Who has argued that Christians in the modern world have a death culture? One might argue that previous US governments used Christian terminology as though (if there were a God) he would be in favour of invasions where there was no legitimate cause. But I think, as in the case of Allah, this is a perversion of what the stories of Christianity and Islam are about.

Perhaps in the days of the Inquisition or the Crusades, yes I would agree this period was marked by a fundamentalist Christian death culture (to use your words). Or in the case of the Klu Klux clan believing that white men were superior over black and hence gave themselves permission to kill in God's name. These people do not represent all Christians.

Humans will always cherry pick from the Bible or the Koran to suit, what is really, their own view on the world. Catholics who use contraception, have sex before marriage or Muslims who kill in the name of Allah are all outside of the dictums of their faith.

pelican,
I think I can agree with what you wrote, except perhaps for:

>> I don't think I have ever met a fundamentalist secularist <<

How else would you describe people, even on this OLO, who call religion education (presumably any, including that provided by mainstream Christian churches) "child abuse", a term that describes a crime punishable by law in any decent society?

(I prefer to use the short term “secularist“, that rhymes with islamist or (Christian) fundamentalist, to denote the intolerant ones, while retaining the term "secular humanist" for tolerant people like you. Fortunately, intolerant secularists/atheists, as vociferous as they are, are still a small minority among Western secular humanists.)

The world I escaped from in 1968 did not go that far in trying to criminalise religious education, but it did get close enough: I myself, had I not won a high school mathematics competition (the price being the choice of any university in the country, free of entrance exams, which meant also free of political/ideological interrogation) I would probably not have been allowed to go straight to a university because of my religious convictions. (Although some people thus discriminated managed to get a place at the university a few years later.)

Did you, or somebody you know, ever have a similar experience with a country where Christians (including the fundamentalists) were at the helm? (Of course, I speak of our living memory, not the Middle Ages).

I think one should compare decent Christians with decent secular humanists, and intolerant Christians with intolerant secularists, whatever the basis of their intolerance: be it biblical literalism, religious fanaticism or adherence to a fanatic atheist ideology like Marx-Leninism, or just arrogance bred by ignorance of the other side‘s position; in both cases.

This inventive way of categorizing Muslims into groups depending on how well they observe Islamic rituals is deceptive.

In the orthodox tradition of Islam, the world is divided into two components: dar al-Islam, the house of Islam and dar al-Harb, the house of war.

If the former does not apply then physical means such as Jihad can be used to correct the situation.

Dar al-Harb is also referred to as Dar al-Garb "house of the West", which for much of Islamic history, has been used to emphasize Islamic aspirations to conquer such territories and render them part of dar al-Islam.

A traditional Arabic saying attributed to Muhammad goes: "Unbelief is one community", or in other words, "infidels are of one nation", expressing the view that distinctions between different types of non-Muslims are insignificant in relation to the overriding distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim.

The house of war may further be divided into:

Dar al Hudna ("house of calm"): The land of non-believers currently under a truce, a respite between wars;

Dar al-'Ahd ("house of truce") or Dar al-Sulh ("house of treaty"): invented to describe the Ottoman Empire's relationship with its Christian tributary states.

Dar al-Dawa ("house of invitation") - a term used to describe a region where the religion of Islam has recently been introduced.

Dar al-Amn ("house of safety") - a term proposed by Western Muslim philosophers to describe the status of Muslims either in the West or other non-Muslim societies.

So how does this article helps us understand Muslims better if Teuku can’t even address what his ideology actually teaches?

While Muslims here in Dar al-Amn are always trying to label themselves “moderate”, the tension of being a Muslim in Australia will be present until we can all be miserable together under the roof of dar al-Islam (the house of peace).

And what percentage of Australian Muslims would call themselves moderate? Radical? Neo-fundamentalist? Societal? You don't actually indicate which label Australian Muslims most identify with.

Women wearing hijab – are they Moderate? Radical? Neo-fundamentalist? Societal? Or proud of their heritage?

Muslims building mosques – Moderate? Radical? Neo-fundamentalist? Societal?

Taxi drivers refusing to carry drunk passengers – Moderate? Radical? Neo-fundamentalist? Societal? Societal-heritage?

Demanding special prayer rooms at Australian universities – Moderate? Radical? Etc?

Declaring women to be "uncovered meat"...?

Beating wives...?

Marrying children as young as 9 years old...?

Writing yet another article to show how stupid and intolerant Australians are, while Muslims clearly have the higher moral ground and a claim to this land dating back to the 1800s …….Muslim.

You really are a hateful Christian fundy, aren't you katie0?

I guess in Teuku Zulfikar's schema, that would make you a Neo-fundamentalist godbotherer, as opposed to the inoffensive, harmless majority of Christians.

George

I cannot disagree with what you say. Certainly not in living memory can I think of a nation dominated by a Christian ethos as having the same effects as the experience you described.

There are of course isolated examples of fundamentalist sects offending against children and the like but they are not the norm and their acts do not reflect or exert power over the majority.

The only thing I would add that a secularist that would advocate banning religion or religious education in a private school is not really a secularist. Perhaps sometimes, in thinking about a comment from a previous poster, we really mean pluralism when we say secularism.

Banning religious education from a public government funded school is not, I think you would agree, a fundamentalist secular view,if we perceive secularism as a condition where governments do not force one particular religious view on the populace.

This is different of course in learning about Religion as a subject of history or studies of society across the broad spectrum of the major religious groups.

CJ Morgan.
Yap-yapping again? How tiresome. (Folks, there's a long background to this elsewhere.)

KatieO is not a hateful Christian fundy. She's just being honest. No political correctness.

If you put as much educated perspective, life experience and balance into your contributions as (say) George, you could say something worthwhile.

Consistently, what you write shows a tragic inability to discern the difference between truth and negativity born of nihilism. I tell you wistfully, "... know the truth and the truth will set you free."

What is truth? Honesty, fairness, balance, pursuit of the good, the beautiful and the holy. An internalized belief system that conduces "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control". People who aspire to this are not "fundies" but salt of the earth, a light against moral darkness. How do you think others read you? As a light on a high point toward which they should head, or as someone totally lost?

I've often wondered why so many people seem to be fascinated by the negative and destructive. Why is it clever and sophisticated to be constantly negative, destructive and disdainful of what is wholesome and ingenuously 'good'?

To anticipate a criticism from you, I freely concede I suffer from lack of patience and a certain capacity for indignation (yup, selective judgmentalism). Christians sure aren't perfect. But "If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not!" (Galatians 2:17)

When you think to bad-mouth Christians, and tar all of us as "fundies" (a pejorative but meaningless term, the way you use it), please take on board that I, and many others, identify strongly with this statement by Steve Chalke (UK pastor): “The task of the church is to be the irrefutable demonstration and proof of the fact that God is love.”

That’s a pretty decently directed aspiration, I reckon. Which direction are you facing?

Glorfindel – I’m in fine company at least!

The “hateful” statements originate from “the sacred text of Islam”, the book that unites Muslims, and if CJ mistrusts my motive, it is because he is unwilling to delve deeper.

The author claims there are two groups of Muslims in the west (practicing and heritage), and four main types of the former:

1) Moderate Muslims – characterized by non-violence, a secular mindset and the belief that integration is possible
2) Radicals – assertive, puritanical, using violence as a legitimate tool
3) Neo-fundamentalists – uncompromising and violent, following a strict interpretation of Islam.
4) Societal – with a “narrow and inadequate” understanding of being a Muslim (including those heritage Muslims)

It doesn’t take a genius to see that the fourth category is not relevant to the integration issue (being born and bred in the west, or highly integrated) leaving three types, of which two are prepared to use violence, with full Qu’ranic authorization.

Are Muslims being judged by the actions of a single, rogue individual when the author has himself defined Muslims as violent?

Back to the fourth type:

The only option for a nominal Muslim, is a deeper understanding of Islam. The only course available, is to be set on an authentic pathway to Islam: radical, neo-fundamentalist or “moderate”. The problem is not inability to integrate, but not being Muslim enough.

No category for apostates. No opting out of Islam, even in the west.

The “moderate” view is being sold heavily by Muslim apologists in the west. But where does the moderate view fit into the Qu’ran?

According to Mohammed, it is a strategy to be adopted by Muslims outside of dar al-Islam, until such time as Muslims have dominance. A mindset established for short-term survival and political expediency.

This piece disguises the real nature and intent of Islam, which any honest or meaningful dialogue must address if we are to reach understanding. Blaming us harbis for integration problems is just a bad habit.

Glorfindel, I wasn't "bad-mouthing" all Christians - in fact, I thought I took care to exclude the majority from my criticism.

My issue is with the fundamentalist Islamophobia expressed by katie0, in the face of a particularly reasonable effort by a Muslim to explain his understanding of the nuances of his faith to a non-Muslim audience.

As for the rest of your masturbatory diatribe, it's only exceeded by katie0's latest Islamophobic waffle. You w@nkers talk about 'love', but all you seem to do is promulgate hate, at least as far as Muslims are concerned.

Wasn't there something about planks and splinters (or was that beams and motes) in your mythology that's relevant to this?

pelican,
>>we really mean pluralism when we say secularism<<
and, as I pointed out, one often really means secular humanism when one says secularism, the latter term being reserved for the intolerant variety.

I agree that the ideal societal and educational model is pluralism of world-views, whether or not they are explicitly associated with some religion. However, if instead one speaks of a pluralism of religions, one places persons with a secular humanist world view in a privileged position to teach "religion as a subject of history or studies of society across the broad spectrum of the major religious groups". Or would you let professed Christians or Muslims - or nuns or scarf-wearing Muslim women - teach this subject? Because I do not think a high school teacher can hide his/her own personal convictions when teaching such a subject.

After all, many forms of Christian RE include teaching about other religious groups, however always from the Christian point of view: the student knows this and he/she does not have to ask the teacher "And what do YOU think, what do YOU believe?". Similarly, whoever will teach teenagers about religion(s) "as a subject of history or studies of society" will have to "out himself/herself" before his/her class. I am aware that this applies, at leat partly, also to the teaching of history.

Even as an adult, you can read about maths, science or some technical stuff without bothering about the general world-view, religion or lack of it, of the author. However, the author‘s background world-view is relevant to any expository account of philosophy (and perhaps also history) that is not just a dry listing of widely accepted facts. I learned a lot about e.g. Western philosophy from Bertrand Russell and Anthony Flew, but also from Frederick Copleston SJ, by knowing beforehand where the author himself stood.

“The task of the church is to be the irrefutable demonstration and proof of the fact that God is love.”

Pity 2000 years of god's form of love provides no evidence to support it's anything but a god of war. It doesn't matter which faction you're from, in the end all followers go to war or act to suppress for their god. There's no evidence god is good for the world, all we have is Abrahamic inspired wars, debauchery and enslavement.

Supposed moderate christians and muslims are peaceful if they're getting what they want, it's plain to see by the religious replies here, they get angry, hateful and threatening to all who disagree with them.

Currently the worlds problems revolve around god, they're not nice problems, but destructive. As pointed out, god followers of every description care nothing for the planet or it's other life, how can this be an act of love. Isn't love all encompassing, non violent or suppressive. Isn't it a pleasant experience, doesn't it give freedom and peace. Where is the irrefutable proof of this, where is the loving outcome from believing in islam or christianity. It's not viewable in any country controlled by any god faction and it's not viewable in any country they practise in. In the main it's the opposite as we see with the ongoing revelations of the continuing abuses throughout all these churches and sects worldwide.

I'm just wondering what excuse these believers of all persuasions come up with when their god doesn't come and save them from the disasters the planet is facing, but they are in denial about that as well.

The only irrefutable proof available is, god has never come along and imposed peace between his warring factions or others. Psychologically stable people, understand that reality and why.

As with all dialogue on Muslims in the west, crude caricatures of religious belief tend to predominate at the expense of fair and responsible dialogue.

Is it not a genuine concern that Muslims living in the West are theologically in harmony with the Qu'ranic position, while politically and socially antagonistic to western life and culture?

The failure of Muslims to integrate into Australian society, with a presence dating back to the 1800s, is truly spectacular.

I do agree with the author that the stereotypical negative image of Islam can be transformed through proper use of the media.

It is therefore ironic, that the author has failed to show how Australian Muslims can transcend the violence of Islam using this media opportunity.

Other commentators, by resorting to anti-Christian polemics, are not helpful to the cause.

But above all else, with the four identifiable categories of Muslims in the west, Muslims themselves should attempt to promote co-operation among themselves, while addressing the issue of the incompatibility of the Muslim belief system with Australian institutions and way of life.

