The three Middle East religions all stress that innocents shouldn't be killed, and that's the issue, you can always convince yourself that the people you are killing are not innocent.

I'd say ultimately this is a problem for Islamic culture, the sooner Islam embraces democracy like the Jew and Christians eventually did the quicker these things will start to sort themselves out. The reality is the major trouble spots in the world today are mostly in Islamic countries, so at some point Muslims need to look inward to find the answers. Its not always these evil westerns fault.

I was taken aback to see the expression "anarchist movements such as the Marxist-Leninist left" in the article.

Anarchism is the political philosophy that humans can create a decent society without a government imposing any coercion upon them. Marxism-Leninism espouses the dictator of the proletariat. When Lenin took power after the Bolshevik coup one of the first groups to be eliminated was the anarchists. Read "Homage to Catalonia" for Orwell's account of the elimination of the Spanish anarchists by the Marxist-Leninists. Marxism-Leninism is at the other of the political scale from anarchism. Marxist-Leninists support dictatorships. Anarchists support freedom.

In Truth, and demonstrated throughout their HIS-stories, both Islam and Christianity have as their ultimate goal, that of total world domination!

How/why?

Because they both pretend, and act on the premise of, that they alone possess the "one true" way/faith/revelation which is binding on all human beings. And that they have "god's" mandate to convert everyone else to the one true way. Either via the words of Muhammad. Or the command or great commission of fairy-tale "jesus" to go into all the nations blah blah

Implying or meaning that they are engaged in a divinely mandated "holy" war against ALL other faith traditions and their various cultural expressions. Which are self-evidently living in darkness because they havent accepted the "truth" of fairy-tale "jesus" or the "prophet" yet.

And that they WILL use whatever means they can to achieve this aim of world domination.

There are just as many nut-case Christians as there are Moslems---especially in the USA.

Have you read the news? Or read your HIS-story books?

Ho Hum,
It seems to me there are far more extremists in Islam than other religions. And what is evident, by the number of attrosities carried out, there are more than just a few.

If the followers of Islam really believe that the extremists are giving Islam a bad name then it is up to them to do something about it.

Not only to condemn the attacks but by publicly letting their congregations and others know who the extremist teachers are. Like that bloke Feiz that was preaching at liverpool. Or is it fact that most Islamists quietly support one extreme sect or another.

In Iraq, for example, main stream muslims have been blowing each other up since the fall of Saddam. Many of our bloke have died trying to keep the factions apart. I also understand that in Somarlia the situation is the waring factions of muslims. It appears that muslims only know one way of resolving differences.

So how about exposing those that indocrinated the young men now charged.

It is not enough for, so called, moderates to blame our society.

It is their religion and is up to them to try to restore the name of Islam to what they want.

Frankly, 'the religion of peace' doesn't sorta sound right

I would agree with Banjo that "the religion of peace" does not really match observed results. Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. I would attach the same skepticism to representative announcements from any group, be they government, police force, religion etc. A recent example was the farcical statement from NSW police with regards to violence against Indian students, it was an almost Python-esque "There's nothing to see here, move along". The general public is entitled to be skeptical when the mouth is saying one thing and the body is doing another.

With regards to using the analogies to the medical profession/malpractice and police/corruption, these groups can legitimately avoid a "tarring with the same brush" because they have internal or external compliance bodies that come down very hard on bad eggs in their ranks to demonstrate the body's commitment to ethical practice. These systems appear to be missing from Islam (and religion in general. I agree with a previous poster, there are plenty of Christian/Jew/<insert religion here> peanuts as well, they just does appear to be so intent on disrupting society at the moment).

To repeat a statement I heard recently (I cannot remember the source) "Why is it that these groups are able to come out with a screaming unified voice when their group is feeling discriminated against, but then are completely silent when one of their own is a perpetrator and offer the excuse, "because we are not one homogeneous group that can be represented by a single voice".

If you want people to believe you when you make a sweeping statement of "peace" you have to be able to ensure that the people you claim to represent are peaceful, and if they are not, sanction them.

What our moderate moslems neet to teach to their young activists is the story of Bosnia.

It was not other moslems, or the UN that finally went to the aid of the moslems there. They would be still waiting, or all dead if UN help was required.

No, it was NATO. Europe, & the yanks, & it was the yanks that made it happen.

After 9/11 would they still do it? It's hard to know, but moslems will get more justice from the US, & NATO, than they will find in the middle east, or other parts of the world.

If the yanks, russians, chinese & europe can now be getting so close to rubbing along together, surely it's time for the muslems to come out of the dark ages, too.

,In Truth, and demonstrated throughout their HIS-stories, both Islam and Secularism have as their ultimate goal, that of total world domination! We have seen this with Stalin and Mao and now with Islam. Secularism and Islam do have so much in common.

Mr Cicek,

Let me offer you a reality check. You may believe "Allah" transmitted the koran verbatim to Muhammad via an "angel". When I read the koran I start by wondering how the supposed creator of the universe could get so many details of "his" creation wrong.

As for the ahadith, Monty Python couldn't come up with anything more bizarre.

However if you choose to believe that a compendium of 7th Century codswallop is a message from the creator of the universe and that a seventh century Arabian warlord called Muhammad was a messenger from aforementioned creator that is your affair. I don’t care.

Get that?

I don’t CARE what you believe.

I respect your right to pollute your own mind with whatever filth you choose. I even respect your right to do dawa which means you have the right to persuade other people to pollute their minds with the same garbage.

But when you try and sell me the "religion of peace" myth I feel I have to respond. To me Islam is not some ethereal disembodied perfect religion.

ISLAM IS WHAT FLESH AND BLOOD MUSLIMS THINK, SAY AND DO.

