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?!