The Muslim community in Australia is a minority community with a leadership estranged from the Australian community.

This failure of good leadership has not been addressed by the Muslim “moderates” amongst us.

If such individuals and organizations exist in any number, should make themselves known by standing up for democracy, pluralism, and secularism and denouncing the Islamists.

Defensiveness pushes even liberal Muslims into a radical corner. And as the author laments, getting tagged with Islamist vices immensely frustrates moderate Muslims.

Muslim communities do have a special quality; they alone have a profoundly anti-Western ideology to fall back on.

Muslim leaders and writers need to do more serious thinking on this topic.

On four visits to Indonesia I have been struck by the unfailing friendliness of people. I can get by in Indonesian and that helps. Last September I stayed with a family in Jakarta where the mother (in her 60s) is a devout Muslim, the father (70) is a Muslim but was raised a Catholic, the children and their families are Muslim, but the mother's sister and family are Protestant, and the whole extended family - Muslim, Catholic, Protestant - get along fine. If Islam is tolerant like that, I have no problem at all with it.

Within Indonesia, Wahhabiism of Abu Bakar Bashir (mentor of the Bali bombers – I’d rather call him Bashir bin Dubur Babi Bakar) wants to take over Islam. Despite the Panca Sila, Indonesia applies legal intolerance toward other faiths: see recent restrictions on the Ahmadiya sect (‘Muslims’ who recognize a prophet after Mohammed); burning of churches (eg west of Jakarta 1-2 years ago); the need every Christmas for police to protect churches from bombings; and murder of Christians in parts of Sulawesi (eg beheading of Christian schoolgirls in Poso) and Ambon.

While the Panca Sila recognizes five faiths, Indonesian law allows a local (Muslim) community to block church construction.

And Indonesia is very moderate! Most other Muslim countries allow far less freedom for Christians. Malaysia says Malays must be Muslim; in a mixed marriage the non-Muslim must convert to Islam; and apostasy is forbidden, even where a non-Malay wants to revert (say after a divorce) to the original religion.

If 'mainstream' Islam seeks to ban Ahmadiya, on the basis of its 'heresy' in claiming later revelation than Mohammed, Christians surely have a similar case in relation to Islam itself – while it claims to recognize 'Nabi Isa' (prophet Jesus), Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life: no man comes unto the Father but by me".

Modern Christianity doesn’t apply violence to sects similarly 'outside the canon', like Mormons and JWs. Why the *&^% can't Islam grow up and be tolerant too?!

Glorfindel wrote, "Modern Christianity doesn’t apply violence to sects similarly 'outside the canon', like Mormons and JWs. Why the *&^% can't Islam grow up and be tolerant too?"

The irony is profound. Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity, and what were Chrsistians doing 600 years ago? Rampaging around the globe killing unbelievers for god's glory, of course.

This why Christians are regarded as hypocrites when they condemn Muslim violence - the two religions are all but identical, and differ only in vintage.

Claims to Christianity's maturity are equally risible. It didn't grow up and become tolerant; it got castrated by the Enlightenment and had to reluctantly adapt or fade away. If the church had crushed the Enlightenment - and god knows it tried - we'd still be burning witches and trying to cure the flu with leeches.

Islam will only drag itself into the modern world the same way Christianity did: by enduring a triumph of rationality over superstition and accepting a diminished role as a twee source of reassurance against the human fear of death.

Waging wars and persecuting immigrants doesn't bring that closer to reality, and very effectively pushes it further away.

Sancho.

"The two religions are all but identical" ?

Two issues here. First is the GAP between the actual teachings of the religions - what Jesus and Mohammed said, what's in the New Testament and the Koran and Hadiths - and what the professed followers of each religion actually did. In relation to Christianity, deplorably much has been done in the name of Christ that is far from reconcilable with what Christ taught. Why? Human nature finds it much easier to be evil than to be 'good' - people have abused power to pursue personal and institutional agendas absolutely incompatible with the theology. No excuse for it. We see the same awful corruption in the practical implementation of just about every supposedly altruistic political theory.

Second issue is the actual THEOLOGICAL CONTENT of the religions. Here there is a vast difference between Christianity and Islam, firstly on relations with people of other faiths, and secondly in teaching on how people should live.

The Koran is a selective, poor and hopelessly garbled plagiarism of much content of the Torah. It gets facts, dates and essential points wrong. It claims Jesus as a major prophet, yet reflects zero of his teaching. 600 years after Christ, it is straight back to Leviticus :

2.180,181,194 and 4.124 and 42.42: Believers, retaliation is decreed for you in bloodshed: a free man for a free man, a slave for a slave, and a female for a female. ... If anyone attacks you, attack him as he attacked you. ...He that does evil shall be requited with evil…. Those who seek to redress their wrongs incur no guilt.

Compare Jesus (Matthew 5:38-48):
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. .....You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you ... "

Glorfindel, the theological minutiae of Islam versus Christianity is only of signficance to theologians. To everyone else - who only want to live in peace and don't care whose god is the "true" god - they are both ideological monstrosities from the Middle East, making the same backward claims about the natural world, talking about the same historical figures, and endorsing mass slaughter in the name of god and the prophet.

In 600 years there will be some Glor bin Findel claiming that Islam has always been peaceful, the violent bits in his holy book aren't important, the violent Muslims in history don't count as real Muslims, and that Hindus (or whoever) should grow up and stop being violent.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, safe bet it's a duck.

Teuku writes:

“Since the first arrival of Muslims in western countries, they have been struggling to find their place in the mainstream society either by assimilation, integration or in isolation."

But the historical record does not support your claim:

“What many history books miss is that the only armed hostilities to occur on Australian soil during World War I happened in a most unlikely place, Broken Hill….

On New Year's Day 1915 a trainload of picnickers was attacked by a rifle-wielding ice-cream vendor. The assailant and his accomplice were variously described as 'Turks' or 'Afghans'..

In fact, ice-cream seller Gool Mahomed and butcher Mullah Abdullah were neither Turkish nor Afghan, but members of a camel teamsters community that had originally been brought to the Outback from northwestern British India, today's Pakistan. As Moslems they were sympathetic to Turkey, which was at war with Australia.

http://www.travelintelligence.com/travelwriting/1000030/australasia/australia/new-south-wales/broken-hill/of-art-and-war-on-broken-hill.html

Several were killed and wounded, the youngest was a 17-year-old boy going to a picnic.

Teuku wishes to:

“enrich the understanding of non-Muslims in western society and elsewhere on the nature (of) Muslimness or Muslim identity.”

Then why resort to the propagandist’s tool of historical revisionism?

Why rely on a distortion of facts, such as:

“September 11 has had a profound impact on Muslims around the world.”

Surely not so profound as the impact on the people and families directly affected? Not a word for the real victims of 9/11!

Teuku we do want to understand Muslims better, but you need to maintain your credibility by not embellishing the facts.

As I've shown, your claims lack integrity and the "ring of truth":

1) Historically: by changing the facts to suit your argument

2) Theologically: by attempting to gloss over the Qur'anic truth

3) Ethically & Morally: by claiming victimhood

4) Sociologically: by attempting to cover the socio-pathic violence of the "Radicals" and the "Neo-fundamentalists" under normative human activity.

If Muslims are "shrouded in mystery", then a puff piece such as this makes me think that that mystery is deliberate, and that your real aim is to disguise the truth of Islam.

“Other commentators, by resorting to anti-Christian polemics, are not helpful to the cause.”

Polemics relate to refuting a situation, position or theory widely accepted as beyond reproach. With christianity the only thing beyond reproach is it's verifiable history, just as it is with all factions of Abrahamic religion. I watched a program last night on the ABC, which death with the killing of children in Africa by christians because they believed them to be possessed, according to the program more than 15000 children have been murdered. One christian priests, was happy to claim more than 100 children's lives he had taken, which is no different to Christianity's past or islam.

Islam is just another faction of the violent Abrahamic cult and I agree it should be kept out of this country, but then again I also believe people have the right to believe what they want. But they have no right to force or impose their beliefs and practises upon others, in that there is no difference in any ideology. Muslims like christians are easy to understand, it is they who lack any understanding of reality and fact. People may wish to separate themselves from other factions, but when the crunch comes they all band together against any opposing them, we see it all the time around the world in the collaboration they indulge in, then turn round and attack each other, very sane loving belief indeed and all over the same mythical god.

Exclusivity does not partner easily with compromise. The older religions were much more tolerant Gods were melded to achieve civility:e.g., Amon-Re.

Moreover, the exclusive religions (especially Islam and Judaism)have tribal foundations, making it hard for adherents to accept "other gods" in a society. Ironically, it would be the Secular Humanist who would be happy with Muslims living next door, whilst many a Christian would not do like-wise.

The Christian-Judaic-Islamic triangle is an adversarial form. All believe their relationship with their god to be special and that their knowledge of scriptures is true above all the others. It is hard to conceive a supreme being, being the force behind such an out-of-tune orchestration.

Stormbay,

Teuku wants to help us understand Muslims. He does mention Christians but not in the sense of helping us understand Muslims, but to throw us off the trail:

“Like other people in different religious groups - such as in Christianity, Buddhism, and Judaism - some Muslims are moderate, some radical and fundamental and some are societal”

You don’t need to take this claim at face value or adopt the same fallacy by using the term “Abrahamic religions”. Christianity denies any commonality with Islam. It is like comparing Christian faith with communism.

In regard to the program on the ABC, I can only comment that the use of scripture to justify such inhuman behaviour is well outside mainstream Christianity; and that there is no “banding together” of the Christian faiths. My own church is riddled with internal division, for example. There really isn’t a sense of “Christendom” in the same way that the Muslim world is a bloc.

Oliver, you must live in Melbourne. Here in Sydney, we not only have Muslim neighbours but close Muslim friends - my children go to (a secular) school with their children and play in the same sports teams.

Anti-Christian sentiment is rife on this thread. Bigoted, fabricated statements such as Oliver’s are destructive and derogatory and I would argue that the opposite is true (and I don’t qualify the Muslim next door with a “moderate”, or “societal” or “cultural” tag either).

Polemics is “the art of practice of making arguments or controversies” and has a particular application to refuting errors in doctrine. I have used this word in the correct context.

Hi George
I wasn't really thinking in terms of religious education as instruction - more as a part of social studies. In my high school years in the mid-70s,as part of Geography we learnt about various countries which included a small part about the dominant religions. Not instruction in that religion, just an overview of what it meant to be a Buddhist or a Hindu etc. I don't remember a bias in the teacher's delivery.

Personally I don't think religious instruction should be part of a secular school system because this goes against the idea of embracing and welcoming all to our society. Religion/spirituality is such a personal issue that,from my view, is better taught within the religious confines of one's Church,community or relevant religious school.

When I was in Primary School RE was part of the school curriculum. Unless parents specifically requested their child be excluded it was a mainstream subject. From memory I think it only came around once a fortnight or month. My brother and I used to stand around outside with other Atheist, Greek Orthodox, some Aboriginal and Jewish kids who were also permitted to miss RE. I remember feeling a bit odd, somehow as though we were strange but other than that there was not the disharmony that we see now.

Ironically now that we are more secular, I sense a greater tension and divide in our society through religious and other differences. There appears such a strong sense of intolerance and defensiveness (we are all guilty) when it comes to our values, beliefs and moral makeup.

I am not sure where it is all headed, or why we have reached this impasse. Maybe, and we can hope, it is a transitional period that will stand the test of time.

"Anti-Christian sentiment is rife on this thread. Bigoted, fabricated statements such as Oliver’s are destructive and derogatory and I would argue that the opposite is true (and I don’t qualify the Muslim next door with a “moderate”, or “societal” or “cultural” tag either)." - KO

What statements of mine are a. bigoted and b. fabricated?

I have worked in Malaysia and Indonesia without a single problem. There, I felt no pressure to assimilate, yet Katie-the-unbigoted sees Islam inferior to Christianity and Muslims must assimilate to Australian (Christian) ways.

Regarding my last post, I had the historian Arnold Toynbee in mind. His approach is pretty much matter-of-fact. He relates religions to various stages of societal development. The problem is, the monotheistic faiths are not well placed to compromise by virtue of their core beliefs. Other ancient religions synthesise their systems to accommodate each other. Do you know of the Greeks and Romans having any religious wars? The Egyptians? [Akhenaten (1379-1362 BC did have his monothesism overturned, but that was internal.]