And, when I look around the world, what is it I see Muslims doing?

Mostly I see them killing and oppressing other Muslims, especially those of the female persuasion. What is more they are doing so IN THE NAME OF ISLAM.

The Pakistani Taleban did not close girls' schools in the Swat valley in the name of secular humanism. They did it in the name of Islam.

Sunni's in Iraq do not bomb and kill Shia in the name of Presbyterianism. They do it in the name of Islam. Similarly Wahhabis oppress the Shia minority in Saudi Arabia in the name of Islam and because Shia happen to inhabit the part of the country in which the oil is.

When I look at what Muslims actually do I can only conclude that violence and oppression constitute a MAINSTREAM thread of contemporary Islam. Not the only thread; but definitely a mainstream thread.

The Middle East and Muslim countries have been invaded and controlled by western countries for many decades, one could say if it occurred in your own country, you would take umbrage and react.

The Middle East and Muslim countries have been invaded by western countries for many decades, one could say if it occurred in your own country, you would take umbrage and react.

Who is going to educate the educator? The author of the article engages in a litany of the good aspects of the Muslim religion but abhors identifying its bad aspects from which Muslim terrorism stems. All religions, including Christianity, are a mixture of the good and the bad based on fantasies and “dark forces.” That is why the reign of reason cannot find its throne in religion. All the great achievements of our contemporary Western civilization emanate from the fact that they were achieved against religion or by REFORMING religion. Muslims cannot liberate themselves from the “dark forces” of their own religion and achieve their own greatness without at least having their own religious REFORMATION.

Presently the deafening evidence is that jihadism and terror are incubated in the religious institutions and Madrasas of Islam and one can only “preserve’ one’s “objectivity” by realizing that this is Mosque-bred terror. The Australian newspaper reports today that three of the arrested would-be terrorists were regularly praying at the Preston Mosque in Melbourne where the ‘moderate’ Mufti of Australia presides. And the other incontrovertible fact is, unlike the claim of the author that “the problem of terror and crime...is an issue that the mainstream Muslim society strongly opposes,” that all the moderate streams of Muslim society are dry of any demonstrable opposition to acts of terrorism and seem to be merely the banks within which the terrorist stream moves along.

http://kotzabasis.wordpress.com

All religions are based on the axiom that it is reasonable and right to believe something without any evidence because you WANT to believe it. This is the core belief of Osama Bin Laden, of Pope Benny, of Ayatollah Khamenei, of the Archbishop of Canterbury. And as soon as you embrace that axiom you are at the same moral level as anyone with ANY irrational ideas whatsoever, from homeopathy to mass murder.

Osama and the Ayatollah's thugs sincerely believe they are carrying out the wishes of their God; and as long as you believe there is a God and that people have direct access to him, there is no way you can prove them wrong. Either you believe that God communicates his wishes or you don't: there is no middle ground. And if God is telling someone what to do, then why shouldn't that someone be Osama or the would-be local bombers? They believe it is, and -- until you renounce your faith and try reason -- you can't prove it isn't. You both have weird and unjustifiable beliefs: theirs just happen to be less socially acceptable than yours, but that doesn't make them any more wrong.

In fact all irrational beliefs are morally equivalent; embrace one and you lose the right to criticise others. This is why even the mildest faith is dangerous: because it legitimises ALL lunatic beliefs. Tolerance of religion is the sea that fundamentalists -- of all denominations -- swim in.

Richard Dawkins could tell Osama and the NSW bomb plotters why they are wrong: but until you renounce the absurdities of your religion you haven't got a leg to stand on.

I love it. Our resident OLO Islamophobes are forever demanding that moderate Muslims speak out against Islamic extremism, but any time one does - as in this very reasonable article - they get jumped on.

It seems to me that the last thing some people here want is for Muslims to integrate into Australian society. Indeed, they'd much rather all Muslims would go somewhere else, regardless of how reasonable, tolerant and civic-minded they are.

We need more Australian Muslims like Orhan Cicek to speak out, and we need to show respect when they do. Respect is a two-way street, and there is no hope for social harmony without it.

The mounting evidence of terrorism committed by Islamists all over the world shows conclusively that "moderate Muslims" are not truly Muslims. The real Muslims are the Talibans, or in Nigeria, the 'Boko Haram 'group. These groups are inspired by the Quran. They are related because the Quran inspires these groups to kill and maim.

Muslims who realise the real nature of Islam have left the faith and most of them are atheists.

The ex-Muslims have started website like 'Islam Watch' http://www.islam-watch.org/iw-new/index.php and 'Faith freedom international' http://www.faithfreedom.org/

If you desire to find out about true Islam from an ex-Muslim, Shabana Muhammad. A free e-book is available for download.

An Introduction to Real Islam
by Shabana Muhammad

"The life manual of Islam, the Quran, is a document of exclusion, hatred and violence that shapes the Muslims’ thinking and behavior. This stone-age document is optimally suited for people of stunted development. People who prefer to follow than to think for themselves, to hate than to love, and to seek death rather than to celebrate life.

Sadly, Muslims themselves are the ones who are most victimized by Islam. They have inherited this viral psychological disease of hate and violence; they live by it, and transmit it to their children as well as to receptive others."

http://islam-watch.org/Shabana/RealIslam/Chapter1.htm

I agree with CJ Morgan that this is an encouraging article, for its embracing of Muslim integration into Australian society and recognition of the need for "all of us need to gather around the table of universal ethics and morals".

If Australian Muslims in general thought like that and mean it, I wouldn’t need to be Islamophobic.

