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.