My comments at OLO are in no way directed against Jesus Christ as I believe he was a great teacher. Instead, I put that the OT is every bit as tribal and primitive as Koran. Elsewhere, I see others identifying with (Nicaean) Christianity, a body having a dark history indeed. Also the Christians of the fourth and fifth century were differentiated in belief from those of the second and third centuries, the former being more intersting in martydom and virginity than doctrine (Fox).

Moreover, I see hypocrisy in Christians criticising the flaws of other religions, including the pagans, based, often times on prejudice and misinformation. I see following Christ via Christianity a contradiction. The latter the antithesis of the former.

Shorter katie0: You can't trust Muslims because they're... well... Muslims!

As an atheist, I feel much the same about Christians - particularly when they get political.

However, I know that the vast majority of people I know who'd classify themselves as 'Christian' wouldn't dream of engaging in the kind of hate-mongering that katie0 has in this thread. Certainly, the considerably fewer Muslims that I know wouldn't either.

I think Sancho nailed it in this thread -

<< Islam will only drag itself into the modern world the same way Christianity did: by enduring a triumph of rationality over superstition and accepting a diminished role as a twee source of reassurance against the human fear of death.

Waging wars and persecuting immigrants doesn't bring that closer to reality, and very effectively pushes it further away. >>

That's very close to my own thoughts on Muslim immigrants - i.e. Islam's here, it's not going away, we need to help Muslims bring their religion into the 21st century in a way that doesn't involve mass antagonism, conflict and violence.

Beating Muslims around the head and ears with theological/ideological sticks isn't going to help, IMHO. Engaging in respectful and tolerant dialogue might, however, create possibilities whereby people might suspend their latter-day tribalism and work together on the other crap that we've collectively created.

I know it won't happen, but I dream that it might.

Amen.

Mikk: Halfon noted that the person of integrity is the fanatic we agree with. Although there is more to integrity than this, for instance one may claim that the theories that laden observations be observation laden, i.e. they have a reciprocal interaction, it would seem being respectful to others would be necessary. Sadly, do unto others as you would have done to you tends to devolve into do unto others as is done to you. How would you react if people talked to you that way?

John Kosci: Yes it does appear that they have something others want. It seems irrational then to not apply the same concept to Islam. The Ottoman Empire had surrounded Venice. Without aid soon the besieged city would fall to the invading Turks. They were defeated, Sep/11/1683 by a combined European effort under the leadership of the Polish King. Did anyone learn this in school or university?

A justification for war has always been a sticking point for the Christianity that has required an articulate theological justification. Islam however does not, as Muslims are to live as Mohammad did - who personally beheaded 700 people, according to the principle of abrogation (if two statements contradict it is the later one that is authoritative), peaceful verses in the Koran typically originate from Mecca, before he had power. Mohammad when he gained power acted as you would expect a seventh century warlord to act.

At the height of its power Islam did not conduct pacifist dialogue as did Western-European Christianity. The Maori in New Zealand were a divided tribal people constantly at war with each other. When they encountered Christianity, this lead them to develop pacifist movements - not from necessity but volition (trench warfare was invented by the Maori), the standard contemporary view, at least in New Zealand is that on the battlefield the Maori won.

As the article notes Muslims are normal people. The Koran provides an explicit mandate for conflict, a Muslim land if acting with integrity must have Sharia law. However some will observe the Koran more than others, thus you get Jihad.

Ancient Philosopher:

Not Venice but VIENNA in 1683; also 1529. Bernard Lewis writes in THE MIDDLE EAST: 2000 years of history from the rise of Christianity to the present day:

"There was a long history of desperate struggle between Ottoman Turkey and the Christian West. The almost successful siege of Vienna (1529) was a high water mark of Ottoman expansion into central Europe. In the middle of the sixteenth century Busbecq, ambassador of the Holy Roman empire at the court of Suleyman the Magnificent, expressed deep misgivings about the survival of Christian Europe under the threat of overwhelming Ottoman power, and wrote in a letter:

‘Persia alone interposes in our favour, for the enemy, as he hastens to attack, must keep an eye on this menace in his rear. … Persia is only delaying our fate; it cannot save us. When the Turks have settled with Persia they will fly at our throats, supported by the might of the whole East; how unprepared we are I dare not say.’"

The (naval) Battle of Lepanto (1571) was a desperate defence by the Holy League against the Turks. The Holy League was a coalition of the Republic of Venice, the Papacy [under Pope Pius V], Spain [including Naples, Sicily and Sardinia], the Republic of Genoa, the Duchy of Savoy, the Knights Hospitaller and others; the battle was fought at the northern edge of the Gulf of Patras, off western Greece.

EUROPE REMAINED IN GREAT FEAR OF THE ISLAMIC THREAT until the battle (second siege) of Vienna in 1683, when the Ottomans were routed by a coalition of armies commanded by King Jan III Sobieski of Poland - the saviour of Europe. After 1683, the weakness of the Ottoman state posed a problem for Europe – the ‘Eastern question’.

In 1853 tsar Nicholas I of Russia reportedly said to the British Ambassador in St Petersburg, speaking of Turkey, "We have a sick man on our hands, a man gravely ill. It will be a great misfortune if one of these days he slips through our hands, especially before the necessary arrangements are made."

Ostensibly, Teuku’s purpose was to clear up the misconception that all Muslims are terrorists.

The basic premise is flawed, not just because the arguments are superficial, but also because Australians, myself included, do not believe all Muslims are terrorists (for the time being at least).

I didn’t indicate if assimilation is desirable or not, and given the lack of motivation from the Qur'an, highly improbabe. We cannot escape the global fact that Islam is incompatible with western values including democracy and the author reinforces this.

So, how do we, as a society, negotiate our way forward in this quandary?

Purportedly, CJ is leading the way, with “respectful and tolerant” dialogue.

Multiculturalism is the great trade-off, made necessary by the separatist ambitions of Muslims and the wooing of this group through appeasement.

Other western democracies are further down this path and are only now admitting failure, finding that the pluralist, wealthy, peaceful conditions of the west provide an ideal breeding ground for Muslim terrorism.

Thus, there is a danger in having the terms of reference for understanding dictated by Muslims alone. Ancient Philosopher mentions a “reciprocal interaction”.

To lay the basis for this interaction it is essential to first know:

(1) How many Muslims in Australia are “radicals” or “neo-fundamentalists”?
(2) Who has the balance of power at the mosque?

Australians pin their hopes on “societal” Muslims, yet the author is scathing of their diluted version of Islam.

Has our window for “respectful and tolerant dialogue” passed?

Oliver: “it would be the Secular Humanist who would be happy with Muslims living next door, whilst many a Christian…”

So, secular humanists lead the way in tolerance and acceptance while Christians are antagonistic to Muslim neighbours? Huh?

Jesus said: “I am the way, the truth and the life”. This is not the basis of a Christian superiority complex, but the cornerstone of faith. Islam is inferior to Christianity in the same way that a lie is inferior to the truth, otherwise, no comparison. Humility is not gained by bowing down to a lie

"So, secular humanists lead the way in tolerance and acceptance while Christians are antagonistic to Muslim neighbours? Huh?"

KatieO as a secular humanist I would argue that I would expect the same of my Muslim neighbours as of my Christian neighbours. That while I tolerate/accept them I expect it to be a shared and reciprocal arrangement.

There are clearly some fundmaentalist Muslims in Australia. When a fundamentalist viewpoint threatens the sanctity of other values and freedoms we hold dear this clearly goes against the secular ideal of separation of State and Religion. That is why it is important that our legal system remain separate from inteference of religious self-interest - Muslim, Christian or otherwise.

We should not aspire to be like other nations where religion is very much tied up with the law and in governing, including activities that go against many human rights particularly toward women. Where there is such a radical religious element as to deny many other rights for both men and women.

As well as protecting a person's right to their own faith, isn't secularism also about protecting our freedoms from harmful religious interference? What is so bad about that ideal?

KatieO,

“Islam is inferior to Christianity in the same way that a lie is inferior to the truth, otherwise, no comparison. Humility is not gained by bowing down to a lie.” – KO

Retort - “But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.”(Psalm 25:11) “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” Matthew 5:9, “Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?” Matthew 21:42

Yes, I think secular humanists are tolerant. In Australia, theists are free to believe - as it should be.

According to Toynbee, monotheism is “exclusive” and “parochial”. I think the Historian has a point:

"You shall have no other gods before me” – Exodus 20:3, “Fear the Lord your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name. Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you.” Deuteronomy 6:13-14, “…Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve” – Matthew 4:10,

“For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.” Deuteronomy 7:6, “… the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth” Deuteronomy 14:2

Albeit, The Koran seems to be more accommodating of alternative ways to God:

“O People of the Book! Let us rally to a common formula to be binding on both us and you: That we worship none but God; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than God.” (Surat Al 'Imran, 64)

[The Koran is saying that Muslims, Christians and Jews all worship the same God.]

Sancho:

"The theological minutiae of Islam versus Christianity is only of signficance to theologians." Wow. So let’s argue without relevant facts?

Both religions "endorse mass slaughter in the name of god and the prophet".
Mohammed does:
“2.216 Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. ...”
"2.191 And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers."

Jesus certainly does NOT. Clearly rebuking subsequent state-institutionalized Christianity, he enjoins us: "Let your light shine among men, so that they may see your good deeds, and glorify your father in heaven". Convert by example, not the sword.

* * * *

On 28Feb2008, The Australian reported that TURKEY'S religious authority was preparing to publish a groundbreaking guide to Islam for the modern world, putting the reported words of Mohammed (the Hadiths) into context for a sweeping reinterpretation of the religion:

Professor Mehmet Gormez, vice-president of religious affairs and senior Hadith lecturer at Ankara University, said reinterpretation is actually part of the basic fabric of Islam. One of the aims was to separate the religion from the traditionalist cultural elements that have long hampered a true vision of Islam.

"The Hadith guide, to be published as a book, would make it much more difficult to justify extreme, misogynistic and violent interpretations, Professor Gormez said. "We want to bring out the positive side of Islam that promotes personal honour, human rights, justice, morality, women's rights, respect for the other". ... "

There could indeed be some value in Turkey, a country which for some hundreds of years actually controlled the Caliphate, setting an example to the rest of the Muslim world by defining modern Islam out of inevitable identification with violence and callous cruelty.

But right now, the West must confront jihadism – and also the brain-dead, politically-correct among ourselves over essential issues of national security.

Pelican,

I agree with everything you said.

I agree with:
- separation of state and religion.
- no compulsion in religion
- that religion has a limited role in governance
- that society has a responsibility to its members to be ethical and moral, free from corruption and working toward the greater good and betterment of all its members
- equal rights – regardless of ethnicity, creed or gender – within the limits of what society can tolerate, until such time as the exercise of those rights impinge on another’s freedom
- that freedom should be protected, including freedom of speech
- that the rights of minorities need to be protected but not at the expense of other minorities
- that the law is there to protect our rights and freedoms
- that Australia is a fully functioning democracy (and that this should be preserved for future generations)

These are not matters of faith or convenience, not an allegiance to a party or an ideology, but of conscience.

Oliver still stands by this: that the Australian secular humanist is tolerant, the Christian is not.

Oliver: Can we understand Muslims (our mutual goal, right?) by demonising Christians? It is an argument of logical fallacy.

BTW: “ that we associate no partners with Him;”
[The Koran is blaspheming and calling on Christians to do the same].

Toynbee’s analysis is spot on re: the exclusivity of religion, and my assertion, that Islam is outside of Christianity, is supported by Toynbee (and the words of Christ and the whole gospel for that matter).

Glorfindel, that is precisely the development (in Turkey) that I am looking for from modern Muslim leaders - pointing to the existence of a true moderate Islam (as opposed to Qur’anic “moderates”).

A new generation of Muslim leaders will get the “righteous” confidence to speak out against the radical elements (which is what is lacking at the moment), and no longer need to remain silent, passive and compliant; the rest of us will then have a visible group to throw our support behind.

Finally, a reason for (cautious) optimism.

KatieO,

Both Islam and Christainity have a murderous, shameful history. When the faiths compete perhaps the uncomprising side of monotheism is evident.

I don't think the average person who goes to church or mosque is like the institution to which they have chosen to belong. Likewise, I suspect there were good German people in the NAZI Germany. Yet people chose/choose to associate with these organisations.

I would never join the NAZI's Party or revisionist Stalinist party knowing their histories, no matter how good the "reformed" an "innocent" version claimed to be.

That said, people do join religions. In a secular society these faiths should exist, provided they don't regress. Yet, to a monothesist, "defense by offence" against another religion is like a drink is to an alcholic. There is a compulsation to partake in division. It is hard for montheists not to say "only we know the" way and "the others are deluded". Monotheists are exclusive by definition.