In the Jewish Torah, the book of Leviticus sets out a bloodthirsty, Bronze-Age legal code. Nearly all Jews today regard Leviticus (and similar strictures in other books) as products of their time and cultural context, NOT to be read absolutely literally as God's immutable law for all time.

Orhan Cicek appears to read the Koran in the same way. Unfortunately, his interpretation is not winning the battle around the world.

Pakistan - whose tolerant Sufi tradition is described in Ed Husain's The Islamist: Why joined radical Islam in Britain, what I saw there and why I left - shot its brains out under Zia. Somalia is a cesspit. Saudi Arabia is the home of racism and cruelty and its petrodollars fund the dissemination of the King Fahd "authorized version" of the Koran with all the footnotes arguing for offensive jihad. Free copies from plenty of Australian mosques.

I have read the whole of the Koran and am bewildered at how an intelligent person can deduce from it that

1. it is the inerrant, perfect word of God - considering the number of errors of fact, chronology and IMPORT in it, by comparison with those original ideas it took from the Jewish Torah, and also the amount of repetition and pure banality in it;

2. it is about peace and forbearance - considering that the tolerant suras (like "There should be no compulsion in religion") are ABROGATED by the later verses of the sword;

3. it is about love and respect for all human life - when it is full of so many horrible, prurient, descriptions of the torments of hellfire, and makes Paradise a brothel for murderers.

As revealed in the Koran, Allah is a dalek, not a loving father.

This is the 1,203,987th time since 9/11 that a jounalist or Sheik has assured us that Muslim terrorists are not Muslims.

TR,

LOL, well put.

Let's look at the "respect" issue that CJ MORGAN raises.

Cicek may demand that I respect his right to believe what he wants and, short of actual, EXPLICIT, incitement to violence, to say what he wants. I do.

As CJ MORGAN points out, respect is a "two-way street". That means Cicek has to respect my right to say my piece even if he finds my words offensive.

Cicek may not demand that I respect his actual beliefs and I don't. Neither, so far as I am aware, does CJ MORGAN.

HOW REPRESENTATIVE ARE CICEK'S VIEWS?

The title of Cickek's article is "Not in the name of OUR Islam ..." (Capitalisation added) This prompts a question:

To what extent is "Cicek's Islam" representative of mainstream Islam anyway?

Here is a clue. Cicek quotes Fetullah Gulen. Fetullah Gulen hails from the Sufi tradition within Islam. In fact he authored a three volume book, "Key concepts in the practice of Sufism". See:

http://www.fethullahgulen.org/gulens-works/sufism-2.html

For the most part neither Sunni nor Shia Muslims consider Sufis to be true Muslims. It is thus reasonable to suspect that "Cicek's Islam" is NOT part of mainstream Sunni or Shia Islam.

What is more there is some question as to whether Gulen's views are actually reflective of Sufism.

At best therefore "Cicek's Islam" represents a minority sect, albeit a sizeable one, within Islam. In reality he may represent a minority within that minority.

In other words, Cicek is NOT a MAINSTREAM Muslim scholar condemning terrorism.

hmm. so "respect is a two-way street" apparently means only that cicek must respect others' right to be offensive and obtuse.

well done, OLO. a fine show of tolerance and consideration. i particularly enjoyed the christians' contributions, decrying the absurdity of the koran, while trumpeting the clear wisdom of their own fantasies. "loving father"? yes, in an occasionally psychopathic sort of way.

Any educated and thinking Muslim (born into Islam) should leave a "religion" that advocates and practices paedophilia (child abuse).

Documented facts of 50 plus year-old men marrying child-bride in Muslim-majority countries

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYGoZ8b2Wwk&feature=related

It is difficult to follow the logic of Muslims who champion the cause of Islam and yet want to live in the West, claiming the West to be decadent. Most likely these Muslims are hypocrites.

Two Pakistani reporters have set up a website to report the true situation in Pakistan ('land of the pure and spiritually clean' ironically set up by Indian Muslims in 1947 so that they can practice Islam in its purest form) because there is a blackout by the main-stream-media.

The website is not anti-Muslim but look at what Islam has done to Pakistan.
http://islamabadobserver.com/2009/07/27/media-blackout-on-parachinar-shia-killings/

Nice one, STEVENLMEYER (incidentally, why do you feel the need to 'shout' people's names at them?).

Do you really think that ridiculing and lambasting Muslims for their religious beliefs is goint to promote their integration into Australian society? While I agree that Islam, like Christianity, Judaism and indeed all other religions, is an elaborate fantasy that exerts far more influence over its credulous adhenerents than is good for the rest of us, I don't think picking fights with moderate Australian Muslims is likely to assist in their peaceful integration, do you?

We can't ban Islam - and by extension mosques, Islamic schools etc. Nor can we banish or repatriate law-abiding Australian Muslims, regardless of the actions of a few deranged frootloops here and their fanatical cohorts elsewhere. We need to learn to live together, rather than stridently attacking the very people with whom we need to work if we are to avoid escalating communal tensions in Australia.

Islam isn't going away - we might think it's a load of bollocks but we also have to encourage Muslims who live in Australia to practise their religion in ways that we can all live with.

Of course, that's exactly the same way I feel about Christianity - I'm very happy to live and let live, until they start preaching at me or attempting to impose their beliefs by other means, e.g. legislatively.

I think that Australia needs more Orhan Ciceks and fewer STEVENLMEYERs, Philip Tangs et al in our approach to integrating Australian Muslims successfully.

Or more to the point - we need a better education system more focused on science and critical thinking such that Jews, Christians and Muslims work out for themselves (hopefully sooner rather than later) that their respective religions are a load of 'bollocks'.

That way, integration will take care of itself because their won't be social brickwalls in the form of religious taboos and religious xenophobia.