Hi pelican,
I was not suggesting a solution to the problem of how to teach religion/ethiscs/world-view to a class with a variety of family backgrounds. I only wanted to show that an ideal solution probably did not exist.

I agree, there is no problem with mentioning various religions, languages etc. when teaching geography. You can tell the students that in Germany and Austria they speak German, without telling them anything about the German language. To teach German is a different thing, and although e.g. in Australia it should not be compulsory, a foreign language - chosen from a list of approved ones - should be, technical difficulties (not much demand, no qualified teacher) notwithstanding.

Along these line, in the States of Germany (education in Germany is in State, not Federal, jurisdiction) they have a compulsory/optional subject Ethics/Religion, where the student (parent) has to chose one from a Catholic, Lutheran or Ethics (religion-free) version of the subject. Berlin, where “Religion-free” Ethics is compolsory is an exception, and in a recent referendum people in Berlin rejected the Ethics/Religion alternative model. The problem was whether and in what form to include Islam among the options in the Ethics/Religion model (up to 10% of Berliners are Muslims).

As you indicate, even in case of an overwhelming but tolerant majority, there is the possibility of a mainstream subject on ethics/religion (Anglican, I presume, in your case) with exceptions. I personally would not be against even a compulsory religion-free Ethics/”religious studies”) as long as it was presented to the students as the prevailing model, rather than absolute truth that one should not deviate from (as e.g. maths and science must be - and as old-time RE used to be - presented at High School).

oliver,
>>According to Toynbee, monotheism is “exclusive” and “parochial”.<<

You got only one half of Tounbee's message:

"Christianity and Judaism (and Islam) have one vision of God as self-sacrificing love - God the merciful, the compassionate, according to the Islamic formula - and another vision of God as being a jealous God ... (ctd)

(ctd) The jealous God's chosen people easily fall into becoming intolerant persecutors ... Perhaps the two visions of God, which I have called irreconcilable ... have their roots in nature-worship and in man-worship respectively ... the vision of God as being self-sacrificing love has, at any rate, one of its roots in the previous worship of a vegetation-god who dies to give Man sustenance ... The vision of God as being a jealous god undoubtedly has at least one of its roots in the worship of the tribe in the form of the god of the Choosen People, representing their collective power. (Arnold Toynbee, Christianity Among the Religions of the World)

Accepting this "evolutionary interpretation/explanation" of Revelation one can see the rise of atheism in the last couple of centuries as a kind of return to "man-worship" and "nature-worship" that differ from their pre-Abrahamic forms in that they are no more a prerequisite for a deeper understanding of God (as a factor both in human history and in nature) but a consequence of rejecting the idea of God (again, as a factor in understanding both human history and the world we live in).

However, I would disagree with Toynbee in seeing these two human predispositions as complementary (in the sense of yin-yang) rather than irreconcilable.

>> ... to a monothesist, "defense by offence" ... is like a drink is to an alcholic.<<

Do you mean statements like “I dont want to understand muslims or jews or christians or any other airy fairy superstitious nutters. They are all evil and elitist and foul minded bigots who want to force their sick views onto the rest of the world and subjugate us to their sick and twisted morality and show the same submissiveness to their leaders that they do” (mikk)?

>> It is hard for montheists not to say "only we know the" way and "the others are deluded". <<

Are you sure this is a prerogative of monotheists only? Do you consider the author of "The God Delusion" a monotheist?

The atheist consensus is that questioning Muslims is a no-go zone for a Christian.

Out of “respect and tolerance” (cowardice and acquiescence), having been discredited by a violent track record, I should waiver my rights to an opinion and count on the vainglorious atheists (on balance, both anti-Muslim and anti-Christian) to raise the questions that this article begs.

The price for harmonious relations is the erosion of my individual rights and freedom, and the cost is the suppression of dissent or opposition.

Democracy has a very flexible implementation for the atheist. It’s called totalitarianism.

Oliver, calling Christians hypocritical in their teachings of love and kindness by using the historical record is over-simplistic and biased (particularly with the very high death toll on the atheist killing fields caused by communism, abortion, nazism and fascism).

Rather than hijack this discussion on understanding Muslims, perhaps you could start a new thread, as I am very willing to both engage in and learn from it. I’m also interested to hear your comments on Teuku’s article, if you have any.

I belong to a community of believers that date from the 1st Century – so there is a lot of history, (in biblical terms this period is collectively known as the “end times"), and yes, much of it bloody and violent. Laying responsibility for this at my feet and calling me to account for my choice of religion is your right, and I respect that this is a valid question for a non-believer.

(As it is my right to ask a Muslim to be more transparent about what the Qur’an teaches).

In brief, my position on this is that we cannot change the past, nor gloss over it.

The challenge for Christianity is to change the future by acting not for our own gain, but with love and kindness, for the glory of God.

It is an ideal, Oliver, a worthwhile goal for a person of faith; to continually lift our vision upward out of the muck and mess that humans create.

KatieO,

"Oliver, calling Christians hypocritical in their teachings of love and kindness by using the historical record is over-simplistic and biased (particularly with the very high death toll on the atheist killing fields caused by communism, abortion, nazism and fascism."
-KO

Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin and other inhumane atheists were born atheists (as we all are). The deaths they caused were not a commitment to atheism or "in the name of atheism". Instead of committing a religion they were committed to their own ambitions which left millions dead in their wake. They didn't want people (religious sects, intellectuals ets.) associating and opposing them.

Knowing their histories, I would not ware a t-shirt showing a swaskia or a cross, in knowledge of there past deeds. I guess one can say I'm a good NAZI or a good Christian; whereas, I would say that if one wants to follow State Capitalism or Jesus-ism, it should not be under the umbrella of the old caste.

"Love and kindness" should be attached to the individual which may expressed, as a secular humanist ("unconditional positive regard towards - Rogers) or, for theists, via one's personal relationship with their chosen god.

In an Utopian reality, if people were called to War by a State or Religion and, the Masses held that the expression of love is enjoioned to a direct relationship to a loving divine role model, we would have "suppose they called a war and nobody came".

It would be hypocritical to describe the Sermon on The Mount as counter to the expression of love. Yet, the Yehwah favouring an exclusive "Chosen People" and destroying states is unloving:

Much of the OT is the antithesis of Jesus' teachings; as are the deeds of the Christian Churches century after century.

Hi George,

- "Do you mean statements like “I dont want to understand muslims or jews or christians or any other airy fairy superstitious nutters. They are all evil and elitist... ” (mikk in Geoge)?

I think I would call these responses rationalisations or justifications stemming from centrism.

- "It is hard for montheists not to say "only we know the" way and "the others are deluded". Are you sure this is a prerogative of monotheists only? Do you consider the author of "The God Delusion" a monotheist? - George

Yes, if Dawkins does not test his atheism.

As a scientist he should try to "indwell" (that word again!) in religious scripture and experience and test religious propositions using science and history. Only then should he reject the null hypothesis and roll over to its alternative. But it is an on going process of experiment.

- Toynbee.

Toynbee (A Study of History) does address peoples reverting to earlier stages of development. This can happen when a people are under occupation and they recall a glorious past or a grand future to come. They avoid living in the present. Whether or not atheism could be seen to follow a similar regression; I will need to do some homework.

Glorfindel (24/6, 10:15), can you explain to me, without plagiarising, the differences between Sunni and Shiite Muslims? Or Hasidic and Orthodox Jews? Or Sikhs and Hindus? Could you even sum up the differences between the many sects of Christianity?

See, you can argue furiously over how many angels dance on the head of a pin, but to a secular and unbiased observer, it looks like this:

- For every passage of the Koran which encourages violence, theft or rape, there is a passage from the Bible which encourages the same.

- For every Muslim massacre in history, there is a Christian massacre.

- As we know, Christianity at 1400 years old behaved exactly as Islam is at 1400 years old.

It always astounds me that devout Christians will quote from the Koran to demonstrate the violence of Islam, when the Bible is drenched thick in blood. The only defence available to you is the “no true Scotsman” claim, which also exonerates Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Musoliini, and our favourite Catholic, Adolph Hitler.

I’m sure the tiny details matter to you, but that's necessary to validate your faith to yourself and others who live up to their neck in religion. The rest of us just want such primitivism out of our society. The opinion of a Bronze Age hermit is not evidence, but you make the mistake of thinking that it’s both important and reliable in 2009.
.
.
.

.
.
.
I know you believe that Christianity is a religion of peace and goodwill, but it’s actually a murderous and primitive religion which has adapted to survive and restrain itself in a secular society of peace and goodwill.

There are still Christian groups that burn books, Christian groups that violently exorcise schizophrenics, and, of course, large Christian groups working tirelessly to replace science education with religious dogma. These assaults on modernity give the Wahabists a run for their money any day. It's antisocial in the truest sense of the word.

Plus, the only reason that you’re not waving an AK47 around and shouting "alhu akbar!" is because you're a native of the West. If you'd been born in the Middle East your devotion to Islam or Judaism would be equally strong. You cannot argue an accident of birth as evidence of superiority.

That we should even be having this debate in this day and age is evidence of the Christian desire to hang on to the Dark Ages at all costs.

>> The atheist consensus is that questioning Muslims is a no-go zone for a Christian <<

I'm not an athiest, Katie-O, so I can't tell you what consensus the Council of Atheist Elders dictates at the secret global meeting where all atheists receive their opinions, but you can comment on Islam to your heart's content. It just makes you a world-class hypocrite, especially since your posts are cliches of judgementalism and pretentious piety.

Oliver: “Love and kindness should be attached to the individual…via one’s personal relationship with their chosen God”.

Agreed!

The irony of Christian faith: God calls us to faith but also gives us the faith to respond.

Our response to believe (which is determined by our freewill), joins us in relationship with Him, made possible by the death of Jesus Christ, but otherwise impossible.

We can only understand our faith in the context of what God has done for us.

Honestly, Oliver, I agree with you when you wonder how anyone could make a logical and rational, ethical and moral choice to be a Christian (and all the baggage that it entails). The mere impossibility of such a choice must indicate that there is something supernatural about faith or give a clue that faith is beyond human reason?

It's a cop out to assume that all believers (in the history of the world) have been deluded.

I love this prayer from Mark 9:24

“I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!”

When I understood the gospel and acknowledged the truth of the Word, I entered into the worldwide communion of believers (rather than signing up).

We need an acceptable tool to analyse warfare, to help us distinguish if adherents of a religion are culpable of killing innocents or justified by God. Thus, we can determine if all religious wars / all wars / all religions / a particular religion is/are evil.

I propose a set of questions to help understand the link between religion/war; to show if the relationship is causal, pre-conditional, deliberate, typical/atypical, or non-existent:

(1) Is death or killing condoned by the religion or the religion's God
(2) Is the text misinterpreted - either intentionally or unintentionally
(3) Is the religious text being used to justify the killings or to further the instigator’s goals

An authentic, holy war would produce the result: (1) yes (2) no or n/a (3) no or n/a.

The only circumstances in which I can get this combination are when I apply this measure to the Jewish conquest of the promised land. Others?

Sancho.

I got away from the church for about 35 years, but came back in 2002 as a deeply considered joint effort of the head and the heart.

I can't argue with you about the history of institutional Christianity. I just think that in its own history, and in your thinking now, there is a baby thrown out with the bathwater, and that's profoundly sad.

If you want to lump together all people who call themselves Christians today, irrespective of where they sit on the theological and personally spiritual spectrum; and present-day Christians together with the European past of unity of church and state, then I can't stop you.

If Christianity, and for that matter religion in general which you would dismiss as nonsensical and pernicious godbothering, can't add a positive dimension to human life, then can you tell me, what does?

Is there not a capacity for extremism, benighted intolerance and human indulgence to emerge in the practical application of ANY belief system, religious or secular-political?

It comes down to human nature. I believe people have a natural tendency toward evil because they find it easier to pursue their own, selfish, short-term interests. Civilized life and human happiness, individual and in society, depend on our finding within ourselves something that counters that.

Immanuel Kant (The Critique of Pure Reason) wrote that there can be no proof of the existence of God, but it is in all our interests to behave AS IF he exists.

Kant was a profoundly moral philosopher. Also in the Critique, he wrote "Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."

Where did Kant’s underlying moral sense come from?

Where is the secular equivalent in our society of (say) The Salvation Army, that might come anywhere near close to matching the depths of practical compassion and altruism that is based on love of God and man? TSA's Mission Statement is "Save souls, grow saints, serve suffering humanity".

George
In general I would personally prefer more detailed study of ethics, philosophy, theology etc to be handled at tertiary level rather than in high school.

Glorfindel

In regards to human nature there are certainly aspects of our nature that tend toward the negative (I don't like the word evil as I think pure evil is rare). I am not sure how adherence to a religious code will change the premise that humans are inherently evil.

If it was thus, religion would surely be redundant in the face of our natures. Especially given the evidence globally that religion does not always act as a positive force and sometimes even serves to perpetuate evil - only in God's name. It might be different if we were all of one religious code perhaps but that is unlikely given the variations in culture, language etc. Even in the West the Christians have not been unified as one cohesive group.

There was that awful Four Corners report about the killing and mutilating of purported 'witch children' in Africa by Christian zealots. Religion can too easily be distorted and used by 'evil' purposes. It does not in itself appear to restrain humans much from doing bad things. It comes down to human nature, if someone is bad they are bad, regardless of religious backround.

You mentioned Kant. If we were all to behave AS God existed (even if he doesn't) aren't we living a lie? It is an interesting question about where our morality comes from. I don't think morality can be dictated in terms of 'because God said so' this is not morality but obedience.

There are many charitable organisations that are non-affiliated with religion. The Flying Doctor Service, Care Australia, The Smith Family, RSPCA, Doctors without borders etc.

We should be thankful for the efforts of all charitable organisations regardless of religious affiliation particularly if the focus of the aid is to help rather than to indoctrinate. The Salvos are quite good at giving aid impartially and without judgement. They don't push the religion angle too much so I have heard.

Hi Oliver,
Knowing and appreciating you from your previous posts I am deeply saddened that you seem to endorse the STYLE of the quoted "contribution" to this OLO. I might disagree with many things you say but it would never occur to me to call you a "superstitious nutter" or write about you and those who share your world-view: "(You) are all evil and elitist and foul minded bigots who want to force (your) sick views onto the rest of the world and subjugate us to (your) sick and twisted morality."

Would it not be fairer to admit that there are self-righteous and arrogant people among adherents to all sorts of world-views, theist or atheist?

As for Dawkins, I do not know whether he "tests his atheism". I suspect he would not know how to do that (neither would I) since his world-view - the same as anybody else's - is not a testable scientific hypothesis, though there were and are many naive theists as well as atheists - nowadays, it seems, especially the latter - who think it is.

Pelican,
I agree, with emphasis on "more detailed": children of any age create their own "world-view" but need some help with it (like in math, you have to do your own thinking but you need some input from the teacher). The problem is not only who, of what world-view orientation, should provide this help, but also at what level (appropriate to the age of the child).

I don’t actually belong to Christianity, Sancho. I have faith in God.

I don’t claim Christianity as the religion of peace and goodwill. I agree that historically Christianity has been a flawed and frequently unsuccessful vehicle for spreading God’s peace on earth.

It should also be said that the church that I belong to is a mainstream faith that has co-existed with the secular state from its inception, posing no threat to the security of Australia for the foreseeable future.

Where have I denied the bloody history of Christianity or sought to justify it?

The foregone conclusion of my suggested analysis (above) is that in every case you will find that the party motivated by greed, ambition or aggression will be found to have acted beyond the limitations of scripture if they are professing Christians.

All wars fought in the name of Christianity fail the criteria of being a justifiable holy war. Without exception.

As I believe in the inerrancy of scripture, the only explanation is the error of the human antagonist.

However, I don’t believe that we need to accept that it is human nature to fight and wage wars, while invoking the name of God, for any person of belief.

If Teuku were a Christian writer I would be raising the same debate.

But that’s the issue, really. There is no equivalent of the Christian “moderate”, “radical” or “neo-fundamentalist”. The minute Christians veer into that territory, they are outside the fold and you can trust me to be opposed to any scriptural justification.

Then there are the Jews.

Oliver, I can’t conceed that “Much of the OT is the antithesis of Jesus' teachings” for the reasons given in the above post, namely, that the blood-letting of the OT was God’s direct judgement on the non-believers and frequently, on the Israelites themselves. The confidence to carry that righteous anger into the current age, has no scriptural basis however.

George, Pelican & AP, I greatly value your contributions.

Thank you katieO. Ditto for me.

We might not always agree but there is no reason why participants cannot discuss the topic in a civilised and friendly way. All of us continuing to grow, learn and develop a better understanding of each other.

Our belief systems are shaped by our different experiences and I would hope that I never get so dogmatic as to dictate to someone else on how they should live their life. First and most important motto "do no harm". :)

Dear KatieO,

"BTW: ' that we associate no partners with Him;'
[The Koran is blaspheming and calling on Christians to do the same]." -KO

What is being said here (I think) is that God is indivisible. To Christians the Godhead (distinct from the Trinity) is likewise.

Can you quote scripture where God speed blood over non-belief specifically? I can only think of wrong actions.

Incidently, I am not promoting Islam as Constance (on another thread) seems to think. Scholarship is something that been allowed or quashed by the competing monotheist religions to various extents at different times in history. Abbasid Islam did once upon a time. Whether one has a rogue Pope or an overgeneralising geneticist progress stymied.

Yet, with regards Christians criticising Islam, whilst lightly weighting their own deeds, I reminded of:

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay
no attention to the log in your own eye?" - Matthew 7:3

I guess what I saying, if we are to live peacefully, being uncompromising is not the way.

Do you believe the Christians, Jews and Muslims worship your God?

Hi George,

You have made the point several times - and I agee; there is a mature and reasoned dimension to debate: Something theists, atheists and secular humanists can exhibit to a fuller or lesser degree.

My Tonybee sources deal with patterns within civilizations having fairly frequent comment on religions. I don't own a book, where Toynee actually discusses religion, as the primary topic. Toynbee does mention in his histories that in India where there is less pressure to have a "one and only god," Siva and Vishnu reside as complmentaries. Where we have different interpretations of the same god, a simalar result appears distant.

With increased globalisation, Christians and Muslims will need to bury the hatchet, else, we will only have a sore that will not heal. Secular law, which allows religions and private faith to exist, is a starting point. The catch is the Great Divergence has not caught-up with many Muslims amd some Christians.

Teuku, I must take issue with you on the image that you presented of Islam. I am something of a rarity in that I am an Australian who has read the Quran,and a measure of Islamic history as well.

It is believed by ALL muslims that the Quran is the inerrant, immutable, and final word of God, end of story. The Quran literally heaps vilification upon unbelievers, as well as calling for muslims to fight unbelievers 'wherever they find them'. Your so-called tolerant muslims would then appear to qualify as unbelievers themselves.

As an unbeliever in any sort of god, by choice, I remind you that the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights confirms my right to unbelief just as much as it defends yours to be a muslim ,(in spite of the fact that the Islamic nations fought like hell to keep that part out).

Muslims love to quote, "There is no compulsion in religion" as one of the tenets of their faith. This is palpably untrue for all children born to muslim parents; if the child later chooses to follow another religion, or, shock - horror, unbelief! then most muslims believe that it should be killed or exiled etc. In most muslim countries in the world today you can be killed or imprisoned for unbelief.

I do not care what religious beliefs anyone has, I only care when those beliefs produce forms of anti-social behaviour because such people think that it is ok to vilify, assault, compel, or even kill me. This objection of mine extends in an expression of tolerance to all religions regardless.

The question that I put to all muslims that get a chance to talk with is, "Can you accept that unbelief in god is a valid human right that I should always be entitled to?". I have never had a straight answer yet.

I hope this helps get the discussion back on track, I am of the opinion that all the Islam vs Christianity argy bargy was superfluous at best.

Oliver, aligning all three faiths under the label of monotheism is too simplistic.

The differences can be best understood from the viewpoint of relationship of God to his people, as defined by the books; and from paying close attention to what God says He is (directly or indirectly).

The verse you quoted from the Qur’an espouses tawhid ( “declaring [that which is ] one”), often translated into monotheism in English.

The opposite of tawhid is shirk and mushrikun “those who commit shirk and plot against Islam” refers to the enemies of Islam (verse 9.1-15) and can extend to erring Muslims.

The Christian belief of the trinity, three persons in unity, is consistent with Genesis:

Gen 1:26: Then God said, “Let us make man in our image….”

God’s unique nature and character has not changed. God’s relationship with his people has.

While God’s righteous anger could sever that relationship – and we do see time after time how God punishes for the sin of disbelief (the OT chronicles the consequences) - he ultimately stays his hand and sends his only Son to open the door to relationship for all people.

In the absence of Christ, Jews maintain their relationship with God is sustained via the law and the prophets.

To Muslims, it is made very plain that Christians and Jews are guilty of shirk and thus mushrikun; enemies of Allah.

Atheism is also shirk, because it denies the position of Allah.

So while YHWH, the God of the Bible is the same for Christians and Jews (the claim to relationship is different), Allah of the Qur’an is a different identity altogether (even if the Arabic word for God is Allah).

Believers can test if their belief is in the one true God or not, as 1 Kings 18:29 describes of the Baal worshipers: “But there was no response; no one answered.”

Epsilon: I agree that the Christianity Vs Islam line is a red herring. Teuku’s thesis should fall or stand on its own merits.

George,

Re: Quotations (above)

Hope you realise no disrepect was intended. The remarks/quotations, to which I responded, were addressed to me, by you. In reply, I was only saying that people with hardened views are centric. The original quotation was neither yours nor mine. I quoted your quote, hence “MIKK in George”. I was referring to the remarks made, not making them.

KatieO,

The presumption of infallibility of scripture is incredible indeed. Even Richard Dawkins doesn’t take that position regarding his beliefs. If “both sides” feel themselves infallible on matters of revealed religion, no discussion will be entered into.

As best I know, a billion Muslims (in theory) hold that the three main monotheist religions have belief in the same god, Islam differing from the others in their special emphasis on the prophets. Islam notes all three recognise Abraham. Maybe this small recognition can be leveraged to achieve more harmony?

If Christians and Muslims each see themselves inerrant, it hard to see much progress being made towards improved mutual relations.

Historically, Yahweh was originally a Syriac volcano jinn. Later said deity was adopted by the henotheist Hebrews: A tribal war god was needed. Also, there are associations (as Elohim*) with the Canaanite Baal (Psalm 82). Yahweh had a wife, Asherah and, as you allude, Yahew was a jealous god, who swallowed Ahuramaza. BCE,Yahwah was a god in transition. That deity in the OT is very unlike Jesus.

Al-Lah or Yahweh: Bottom-line do you really think a god would have a name, other than as a point of reference?

It might surprise you to learn, that if I were a theist, I would be a monotheist. I cannot see an omnipotent entity reproducing itself.
Infallibility: Have a look at Michelago’s Moses. Notice the horns? People in the sixteenth century being less adept at language read “light” as “horns”. Even if one leaves aside the historical fact that the gospels were selected by humans, translations can be in-error, even if the source is infallible. The source for the gospels is several generations of folk lore and possibly a “Q” document.

*Hence, Isa-"El".

Error:

*Hence, Isra-"El".

The suffix is from Elohim.

Oliver,

I never claimed those derogatory words were yours, and I only quoted them as a counter-example that not only to some monotheists but also to some atheists “ ‘defence by offence‘ ... is like a drink is to an alcoholic“.

I have to accept that you still consider the language of the counter-example acceptable, as a “rationalisations or justifications stemming from centrism” (whatever that means), rather than simply admitting that there were people among adherents to all sorts of world-views, theist as well as atheist, for whom “‘defence by offence‘ ... is like a drink is to an alcoholic“, of which this was an example.

On the other hand, I am aware that you are not the only one on this OLO who short-cut their argument by making sweeping (mostly unfavourable to say the least) statements about theists, atheists, Christians, or Muslims.

As for Toynbee I certainly cannot claim having read all 12 volumes of his “A Study of History’“ but here is a quote from its One-volume Edition:

“(T)he higher religions will always be bound to strive to keep themselves disengaged from secular social and cultural trammels, because this is an indispensable condition for the fulfilment of their true missions.

This mission is not concerned directly with human beings’ social or cultural relations with each other: its concern is the relation between each individual human being and the trans-human spiritual presence of which the higher religions offer a new vision.”

Of course, by higher religions he means not only the three Abrahamic religions. I am aware that Toynbee was/is a controversial authority among historians, nevertheless I think most of his insights are still valid, although - in my IMHO as a non-historian - one needs more than just an ideological activist‘s short-sighted vision - theist, atheist or what - to appreciate him.