"“Who are these people? Certainly, they could not be Muslims because I know what Islam is all about.” Cicek

There is only one Islam and Cicek knows full well that the Talibans, Boko Haram, bali bombers are Muslims.

Ex-Muslim, Prof. Abul Kasem unmasks Islamists like Cicek for what they really are in his article "Still Searching the Real Islam"

http://www.islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/still_searching_real_islam.htm

Unfortunately for C.J. Morgan, his hope for Muslim integration will never ever happen unless he becomes Mohammad Morgan (or is he one already?)

If Islam were a "religion of peace", the Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Ahmadis, Shia and Sunnis would be living in harmony in Pakistan. The true situation is that the Muslims have almost completely killed off the Hindus, Sikhs, and Christians. Today the Shias and Sunnis are at each other throats.

The only solution is for India to nuke Pakistan and claim it for Hindustan. LONG LIVE HINDUSTAN

Quote: I condemn these types of actions that cannot be justified by any religious doctrine or ethics…

You silly ignorant boy. Of course they can be justified by the Quran. Verses like 9.73, 25.52, 4.74, 2:216, 8:38-39, 9:5, 9:29, 9:123 and others command war and hate against non-Muslims.

“Our role model is the Prophet of Islam.” Well, that explains terror. In case you haven’t bothered to read Islamic traditions (hadith), your dear prophet attacked, plundered, murdered, lied, tortured, enslaved men women and children, raped women and even beat his child-wife. He even said “I am made victorious with terror”. These were written by followers of your prophet. Want references and links?

And when you quote verse 8:32 (to kill an innocent…), note that you omitted words and forgot to say the verse was for Jews, not Muslims. There is also an exception clause. Oh yes, the next verse tells Muslims to murder and brutally torture anybody that opposes Islam.

Mr Cicek. You, like all Muslims, are dishonest. You ignore the hate and violence in Islam. You ignore the evils and discrimination against non-Muslims everywhere Islam dominates. Consider the 8 people including women and children burned to death by Muslims this week in Pakistan. Consider the endless violence against each other in the Muslim world. And you worry that Australians might think unkindly of Islam.

Want to make things better? Tell Imams to stop preaching hate. Tell Muslim websites to remove materials that say vile things about infidels. Change your text books. Apologize for 1400 years of jihad against infidels. Repeal the apostasy laws. Renounce the hundreds of verses in the Koran that teach hate against non-Muslims. Speaking of hate, consider the hate that Allah has toward non-Muslims. It says in the Quran that he will peel off unbelievers’ skin then put it back on and repeat the torture (4:56). Allah also says he will pour boiling water over the heads of non-Muslims (22:19-23). Is it just me or is this wrong?

The terrorists are just doing what Allah has told them to do, kill and be killed (9:111)

Kactuz

Philip Tang wrote: Unfortunately for C.J. Morgan, his hope for Muslim integration will never ever happen unless he becomes Mohammad Morgan (or is he one already?)

CJ Morgan does not hate Muslims. That apparently makes him a Muslim.

There are no "never ever happens" when it comes to human changes. Australia killed off approximately 20,000 Aborigines in the process of settling Australia. Germany killed off approximately 6,000,000 Jews during WW2. I certainly do not think of Christians as irretrievably bad even though Christians committed these murders. Germany is now a democratic nation no worse than Australia. Although there are still deaths in custody and Aborigines still on the average do not live as well as other Australians there is hope for both white Australia and Aborigines. White The quarter of the globe that used to be coloured pink to represent the British Empire was a monument to English violence. Of course it was not only the English Dutch, French, Belgian, German, Portuguese, Spanish and Italian Christians took over a large part of the globe using their violent methods.

The nonsense of religion will still remain. However, in spite of the massive crimes committed by Christians I see hope for them. Most are apparently acting reasonably now.

Most Muslims and Jews also act reasonably.

I don't know if CJ Morgan is a Muslim. Probably he isn't. I know I am not one.

65 years ago we were at war with Germany, Italy and Japan. Now we are at peace with Germany, Italy and Japan. Maybe human conflict is eternal, but the cast of characters changes. And so it goes.

Philip Tang also wrote: If Islam were a "religion of peace", the Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Ahmadis, Shia and Sunnis would be living in harmony in Pakistan.

If Christianity were a "religion of peace", there would not have been the wars of the Reformation or the two World Wars where Christians were at each other's throats.

Philip Tang also wrote: "The only solution is for India to nuke Pakistan"

Sure. Murdering over 100,000,000 people is a solution? Who is the violent nut?

One thing I learned when discussing Islam with Muslims is that you need to check everything they say. They have been known to (gasp) misquote, twist and even invent things about Islam (I am shocked!).

Take Mr Cicek's quote: “A Muslim is a person whose tongue and hands will not harm others”. Hum, here is how Islamonline.net renders Bukhari's hadith: "The Muslim is one from whose tongue and hand other Muslims are safe". Notice the difference? Muslims are not supposed to harm Muslims - but its open season on infidels. Of course, if the writer knew the Quran he would know that even this isnt true because Mohammed attacked other Muslims and (gasp) mosques (9:107, 110) filled with women and children - with Allah's permission because of "unbelief", of course.

I have extensive experience in talking with Muslims about Islam and the news is not good. The so-called nice moderate Muslims either are not honest about their religion or they will blame anything and eveything except Islam. They will say bad translation, out of context, that was then; They will blame jews, Israel, Colonialism, Capitalism, Globalization, Hollywood, Crusades, Bush, Western Culture, ignorance, poverty, etc -anything but the evil words that are clearly given in the Koran.

So what to do? I don't know. Time after time a Muslim will tell you the words in the Quran don't really mean what they say. They will say that other Muslims that do the things taught in the Koran are not "real Muslims" (whatever that is). Muslims totally ignore the evils they do, but demand respect from Western cultures. They seem to have no standards for themselves.

It is my opinion that there is no such thing as a "moderate" Muslim. Some of them may be nice people and say nice things, but you can not count on them to stand up for human rights, equality and our freedoms. They cannot be trusted. Look at Islamic societies, if you doubt this. Sadly, the only honest Muslims are the radicals.

Radical Muslims kill, moderates make excuses and blame others.

Kactuz

radical christians kill, moderates make excuses and blame others.

cj morgan (whisper it) wrote:

"I think that Australia needs more Orhan Ciceks and fewer STEVENLMEYERs, Philip Tangs et al in our approach to integrating Australian Muslims successfully."

Actually I think Australia needs all of us. Australia needs people – like cj morgan – who will do the welcoming "warm and fuzzies". It also needs old curmudgeons like me who remind Cicek and others that freedom is indivisible; that the same freedom that allows them to practise dawa allows me pour scorn on their beliefs.

It also requires sceptics like me to question Cicek's credentials for representing more than a tiny fraction of the wider Muslim community.

Cicek is one face of Islam. Here is another. Fethullah Gulen, who features on Cicek's website, talking bollocks about evolution.

http://www.fethullahgulen.org/questions-and-answers/2129-what-is-the-reason-for-the-persistence-of-darwinism-in-the-general-culture-of-the-masses-though-many-of-darwins-hypotheses-have-been-challenged-and-even-disproved.html

You may say that Gulen is simply echoing what many Christian fundamentalists say about evolution. You would be right. But Christian fundamentalists do not get voted world's number one public intellectual in a poll conducted jointly by the Foreign Policy and Prospect Magazines. See:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4379

Note that the man voted the world's number three public intellectual issued a fatwa against pokemon back in 2003. Among the reasons for the fatwa: Pokemon promoted evolution.

And here is yet another face of Islam. Seems the Taleben is buying children for use as suicide bombers. Their target is mainly other Muslims.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/07/07/2009-07-07_taliban_buying_children_to_use_as_suicide_bombers_in_pakistan.html

Another question. You write about "integration". To what extent do Muslims want to integrate with Australian society? What does "integration" in this context mean anyway? I though a tenet of "multiculturalism" was non-integration

It's almost superfluous to point out, stevenlmeyer, but the 'zine that gives us the "world's number one public intellectual" also believes that the most dangerous country in the world is... the United States.

http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/08/07/the_worlds_10_most_dangerous_countries

With an editorial policy that believes the US is more dangerous than, say, a nuclear North Korea (which doesn't even make the top ten!), it is hardly surprising that their readership will return such a skewed result for "public intellectual" rankings.

I'm a little surprised that "a sceptic like you" would consider this trifle worth even a passing reference.

If you are sceptical, you certainly know how to hide it.

Orhan makes the case oft made by “moderate” Muslims: Islam, its prophet, and its mainstream community are made of "sugar and spice and all things nice" – don’t associate them with "frogs and snails and puppy-dogs' tails".

It reminds me of a recent argument between a Western academic and a Muslim student: The Western academic had argued that slavery was just as prevalent in Muslim as Christian societies. The student objected saying that the Koran rated all humans equal – therefore, if a society or individual maintained slaves, they were not Muslim. Strangely enough, when the art works of those same societies are presented – no one objects to them being labeled the great arts of Islam!

I am also reminded of an incident in the recent Mumbai massacre:
When the terrorists corralled the hotel guests with the intention of shooting them.
Two of the guests --volunteered-- that they were Muslim and escaped the sentence.(an all too human reaction –of course! but some how it leaves a deep after taste)

The lesson seems to be: if there is a dividend we’ll take it – if there is a debt we want no part of it.

If we were to apply Orhan’s formula to Australian indigenous issues we’d declare it be simply the acts of a few extremists – we as a nation bear no responsibility – and, there certainly wouldn’t be an apology!

In the final analysis, it is rather ironic that the supporters of multiculturalism who preach much about --INCLUSIVENESS -- would seek to exclude some heritages from the sort of deconstructionism, and group guilt we have been told is healthy and proper when applied to mainstream Western heritage

Bushbasher.

I generally play the ball and not the man. However your postings are so unfair, so intellectually dishonest, so gratuitously offensive, that I despise you personally.

Why do you find it necessary to be so dishonest?

kactuz: << I have extensive experience in talking with Muslims about Islam >>

As authoritative evidence goes, I'm afraid that responses gleaned from trolling your way around Internet forums doesn't really cut it, old son. Or have you conducted some formal interviews about which you haven't enlightened us in your years of Islamophobic posting to this forum?

Steven - In my understanding, 'integration' in sociology refers to the process by which minority groups move from marginal status to mainstream society. It's a concept that's often confused with 'assimilation', whereby individual members of those groups abandon their group identification in favour of the dominant society. 'Multiculturalism' goes further than integration, and attaches positive value to the culture and values of minority groups vis a vis that of the dominant society. I hope this helps.

Glorfindel - it looks like you're exhibiting a similar kind of personal affront to bushbasher's comments about Christianity as I imagine a moderate Muslim like Orhan Cicek might about the lambasting of Islam that we've seen from some in this discussion. I see that it inspires strongly negative feelings in you as an individual about him/her as an individual.

I note that you don't take kactuz to task for using the exact language that bushbasher paraphrased.

Think about it.

david f.