Katie0
>>the God of the Bible is the same for Christians and Jews (the claim to relationship is different), Allah of the Qur’an is a different identity<<

This is your opinion but with all due respect you are not as representative of Christian views as the pope, who said for instance this at a recent gathering of Christian, Jewish AND MUSLIM, representatives:

"Some would have us believe that our differences are necessarily a cause of division and thus at most to be tolerated.  A few even maintain that our voices should simply be silenced.  But we know that our differences need never be misrepresented as an inevitable source of friction or tension either between ourselves or in society at large.  Rather, they provide a wonderful opportunity for people of different religions to live together in profound respect, esteem and appreciation, encouraging one another in the ways of God.  Prompted by the Almighty and enlightened by his truth, may you continue to step forward with courage, respecting all that differentiates us and promoting all that unites us as creatures blessed with the desire to bring hope to our communities and world.  May God guide us along this path!" (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/holyland09/resource.php?res_id=1147).

I think this had to be said here, since there might be readers of this thread, notably Muslims, who might be confused by your words thinking that the animosity (whatever it is in political terms) exists between ALL Christian and all Muslim scholars and representatives.

Your sincere, but single minded words attacking the Muslim religion serve only those who want to rid our public (later also private) lives of any religion, any awareness of the “ways of God“ (in Benedict’s words), by lecturing us on tolerance, and at leat some of them wishing to supervise this variety of “private religions“ from their religion-free high horse.

Please note that I said “religion“, since if we want Muslims to learn to distinguish between the political and religious dimensions of public life, we should start by respecting that distinction in our dialogues and disputes with them.

Hi George,

You seem to be such a learned and wise "balanced" individual and a gentleman at that. Sorry I didn't respond to your last address to me on the Anglo/Celtic Tribalism article - I didn't know how to respond to the Pope's address which you put forward. But I do think that Benedict is a highly intellectual, peaceful and spiritual man. I'm only a recent subscriber to OLO. Do articles only stay on-line for one month? I attempted to check above article comments tonight without success.

I am a total peacenik but with critical faculties, and I am just unable to quash my thoughts about contemporary Islam.

I worry when there are currently over 30 to 40% of British young male Muslims (stats confirming this are plentiful) who believe that any Muslim who leaves Islam should be killed. I have concerns about honor crimes and killings (and Muslim female suicides) which are perpetrated by Muslims overwhelmingly, are being ignored and buried underground by all the so called do-gooders, British civil servants, et al. The second or third generations are becoming more fundamental than their more moderate folks.

There was a program on Compass several months ago on a bi-lingual model school in Israel, so there were Jewish and Muslim Palestinians in the same school. As portrayed, one incident in the program showed a Muslim father who took his 13 yr old daughter and Jewish friend to an amusement park. Casual conversation ensued, and the father had avered that he forbade his daughter to ever fall in love, and also if she was 24 yrs old and living on her own - he would kill her. And I'm sure he actually meant it. Wouldn't this guy have to be considered a so called "moderate Muslim", seeing he actually let his child mix with Jewish kids. Would you consider this an issue with Muslims? I would, and I tend to think that this kind of thought is pretty mainstream among Muslims.

Cont'd .. I know someone who is heavily involved with interfaith dialogue and he affirms, good dialogue with Muslims is pretty unattainable. They'll easily critise everyone else but will never take any criticism from non Muslims - They respond with the usual accusations of ignorance of Islam, or because you don't know Arabic, you don't know the Koran. There is no civilised intellectual debate fullstop. This Christian interfaith dialogue guy (and elderly) also has a Muslim neighbour who has on occasion said to him "I could kill you because you are a non-believer". A radical or moderate Muslim in the suburbs?

In the past, I have travelled overseas for a period of about 3 years on two trips - I like to think myself as a citizen of the world. I do have an insatiable curiosity of the world at large and of course, make my own judgements - and am totally hoping for a more peaceful world. There just seems to be so many personal anecdotes that I have experienced (and I read a lot) of the Islam actuality, that I cannot ignore. Check out some ex-Muslim internet sites.

Not to mention the clear negative evidence of experience of anyone who is not Muslim in Muslim countries. I tend to agree with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who knows more than me because she has been there!

Constance: Thanks for your honest remarks.

Five years ago I decided that the standoff between Islam and the West was becoming so dangerous I needed to try and understand why this was so. I set out to read up, in depth, on both history and theological underpinnings of the clash. I believe the long-term future of civilization is at stake.

Here are some books which I have read completely, and which I strongly recommend to you and anyone else who wants to try and understand where we are at and how we got here.

* THE KORAN [no substitute for reading the basic text! You will be surprised at how derivative, offhand and poor a plagiarism it is; and how repetitive, un-sublime and unattractive much of its content. The ‘good’ bits usually reflect the Torah, but there is not a scintilla of Christ’s teachings in it]

* THE BATTLE FOR GOD – Karen Armstrong [history of Jewish, Christian and Islamic fundamentalism, over hundreds of years. Very erudite and comprehensive]

* JESUS AND MUHAMMAD : PROFOUND DIFFERENCES AND SURPRISING SIMILARITIES – Mark Gabriel [he was a prominent Islamic scholar and teacher at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, but became a Christian. Excellent, readable comparison of the lives and teachings of Jesus and Muhammad]

* WHAT WENT WRONG? THE CLASH BETWEEN ISLAM AND MODERNITY IN THE MIDDLE EAST – Bernard Lewis [easy to read summary of how we ended up in today’s dialogue of the deaf]

* THE TROUBLE WITH ISLAM – Irshad Manji [Canadian Muslim woman’s cry for reform of Islam, with many historical examples from the past thousand years]

* THE CRISIS OF ISLAM – Bernard Lewis [conservative Islam’s predicament in the face of modernity]

* THE MIDDLE EAST: 2000 YEARS OF HISTORY FROM THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY TO THE PRESENT DAY – Bernard Lewis [most excellent and comprehensive; easy to read also]

* ISLAM AND WESTERN DEMOCRACIES – Cardinal George Pell [good first-principles analysis of the nature of Islam and why its own theology is incompatible with pluralist democracy]

CONTINUED...

* THE CLOSED CIRCLE: AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ARABS – David Pryce-Jones [looks at Arab culture and history and demonstrates the endemic corruption and fecklessness of a people who have no concept of ‘civil society’ and have governed themselves generally very badly in the 60 years or so since the end of colonialism]

* THE CLASH OF FUNDAMENTALISMS – Tariq Ali [sometimes irritating but also often very honest, warts-and-all history of major parts of the Muslim world and how Islam has changed – generally for the worse – and has left a permanent state of misery. The author is a very leftist atheist intellectual of Pakistani origin who has lived for many years in London]

* THE ISLAMIST: WHY I JOINED RADICAL ISLAM IN BRITAIN, WHAT I SAW INSIDE AND WHY I LEFT - Ed Hussain [Outlines the frightening nature of the beliefs and objectives of British Islamists, and points to the criminal failure of the British establishment and "power intellectuals"in the face of a transparently professed intention to destroy the British state and Western civilization generally].

* THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO ISLAM – Robert Spencer [pulls no punches; populist but generally quite truthful. Excellent focuser of why the West should not be so bleeding-heart ‘tolerant’ of Islam]

I still have to read
* INFIDEL - Ayaan Hirsi Ali

The great tragedy of Islam is that the Sunni stream "closed the gates of ijtihad [independent critical thinking]about 800 years ago. The retreat into fundamentalism (which affects Shia as well as Sunni) is not such an immediate worry where it affects only hellhole Muslim countries, but when imported into the West it MUST BE ROBUSTLY OPPOSED.

“Tolerance” of benighted, callous evil and violence is a crime and a gross stupidity.

Pericles’ belief he’ll never have to contend with Islam here ignores the demographic bomb – that Muslims are breeding uncontrollably while Westerners seem to have lost confidence in their own civilization. Too many of us have swallowed the bankruptcy of postmodernism, recognize no imperatives other than short-term economic, and have abandoned faith in absolute values.

Oliver,

Is the present issue of muslims being misunderstood only intelligible in terms of spans of time much longer than those implicit here?

Toynbee’s noteworthy contribution to the study of the rise and fall of civilisations does provide a prism for understanding the human experience over the entire historical record, however, if we limit the discussion to our immediate context then it feels like using the hubble telescope to examine a pea.

Offering a resume of our spiritual past (with some Arabian Fairy Tale as the starting point) as an attempt to repudiate belief in God today, may help you justify your unbelief but does not explain the spiritual dimension of faith.

“Maybe this small recognition can be leveraged to achieve more harmony?” resonates with George’s quote from the Pope.

This is the same Pope, that in a speech on September 12, 2006 (primarily defending the idea of Jesus Christ as the living God), raised the question (ref:Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus):

'Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...'
The Christian God is a reasonable God, he asserts, the Word made flesh.

The quote George chose may be evidence of the Pope’s increasing dhimittude, as those “differences” cited continue to be a major stumbling block for both sides.

A deconstruction of Muslim propaganda is not “attacking the muslim world”. But I take the point that this will “serve only those who want to rid our public (later also private) lives of any religion”.

Hi George,

Thanks for the clarification and the excellent Toynbee citation.

From my perspective, countering religious parties frequently defend by attacking their opponent. It happens “within” religions too. The Great Schism being one example. The Jewish faith also experienced internal turmoil from the sixteenth century until Napoleon’s time. Islam split over Muhammad’s line of succession, as you would know.

By centrism, I mean adherents bunker down and look inwards.

I do agree, “there were people among adherents to all sorts of world-views, theist as well as atheist, for whom “‘defence by offence‘... is like a drink is to an alcoholic“, of which this was an example”. Herein, many a Christian would have opposites in Islam proclaiming to be “inerrant in matters of Islamic faith”. All too often we see dualists, who each slip a silver bullet into their pistols, in the belief that that their opposite is evil. That is what I mean by centrism; that is what I mean by intolerance.

You have possibly read I have sometimes presented an anthropologist’s telling of Yahweh. Many Christian would deny history, sometimes, literally chiselled in stone, instead of placing these findings in the context of mythos, which is valid for a religion to do. Christian respondents seem provoked rather the challenged.

KateO,

Thank you. I think you a mellowing.

“Offering a resume of our spiritual past (with some Arabian Fairy Tale as the starting point) as an attempt to repudiate belief in God today, may help you justify your unbelief but does not explain the spiritual dimension of faith.” – KO

Yet, the account begs the question; when did the fairy tale become (for the believer) a reality? When did Yahweh cease to be fabricated jinn, to become God? Did God slip on the myth, as one might a shoe? Or, did the Hebrews clothe a new God with an old myth (new wine in old bottles)?

The “spiritual dimension of faith” exceeds Christianity and would have been known to animists, long before the higher religions. Spirituality might even transcend humanity, to the higher mammals.

Constance,

Thank you for your kind words, and the list of facts that I certainly do not dispute. I am only not sure what conclusion you want to draw from those experiences of yours (and many others)? There are over one billion Muslims in this world. They are not going to disappear, neither are that soon most of them going to loose their religious identity and become secularists (as our atheist friends might wish) or convert to Christianity (as we might pray for).

For a number of reasons (economic and cultural globalisation, demographic, even moral, decline of the West that is not their fault, etc.) they are going to prevail, they are going to mix with us as minorities in our traditionally Western countries as well as majorities in countries that are increasingly more important, economically and politically.

I do not have an answer to how to deal with the problem, I only maintain that attacking their religion, what is sacred to all Muslims, including the oppressed women among them, is not the way to go. I hope that at least some of them might respond, see my early experience on this OLO: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5968&page=0#85008.

So I agree with Pope when he acknowledges that “Allah the Merciful the Compassionate“ they pray to is the same God who is Love (“Deus Caritas Est”) that we pray to.

KatieO,

>>A deconstruction of Muslim propaganda is not “attacking the muslim world”. <<

I gather from the context that this refers to my recent post. However, please check that I not only wrote "attacking the Muslim religion" (not world) but in the next paragraph I explicitly emphasized the need to distinguish between their religion and other - political, cultural, societal etc. - manifetations of what can be called the Muslim world (see also http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2838).

We do not like when e.g those who are rightly upset by the Church’s pedophile scandals start attacking not only the practices in this or that diocese, or even the higher hierarchy, but resort to sweeping statements, attacking and ridiculing the very tenets of our faith. (ctd)

(ctd) We know that many passages in especially the OT can be variously interpreted, and so are those in the Koran. True, the vast majority of Muslim scholars do not accept this variety: the same as Christians just a few centuries ago.

>>The quote George chose may be evidence of the Pope’s increasing dhimittude, as those “differences” cited continue to be a major stumbling block for both sides.<<

When a Catholic priest in a Communist country of the 1950-s approached the political authorities, he had to accept their conditions, became a “patriotic priest“, and indeed lived in what you could call a “dhimmitude“. However, when later John Paul II approached the Polish and other Communist authorities, he spoke from a position of authority and power (albeit not military or even political), and you know what it led to.

So there is a difference between when an inter-faith contact is sought by a well-meaning (but often naive) Christian on a level where the counterpart might not be that “well-meaning”, and when e.g. 138 Islamic religious leaders and scholars write a letter to the Pope (and others) and the Pope responds. As you will know, some 300 Protestant leaders responded immediately and full of enthusiasm (c.f. NYT 18/11/2007), whereas Benedict took his time and responded appropriately but cautiously, exactly because he was aware of what you apparently mean by stumbling blocks (see http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=26009&page=2).

Oliver,

>>... countering religious parties frequently defend by attacking their opponent.<<
Sorry, but again, do you mean like calling the historica/anthropological roots of the opponent‘s world view “fabricated”, “fairy tales”? Will you ridicule e.g. chemists by pointing to alchemists as their predecessors, though without alchemy there would not be any chemistry?

Let me repeat, there are people -- Christians, Muslims, atheists or what - who need to reassure themselves in their world-view by “attacking“ those whose world-view they see as threatening their own. The need is understandable from a psychological point of view (I guess, I am not a psychologist) but is not very helpful for understanding the other’s point of view and thus enriching one’s own.

George,

KatieO mentioned that the Syriac account of Yahweh was an Arabian fairy tale. Yes, I did find that bit condescending, the Syrians of the time presumably believed in the Entity. Yes, KatieO is attacking the ancients. Likewise, centuries later, hypothetically, were an Arabian fairy tale teller to say, “Moses and the burning bushes is, ‘just a fairy story’”, believers in Moses event would be affronted. Again, we see intolerance.

If, a third party sees the panorama of the various Yahweh laid-out across the time, from a helicopter view, it begs; when and how were the transformations made?

If, one holds Yahweh is sometimes an “Arabian fairy tale” (KatieO) and other times genuine, we have two constructs. Here, assuming we do have two* constructs each with high discriminate validity, we must not forget to explain how the constructs converge. Here, what we review is not trivial:

If, one assumes that the character in a fairy story does not “become” a real god*: Buck Rogers doesn’t actually become Neil Armstrong; we are left with an interesting alternative: God communicates through the myths of “created by man”. If so, likewise-extrapolation, through other (human) myths, would seem less absurd. I appreciate the last sentence is at odds with the First Commandment. Yet, this is not-so-much the case, where God did not set the Law (of Moses); rather, God is known via the Earthly Framers of the Law (“new wine in old bottles”).

If, a., there is a God and b., God works through “our” myths, it is not the case God has a “Chosen People” and only their priesthood and scriptures are sacred and infallible; instead, God transmits across many channels tuning into different and multiple frequencies. God does not subsist in Arian fairy story stories and exist in the OT, no, (hypothetical)God inhabits both instances.

Alchemists were practitioners of technique and art to substances; chemists apply the theory of science to atoms. Edison was an artisan; Dirac was a scientist. No, I would not criticise the alchemists or Edison, as KatieO puts-down Arab fairy tales.

*Mythical Yahweh and true Yahweh

George.

Sure, it is counterproductive to attack GRATUITOUSLY other people's sense of what is holy and sacred, just because you don't agree with them.

If Muslims, JWs, Mormons, Christadelphians, Hindus, Buddhists, Raelians, "Radical Faeries", Social Crediters, utopian socialists etc want to believe what they believe, that's ok, BUT "your freedom to swing your fist stops at my nose". If pursuit of your belief doesn't infringe my similar right, then go for it, and I will be tolerant, even if I think you’re bonkers. You can believe, and proselytize, and for change your beliefs - while you don't destroy or infringe mine.

I am definitely a LIBERAL, not an authoritan violence-merchant.

The Brisbane Courier-Mail of 11 August 2008 reported:
"DEAD Bali bomber Imam Samudra has urged from the grave that Muslim teach their children to become terrorists and slaughterers of "Kaffirs" or non-Muslims.

"The … last will of Samudra was released in his home village in West Java where he was buried amid the awful spectacle of a hero’s funeral on the weekend. He declares the “war” is not over.

"Always fiery and lacking in any remorse or guilt, Samudra urged his fellow Muslims to fill their lives with the murder of non-believers, saying the title of terrorist was more holy than the title of Ulama or Muslim scholar.

"The will begins: “My brothers, this is my will to you and all Muslim people who have committed themselves to Jihad and martyrdom, to continue Jihad and fighting against the biggest evil, America and the cursed Jew”. "And he urges his like-minded the brotherhood: “For you who have committed yourself to fight against Kaffir dogs, remember the war is not over.”

"He calls on others to fill their lives with murder of non-Muslims.

“Isn’t it Allah who has ordered us to kill them all, just like they have killed us and our family. Have a desire to become the slaughterer of Kaffir people. Educate your children and grandchildren to become terrorists and slaughterers of all Kaffir people.”

I make no apology for despising, loathing and TAKING UP ARMS AGAINST religion like this.

George - on the Pope and Islam:

Nearly all Christians worship a Trinity: the one of which it is written "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). Jesus speaks of his father, and tells his disciples that if they have seen him, they have seen the Father. He speaks also about the time after he leaves the earth to return to the Father, when he will ask the Father to send the Comforter, the Holy Spirit. John 14:6-21 strongly underpins the doctrine of the Trinity.

Muslims never speak of Allah as Father. They have no concept of a personal relationship with God. They have no concept of God as love, evidenced in the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and of their desire for a relationship with us.

Jesus taught us to pray starting "Our Father ...."

Muslims say to each other "Fear Allah" – as befits a grand Dalek.

Muslims consider Christians and Jews to be in error about the nature of God. They rabbit on about Christians (trinitarians) being polytheists. They revere Abraham and Jesus, but Mohammed had no access to an Arabic translation of the Bible, and what he "recited" by instruction from a demon purporting to be Jibreel (Gabriel) included references to what he had heard orally before about the content of the Jewish holy books and the Christian Injeel (Gospel). His references are hopelessly garbled with errors of fact, time and import.

A Satanic deception - enough historical references to be plausible, but with the essential spiritual truths distorted.

Yet Muslims claim that the Gospels and the OT have been "corrupted" by Christians and Jews! What CHUTZPAH!

The Pope knows very well we are not fighting over different interpretations of the same faith. Islam is a different and an ENEMY faith: a distorted and garbled travesty of our own, attempting to piggyback on ours as an "improvement" and "final revelation". It is a lying, misleading, and evil Satanic impostor.

Abu el Glorfindel seems intent on waging his own armed jihad against Muslims.

If I was as rabidly authoritarian as him I'd call for his religion to be banned - but that would be silly, wouldn't it?

Oliver,

Yes, I have to concede, some people indeed see myths as mere fairy tales, like those who think mathematics is nothing more than doing (complicated) calculations. No “attacks” meant. Science has been with us (Westerners) for only a couple of centuries, whereas myths have been a part of humanity‘s self-awareness for millennia with various degrees of metaphysical sophistication. It is easier to think we understand the reality studied by science, than to understand what myths refer to (the “fool” and “the finger pointing to the moon”).

I agree that belief in a Reality existing beyond physical reality does not have to lead to a belief in a God whom you can contact on a person-to person basis, which on its turn does not have to lead to a belief in a “chosen people”, and that again does not have to lead to a belief in Incarnation, i.e. God “embedding Himself“ in one particular human to show empathy with His creation. The Christian Credo is not a treatise following from one axiom, but rather a list of “axioms“, tenets.

Glorfindel,

Thank you for adding to Constance’s list another collection of facts that I cannot, and do not want to, dispute. I can only repeat what I have already said: All the horrors of Medieval practice (Crusaders’ rampages, Inquisition, witch hunts, etc.) cannot lead me to condemn Christianity, only the particular ways Christianity was practised, either because it acted against its own principles, or because of what we now see as a naive, literal, interpretation of these principles.

Like I will not condemn nuclear physics because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or sex because of its “application“ by a rapist.

I do not see any other solution beside giving Islam the benefit of doubt, that one day they will also recognise these practices as either going against their own principles, or as the consequence of a naive, literal, interpretation of these principles. Because if we condemn the very principles (instead of some deplorable practices) that are sacrosanct also to the vast majority of non-violent Muslims, how can we expect to co-exist? (ctd)

(ctd) Of course I agree with your other post. There are indeed discrepancies between how Jews, Christians and Muslims see their God, and of course these discrepancies between the last two are bigger than e.g. those between the first two. Each one of these religions considers the others “to be in error about the nature of God”, the Muslims more so than the other two who have more historical experience behind them. I also agree that although all three have some traces of the command to love your God and your neighbour, it is in Christianity that this is made most explicit.

I am sure the Pope is well aware of all this, and I agree that he “knows very well we are not fighting over different interpretations of the same faith“. So do I and most Christians. Nevertheless I think that part of being a Christian is not to view other faiths, other world-views, as ENEMY faiths or world-views, but only as them being further away from grasping the Truth about what actually exists and in what sense - Truth that no human can fully grasp - than we are. Of course, others will see this the other way around.

I also believe that the Referee, who will pass the ultimate judgement (about who is closer to this Truth), is not one of us, humans, and He does not like it if we usurp this role for ourselves.

This all, let me repeat again, has nothing to do with condemning - and, where possible, fighting and preventing - deplorable practices, beccause they are deplorable per se, and not because the perpetrators refer to Koran or other Islamic authority.

Oliver,

Postmodernists are dismissive of history as it is based on the personal interpretation of sources.

They may have a point.

If history could be constructed as a single narrative then it would be a true social science, a discipline. But in reality, history is a series of competing views or theories, not constrained by the power of the imagination.

My observation on the etymology of YHWH is mainstream, while yours is pseudohistory (ie. drawing controversial and speculative conclusions which depart from conventional methodology in a way which undermines the conclusions).

“Mythology”, “fairy tales”: it’s all history to you:

“The Kenite hypothesis simply stated says that Yahweh was the tribal God of the Kenites before the Israelites and that Moses developed his attachment to Yahweh through Jethro, his father-in-law. The hypothesis was first put forward in 1862 by R. Ghillany...

The Kenite hypothesis does not in anyway explain the origins of the worship of Yahweh but it does provide us with a likely precursor to the worship by the Israelites.

To oppose the Kenite Hypothesis, T.J. Meek argues that even though Yahweh is introduced to the Israelites by Moses, it is not necessary that Yahweh was a new God, only that He may have been a new interpretation, significance and/or a new understanding of the existing God.

The origin of the worship of Yahweh is still debated and unknown.”

http://www.childrenofyah.org/yahweh_it's_origin%20and%20sigificance.htm

Modern application: The origin of the name is less important than what was believed about YHWH. The OT remains the definitive piece of scholarship on YHWH worship.

George: On the OT "can be variously interpreted”: I’ve been studying the bible for about six years now and I am struck by the cogence and coherence of God’s word. For, “We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us”. (1 Cor. 2: 12)

Teuku’s writing is also pseudohistory.

I may be a Christian, but I am also a Christian with an advanced degree in history!

As a WW2 veteran who became a mature age historian, could reckon the sad simple fact is that we regard most Muslims as low life.

That is why unfortunately most Westerners regard Israelies more highly than most Islamics?

Certainly we don't need to love the Islamics, but please - for goodness sake let us be fair and less arrogant for a change?

Bushbred.

Consider the following table listing some of the basic differences between Western culture and many Islamic cultures (African and Oriental):

WESTERN SOCIETIES

*Individualism, independence and initiative are encouraged
*Time oriented (exact time, for example one arrives on time)
*Future oriented (seeing opportunities and foreseeing problems)
*Performance oriented (ability and accomplishments are important)
*Freedom to show weakness
*Egalitarian relationships
*Direct communication
*Analytical thinking; concept oriented
*Emphasis placed on non-violent negotiation in order to resolve differences.

Without a doubt, the Israelis fit within this broad Western "civilization" (as conceptualized by Samuel Huntington in 'The Clash of Civilizations'). That is, they are part of us.

ISLAMIC SOCIETIES

*Community or group oriented
*Event oriented (general times, example: arrival when an event happens)
*Present oriented (enjoy the present, take action when crises develop)
*Status oriented (class, age, family and reputation are important)
*Fear of showing weakness or admitting failures (shame cultures)
*Indirect communication (seeking not to offend or to dishonour)
*Holistic thinking
*Experience or circumstance oriented
*Marked propensity to use threat and violence as the sole or first means or asserting a viewpoint.