We know that the government of Pakistan is very weak and it is very probable that the Talibans will come into possession of nuclear arms. Following that, India would be in great danger and the Islamic countries of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey would definitely have their nuclear capability to fulfill their dream of destroying Israel.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124121967978578985.html (John Bolton, ex-ambassador of US to the UN)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/06/22/2009-06-22_al_qaeda_leader_mustafa_abu_alyazid_wed_use_nuclear_weapons_on_the_us_if_we_coul.html

“The quarter of the globe that used to be coloured pink to represent the British Empire was a monument to English violence. Of course it was not only the English Dutch, French, Belgian, German, Portuguese, Spanish and Italian Christians took over a large part of the globe using their violent methods.” wrote david f.

Colonisation was never done in the name of Christianity. One can never find a verse from the Bible where Jesus, the founder of Christianity, asking Christians to win converts using threat or violence. Individual Christians might have committed acts that have fallen short of what their founder have taught.

C.J. Morgan.

If you speak to many non-Muslim British, they are quite tired of the way the current British Labour government has bent backwards to appease the Muslims in the UK.

It is sad when the Labour party has jettisoned the ideals of the original Fabian Society. Its founders like G.B Shaw and H.G. Wells must be rolling in their graves at the thought of such betrayal by Blair and Brown.

Looks like the Labour party would be out of office in the coming elections.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4FpTvp0tgs (Apologists for evil)

The sentiment is almost consistent throughout the Western world

glorfindel, i would like to say i'm sorry if you're offended. but i'm not. i just don't care.

there are many forms of islam, and many types of muslims. there are many forms of christianity and many types of christians. frankly i think all god-father religion is childish nonsense, but that is not the point.

the point is that any time someone like cicek posts at OLO, he must somehow answer for all muslims. he must somehow respond to any piece of nonsense that is dug out of the koran. it's ridiculous and it's rude.

it's not, as meyer suggests, a question of whether one respects cicek's beliefs. it's a question of whether cicek's practices are unhurtful to others, and if so then whether people are respectful of cicek's right to believe whatever nonsense he wishes.

and then guys like you and tang slap on this presumptuous god-driven moral superiority, without an ounce of self-reflection. well, i'm sorry, i don't buy it. i love some of jesus's message (including his willingness to upset people). but i also love the image of mohammed cutting the hem of his coat. and if you seek to insult the koran, then i seek to insult old testament nastiness. tang wants to mention child abuse, then i'll ... oh it's all too easy.

i don't give a damn what's in the koran. i don't give a damn what's in the old testament. what i care about is whether religious people are respectful of others, or whether they approach others with a censorious god-given moral superiority. i know many christians and many muslims who are thus respectful. but arrogant, moralising religious "leaders" such as jensen and pell and hilali disgust me. a pox on all their houses.

I have seen some interesting arguments here regarding mr Cicek's article. There is no doubt that some of you have posted your opinions purely out of hatred for Islam. One these people is Kactuz who is no doubt so full of hatred that nothing else matters to him. I think that all of us need to realise that in essence we are all human beings made up of flesh and blood. The only thing that differs us from one another is our cultures and the way we were brought up. Let's face it, we live in a world that has become a global village. We have no other alternative but to understand each other so that we may built a safe, harmonious future for our children. I think first step towards peace should be to stop insulting the beliefs of others. There are no winners in blame games. Should we blame Christianity for the millions of lives lost during the Crusades? Should we blame Judaism for the thousands of Palestinians who lost their lives? Should we blame the Ortodox Church for the deaths of innocent Bosnians? Do not forget that Adolf Hitler was a Roman Catholic. How could we be stupit enough to link his attrocities to religion?
99% of the Muslim world is stating that the actions of terroists cannot be justified by Islamic teachings. I urge everyone here to be constructive not destructive with their postings.

Pericles,

Foreign Policy is a highly respected to journal to which I happen to subscribe. The author of the article you linked calls the US the most dangerous country in the world not because he thinks it is evil, but simply because it is such a colossus. It is a bit like a bull in a china shop. Anytime the Americans screw up we all suffer. The recent Wall Street meltdown is a case in point.

The author is at pains to say that on balance he believes the US is a force for good in the world. That's more than most OLO posters would say.

What is your position Pericles. Do you think that on balance the US is a force for good in the world?

Bushbasher,

As I pointed out I respect Cicek's right to believe whatever codswallop he chooses.

Taner,

You write as if you believe that hatred for Islam is something I should be ashamed of. On the contrary, my position is that if you do not hate CONTEMPORARY Islam then you either don’t understand it or you are the one who ought to be ashamed.

Note that hatred for Islam, the belief system, is not the same as hatred of Muslims though, tragically, most Muslims will purport not to understand the difference.

Note also that hatred for Islam does not mean I want to persecute Muslims, deny them the right to practise their religion, deport them or in any way deprive them of their rights and liberties.

It simply means that I think their belief system stinks. It is, of course, not the only belief system that stinks

C.J. Morgan. wrote: Colonisation was never done in the name of Christianity. One can never find a verse from the Bible where Jesus, the founder of Christianity, asking Christians to win converts using threat or violence.

Dear CJ,

Jesus was neither the founder of Christianity nor a Christian. He lived and died a Jew, and other people founded a new religion in his name.

That statement, “Colonisation was never done in the name of Christianity. “ is false. It is irrelevant whether or not there is a relevant verse in the Bible. Colonisers have been obligated to spread the religion. There are many references to support this. From the Cambridge History of Southeast Asia p. 183

"In 1493 Papal Bulls made it an obligation for all Catholic kings to promote the spread of Christianity, and in the following year the Treaty of Tordesillas divided the world into two spiritual jurisdictions. Zone was assigned to the Portuguese Crown and the other to the Spanish."

The Americas, the Philippines and many other areas in the Spanish and Portuguese Empires were colonised in the name of Christianity.