Dialogue of the deaf, isn't it. But much more dangerous than our civilizational difference with, say, the Chinese: Muslim cultures show a remarkable proclivity for violence.

As Huntington says, Islam has bloody borders (with other 'civilizations') and bloody innards (between different types of Muslim and even different Muslims of the same strand).

Could be a key reason why, as you say, "we regard most Muslims as low life".

Katie0,

Thank you for interesting comments regarding the prehistory and etymology of YHWH, as well as for the quote from St Paul that underlines how the bible should be read. Not literally: e.g. Genesis needs an appropriate interpretation in light of what is now known from science so that also a 21st century person can "understand what God has freely given us”. As I am not a historian I cannot pinpoint which parts of the OT (or even NT) need an interpretation in light of what is known from history so as to make understandable "what God is telling us" also to a 21st century person. Perhaps interpretations, that previous generations would not understand, be confused, or even scandalised by.

As you say, "history is a series of competing views or theories, not constrained by the power of the imagination". So I think it is important that we have professional historians like you (perhaps more important than in the case of scientists), who can be trusted with not wanting to obscure the meaning behind the narrative, the spiritual gift that "God has given freely us", because there are enough professional, or not-so-professional, historians whose intention is exactly the opposite, who use their knowledge and interpretation of the bible and history to obscure, discredit or even ridicule, this message.

I have no idea whether this can be done with the Koran - I just hope it can - but if, then certainly only from within Islam, by Islamic scholars and historians, and probably not that soon. When (if?) this happens, I believe Christians and Muslims will be able to coexist, worshipping the same God ("the merciful, the compassionate" who is Love Himself), but agreeing to disagree on how they see Him and his contacts with his creation. Until then we do have problems, but I think we should not pour oil on the fire.

KatieO,

An interesting post/link.

Parker-Taylor's, Yahweh: The Divine Name in the Bible (1975), as the title of the book suggests, addresses history around the thirteenth century BCE. Any Syriac connection would date five hundred years earlier (Toynbee).

I have Parker-Taylor's book. Parker-Taylor relates Yaweh tightly to the Bible and the Moses, the author doesn't try to go back to the orgin of Yehaw, rather discussion is on the theories pertaining to how Moses might have collected the deity on his travels.

I will be off-line for a few days. Work: Building Heirarchial Linear Models based on Anthropologically-based societal constructs. None of my three advanced degrees are in History. I have only one peer reviewed published paper in cross-cultural History.

George,

FYI:

"The Kenite hypothesis may be summarized briefly as follows. Prior to the time of Moses, YHWH was already the God of the Kenites. When Moses fled from Egypt, he found sanctuary with Jethro, the priest of Midian, and married his daughter, Zipporah. Jethro, who belonged to a Kenite clan of the Midianites, introduced Moses to the god, YHWH, and later ( Exod.18:11) rejoiced at the discovery that YHWH had delivered Moses and the Israelites in the Exodus from Egypt and the passage of the Sea of Reeds. This in no way detracts from the new understanding of YHWH gained by Moses as a result of the encounter at the burning bush ( Exod.3:1-15). Various southern tribes, including Judah, which were not involved in the sojourn in Egypt, or in the Exodus under Moses, had penetrated Palestine from the south. Kenites had been associated with them in this northward movement from Kadesh-barnea. The worship of YHWH had been adopted by the southern tribes at a time much earlier than that of Moses, and indeed, according to Gen.4:26 and the J tradition, YHWH was acknowledged as having been worshipped from antiquity. The " Joseph" tribes, whom Moses led out of Egypt, did not worship God under the name YHWH, until Moses declared this name to them, after his return from Midian"

Glorfindel,

Yes, I agree with all you say. I am aware of Irshad Manji (one of the few female Muslim or ex Muslim voices – funny it seems there are only female outspoken voices apart from Salman Rushdie) and some of the other authors you have mentioned. But am suspect of Karen Armstrong - Ayaan Hirsi Ali I'm sure called her ridiculous. Have you heard of Wafa Sultan who is a Syrian American psychologist? She is currently writing a book too and hopes to blast all the Islam apologists et al to their senses. She left Syria and Islam when her university professor was killed by some Muslim Brotherhood assailants while in class. She has something to say about the practices of Mohammad and has much despair of the Islamic attitudes to their own women. I haven’t even read Ayaan’s book yet but I have read some of her interviews. Like Ayaan needs bodyguards, Wafa actually met with Australian government officials about 2 yrs ago and her visit was only announced when she left Australia as her visit was deemed too provocative and dangerous. So it seems she didn’t bring the government to their senses. The western world’s current psychological state, particularly Europe’s is pretty fragile and not very confident in these times. Yep, political correctness has gone mad.

Anyway, If I read all the books you recommended, I think I’d go insane or get too paranoid about what is in the midst for western civilisation. I need balance, so I like to resort to the arts. Plus, I do not have much time as I work and have somewhat of a life. I think I have read enough already to get the picture of Islam, as much as I can get rather obsessed with it all - as it is a worry. Have you heard of Tanveer Ahmed, a liberal minded Bangladeshi Australian – he has a site. He is a psychiatrist. He’s actually the one who got me onto ONO via his site.

Constance: << If I read all the books you recommended, I think I’d go insane or get too paranoid about what is in the midst for western civilisation >>

Indeed - look at what's happened to Glorfindel.

Constance.

I’m not keen on Karen Armstrong's attitude toward Islam in some later books. But A HISTORY OF GOD (1993 – half-read) and THE BATTLE FOR GOD (2000) are good reads. I have bought but not started THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION: THE WORLD IN THE TIME OF BUDDHA, SOCRATES, CONFUCIUS AND JEREMIAH (2006).

I can understand Ayaan calling Armstrong ridiculous, if Armstrong is "tolerant" of the religion behind a crap culture like that of Somalia. [No apology to cultural relativists.]

I’ve heard Wafa Sultan on the internet. Her debate on Al-Jazeerah in 2006 about Samuel P. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations theory was edited down and subtitled in an excellent video at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1296126090432829344 .

The end paragraphs of this say:
"The Jews have come from the [Holocaust], and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge and not with their terror; with their work, not their crying and yelling. Humanity owes [many] of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists...

"We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people. The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a mosque, kill a Muslim or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies.

"This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them."

She can be heard also at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYB4pG3kHIY .

According to Wikipedia, Sultan’s new book A GOD WHO HATES: THE COURAGEOUS WOMAN WHO INFLAMED THE MUSLIM WORLD SPEAKS OUT AGAINST THE EVILS OF RADICAL ISLAM is to be released on October 13, 2009.

I've heard of Dr Tanveer Ahmed and read a piece by him in The Australian in October 2006. Good to see there are people like him in Australia, but sad to see so very few of them both willing and safely able to speak out from inside the majority-Muslim world.

KatieO,

"Postmodernists are dismissive of history as it is based on the personal interpretation of sources... They may have a point...
If history could be constructed as a single narrative then it would be a true social science, a discipline. But in reality, history is a series of competing views or theories, not constrained by the power of the imagination." - KO

I am a little unsure why you bring discourse on Postmodernism into the threat. In general I would agree with the critique you state, but would only add that the above is the radical pole of the genre.

"If there is such a thing as historical untruth, there must also be such a thing as historical truth. And if there is such a thing as a biased, tendentious historian who tried to support preconceived ideas about the past by a selective use of the evidence and by doctoring the documents, there must be such a thing as an objective historian who puts preconceived ideas about the past to the test of whether or not they are supported by the evidence, and modifies or abandons them if they are not." Richard Evans [Online]

The "single narrative" is something to be avoided, I posit. We need to test history and triangulate sources. Where personal interpretations interfer with the object anaylsis of events it is problematic: Story telling say "Moses" of the Exodus or "The Artful Dodger," may and do represent fiction, respectfully. The Art of the story teller places the fictional Actor on a non-fictional canvas. Facts are hard to elicit, when accounts are written centuries (OT) or decades (NT), after the event.

Cont...

...

KatieO,

I am not saying that mythos and "storey telling" doesn't have a place. Americans rarely present an historical Washington or Lincoln and tried the same on JFK. Storytelling important to tradition.

On the other hand, a Church would find it hard to deny more recent physical evidence that seem to support Toynbee:

"Relatively recently, startling archaeological discoveries in modern Israel have strengthened the arguments that Asherah was the Israelite god's consort (Hadley 2000: 86-102). One dig was in the heartland of Judah, the other in the northern Sinai. Several blessing inscriptions from the sites contain a controversial phrase 'possibly' (emphasis added) to be translated as "Yahweh and his Asherah." Even more exciting are drawings that accompany the inscriptions, especially those from the Sinai site (Toom 1998:88-89)." Stuckey [Online]

Do archaeology, physical records* and anthropology support the Death of Christ to the same degree, as the Assassination of Julius Caesar or Wellington defeated Nepoleon at Waterloo.

My General Histories cited in recent threads are from Gibbon, Toynbee, Wells, McNeill and Carroll. I think you would find few readers who would not think these authors mainstream.

It might suprise you that I have been in churches and, I know priests and ministers, as fiends. Yet, I don't recall any Church or minister discussing the Latinization of proto-Christianity following Hadrian expelling the Jews to Pella. I would have thought this event most significant (Gibbon, Wells). Have read Gibbon

Hi KatieO,

Bad, bad typo above. Sorry. Should read that I have priests and ministers as fRiends. Well, more accurately, I have some relatives in Catholic Church (clergy) and held some work assignments working with the RCs. At one time, I was even cc'd some Vatican correspondence. I have some friends who are FT Protestant ministers and some PT like Sells.

Also, lost in my poor typing is the question, "Have you read Gibbon"? I asked this in context of his remarks on Hadrian and the first fifteen Christian (his words if I recall) being Jewish. The sixteenth bishop being Marcus (?), so the Jews from Pella could feign being another, non-Jewish faith to go back to the Holy Lands. The account is in a few History books, as you probably know, yet never mentioned by religionists.

Regards,

O.

Oliver,
Thank you for the quote. I presume it is from the Parker-Taylor's book, and is more or less what you can find in the Catholic Encyclopaedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03776b.htm).

Hi George,

Yes, the quotation is from Parker-Taylor's book. I may originally had a longer quite and truncated the post to fit OLO, perhaps?

Thanks for the Catholic Encyclopaedia link. I have come across before the proposition that murders and persons of craft guilds wandered the country-side disenfranchaised in Biblical times, giving some support to Moses and the Exodus, even if, story telling or neumonic devices were added to sustain oral lore.

O.

CJ Morgan,

That's a cheap shot you’re making at Glorfindel. Because the Muslims themselves don’t seem to be doing much self reflection, someone has to remark. I just see their ideology, like any other negative ideology such as Communism, Nazism which has killed thousands and millions. Any perpetrators of inane human commands and misogynistic conduct must meet their critics. It’s not because they’re Muslim, it is because of their totalitarian ideology, and which is particularly misogynistic. Making fun of Glorfindel is such empty narcissistic moralising. Are you a misogynist? In some way you can compare it to the current financial crisis where no-one bothered to criticise their practices before it was too late. Glorfindel is only reacting as a decent human being with humane intentions and defending and projecting her (or his – I don’t know what sex he or she is) own freedom inherited by Western Christian civilisation. How can you make fun of someone with reasonable concerns. As is the term Islamophobia , a misnomer, because phobia means irrational/ abnormal. Even Waleed Aly has said this – I tell you Muslims are full of contradictions.
And that is why I look to the “Ex-Muslims”. Where we are continually garbaged within our own inane PC Western world, they are threatened with death and most of them are forced to go incognito, which I too am forced to do so. I just do not tolerate the intolerant , as simple as that.

I recommend you a good book about honour crimes by Jasvinder Sanghera called “Daughters of Shame” all of which PC Britain condones. Not to mention FGM.

Stormbay,
“The belief in god is psychologically destructive, a refuge for all the evil despots of the world and the excuse they use to continue terrorising the planet in the name of their mythical god.”

Hello! How many did Stalin murder again? Pol Pot? Hitler? Mao Tse -tung?

With all the selfless charity work done by Christians throughout the world, especially Catholic nuns, even in Muslim countries that go unseen. You have no idea do you?

Tell me who the Christians are currently terrorising? I’ve missed something.

Glorfindel,

Yes, I’ve read or heard her comments about the Jews et al. It’s all true. Another person who has been outspoken on Islam, is the British author, Martin Amis. As he said, speaking as a writer, he is not speaking as a politician. He is just saying it as it is, in his own intellectual sincerity. He phrased terrorism as something worse, “horribleism” – something like that.