From “The Connection of the Church of England with early American Discovery and Colonization.”

“I only ask that the simple fact that members and ministers of the English Church were in advance of them both in the patient endurance of the hardships of colonization and in the noble work of Christianizing the aborigines, should also be remembered and acknowledged.”

Missionaries and Colonisers have often either been the same or have worked closely together

Bushbasher I loved '...a pox on all their houses'! Lol.

Postings from Taner, Stevenlmeyer and DavidF all just go to prove that there have been numerous instances in our world's history that violence and degredation has been perpetrated on others in the name of religion.

No one religion can claim they are above all that violence/terrorism and are the one true religion.
Better to work together to promote a peaceful world, and to rid ourselves of all terrorists, no matter what religion or culture they hail from.

CJ Morgan:

I didn't attack Orhan Cicek at all. I said if all Muslims were like him, there'd be no problem, and no need for me or anyone else to badmouth Islam. I assume from his name that he's Turkish (as is Nursel Guzeldeniz). I like Turkey and Turks. Loved Istanbul and look forward to seeing more of the country soon. Although Turkey put the fear of God into western Europe with the sieges of Vienna in 1529 and 1683, and the Battle of Lepanto (1571), its loss of the Caliphate and embracement of a secular separation of religion and state since Attaturk has engendered civilized relations between its current form of Islam and the outside world. We can live with it, generally, in the sense of not feeling assailed.

The current principal of the East Preston Islamic College in Melbourne is a Turk, and appears to have redeemed the standing of that college in the general community, since the disgracefully divisive desecration incident of December 2006 and subsequent replacement of the former principal.

I have no problem at all with Sufiism. Former President Abdurahman Wahid (Gus Dur) of Indonesia, a Sufi, maintained civilized relations with us.

But as other posters have pointed out, Sufiism is under attack widely from within Islam. I wish it was the general shopfront of the religion, but unfortunately it isn't.

I am currently about four fifths of the way through Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book Infidel, her autobiography of her upbringing and life in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Kenya and then her experience in Holland. What she says about Islam and the attitudes of its devotees toward the Dutch and the West generally is chilling. It's a very sad story, and her views on the complacency of the "liberals" toward the creation of cultural and religious ghettos are compelling.

I don't think Orhan Cicek would disagree with her.

David F:

You say "Jesus was neither the founder of Christianity nor a Christian... Other people founded a new religion in his name."
Didn’t he say "Upon this rock I will build my church” ?

“The evil doctrine, the armed forces at the disposal of those professing the doctrine, and the SYMPATHISERS (M.E.) with the doctrine in other lands ( e.a) constitute one united threat which must be met by force”. Edmund Burke, writing on the French revolution and of the English citizens who supported it either in word or deed.

In a battle between FLAMING fundamentalists and mute moderates, who do you think is going to win. Irshad Manji Muslim writer

The above two quotes apply to all the naive simpletons of this thread who search in vein for moderate Muslims in a religion that is irreversibly replete with hate against all infidels. And the comparison of moral equivalence they attempt to make between Christianity and Islam shows their prodigious ignorance of history and that they are fugitives from reality. Christianity never threatened another civilization with FANATICAL suicide bombers, it's Islam that does so in an era of nuclear weapons and WMD. It's this that distinguishes Christian fanatics from Muslim fanatics and the great dangers that the latter carry and hide around their midriffs which are incomparable.

The hackneyed terms of 'Islamophobes'and 'Muslim haters’ that the Islam sympathisers use to discredit their opponents is a defence reaction on their part for their inveterate doltishness and inanity which bars them from the course of reason.

http://kotzabasis11.wordpress.com

I have written some of my own thoughts on this in the discussion "Terrorism arrests" at http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/08/04/terrorism-arrests/#comment-818161

It should be noted that the media has quietly acknowledged that any notion that a guerrilla group fighting on the other side of the world would seek to advance its own cause by launching terrorist attacks in this country, is likely to be nonsense. In “Militant Warlords combing diaspora for recruits at home” in the Australian of 6 August at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25890134-31477,00.html, Catherine Philp writes:

"IF the Islamists arrested in Tuesday’s pre-dawn raids were plotting to storm Australian army bases, it is unlikely al-Shabaab told them to do it."

Further along, she writes:

"What al-Shabaab cannot do is stop the foreign fighters it has radicalised in its training camps from returning home to attack domestic targets in the name of Islam."

I would suggest there is considerable difference between this country being the target of a coordinated international terrorist campaign and a small group of deluded fools at their own initiative planning to launch a terrorist attack, assuming that is found to be true.

See also "Al-Shabaab denies link to Aust suspects" at http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/07/2648501.htm

---

I would suggest people also familiarise themselves with the facts about 9/11 and other 'false flag' terrorist attacks of recent years (see, for example, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=83).

If the media can make the three unprecedented engineering disasters -- the 'collapses' of the WTC Twin Towers and the 'collapse' of WTC 7 -- which all occurred on 11 September 2001, appear to be the consequence of two aircraft crashing into buildings that were designed to easily withstand such impacts, then they would be capable of almost anything.

People should also know about the the infamous US Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG - their acronym, not mine, BTW) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proactive,_Preemptive_Operations_Group

Its tactics were to include the launching of "secret operations aimed at 'stimulating reactions' among terrorists ... for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to 'quick-response' attacks by U.S. forces."

Should we preclude the possibility that the accused may have been 'prodd(ed)' 'into action' by a group like the P2OG?

Sudanese reformer Mahmoud Taha was hung by the Islamic government (in 1985) of Sudan under pressure from the Muslim World League, a body that represents most of the Muslim-majority countries of the world. It is funded by the Saudi – Arabian government and aims to promote shariah law.

http://static.rnw.nl/migratie/www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/region/africa/sud060118-redirected

A group of progressive secular Muslims came up with a new movement to reform Islam (in 2007).

“We are secular Muslims, and secular persons of Muslim societies. We are believers, doubters, and unbelievers, brought together by a great struggle, not between the West and Islam, but between the free and the unfree.

We demand the release of Islam from its captivity to the totalitarian ambitions of power-hungry men and the rigid strictures of orthodoxy.

We say to Muslim believers: there is a noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political doctrine;”

http://kpr37.newsvine.com/_news/2009/06/13/2927117-reformation-of-islam-the-st-petersburg-declaration-institute-for-the-secularization-of-islamic-society-

Muslims don’t take them seriously and have have aligned with the Muslim World League. The agenda of the MWL is to implement shariah law through jihad; non-Muslims have only one choice to deal political Islam, destroy it at its source.

The US uses drones effectively to bomb the “religious” leaders and advocates of political Islam in Pakistan. The Nigerian Army does not hesitate to blast the murderous Islamists hiding in mosques. The West should put mosques and Islamic religious schools under strict surveillance.

Dear Glorfindel: We really don't know what Jesus said. We only know what is in the New Testament which was written years after his death. The miracles are obviously fairy tales, and we don't know how much of the other material is valid. He is a figure who may be completely mythical.

The statement "Upon this rock I will build my church” could easily have been put into his mouth after his death by the founders of the religion created in his name.

Dear Themistocles,

Islam did not have the first suicide bombers. The Tamils of Sri Lanka first used that tactic in blowing themselves up having bombs strapped around their waist.

In the Battle of Midway that turned the tide in the Pacific Americans flew their planes carrying torpedoes into Japanese warships. They were also suicide bombers, and I am grateful to those men for their sacrifice. They are heroes to me because I favour what they were fighting for. However, those they blew up were heroes to the other side.

The Man he Killed

by Thomas Hardy

"Had he and I but met
By some old ancient inn,
We should have sat us down to wet
right many a nipperkin!

"But ranged as infantry,
And staring face to face,
I shot at him as he at me,
And killed him in his place.

"I shot him dead because -
Because he was my foe,
Just so; my foe of course he was:
That's clear enough; although

"He thought he'd list, perhaps,
Off-hand like - just as I -
Was out of work - had sold his traps -
No other reason why.

"Yes: quaint and curious war is!
You shoot a fellow down
You'd treat if met when any bar is,
Or help to half-a-crown.

My reason tells me that Muslims are human and can be appealed to in the same way as any other humans.

Being a hater whether one is an Islamophobe or any other kind of hater discredits a person

david f - I think you've confused me with Philip Tang above. I'm not flattered ;)

glorfindel: << I didn't attack Orhan Cicek at all. >>

I didn't say you did. However, you being a good Christian and all, I thought you might be able to put yourself in the position of someone like Mr Cicek who is sincere in both his religious beliefs and his commitment to Australian society, but is hectored when he attempts to establish common ground with others who don't share his faith.

Your rather precious response to bushbasher's paraphrase of kactuz's Islamophobic rant indicates that your ability to empathise with others is compromised by your own blinkered faith, which makes you much more of a problem for Australian social harmony than moderate Muslims like Cicek. Further, it seems somewhat unchristian for you to "despise" someone personally because they point out an uncomfortable truth about your religion.

Why did you find it necessary to reply to me dishonestly?

Kactuz,
I hope you are not taken aback by the negative comments, some have made about your posts .It's pretty clean they haven’t taken the time to digest what you were saying. I can only surmise that they must believe that attaching labels like “islamophope” & “trolling” excuses them from having to think.

All,
I think that there is an important point a number of people are missing.Not only is Orhan saying that Islam is blameless with regard to the current round of terrorist acts, but (in sub-text) Islam is not guilt of any of the past injustices associated with its expansion – and further, Islam could never be responsible and anything unsavory.

In that respect, there is not a lot of difference between fundamentalist and moderate camps.

Orhan,

A piece by Paul Sheehan appeared in the SMH today titled “Ideological passion sells us short”.

I suggest you read it to get an idea about how an Australian might interpret the euphemistically-titled “unpleasant developments” you referred to in your article.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/ideological-passion-sells-us-short-20090809-ee65.html

But, you, as an Australian Muslim, have a different take on an event that strikes terror into the hearts of ordinary Australians: the arrest of fundamentalists planning a terrorist attack on Australian soil against Australians.

Is it any wonder that I take exception to your statement, that “as an Australian Muslim”, your concern “contained an additional amount of sensitivity in comparison to the rest of Australian society”.

I understand that you wish to create distance between the fundamentalists and other Australian Muslims. But you cannot achieve this by creating distance between Islam and terrorism. As another SMH commentator once said, all Muslims many not be terrorists, but all terrorists appear to be Muslims!

No doubt you fear reprisals toward the Muslim community in Australia. But are Australians really that bloody-minded?

Why do you claim victimhood “as an Australian muslim and social activists”. Why do you, above others “feel threatened by these allegations of terror plots”? Can you even imagine how the rest of Australia feels? Do you care?

The only solution you propose to this security threat, of terrorism festering on Australian soil, is this:

“…that Muslim youth in Australia learn Islam from correct sources”.

Read what Paul Sheehan has to say about “the judicial system of Islam”.

No, Orhan, the solution to this problem is not further indocrination of Muslim youth.

CJ, Perhaps you noticed that I pointed out the errors by Cicek. I have posted hundreds of comments, mostly on Muslim sites. I know Islamic doctrine and history, and it aint pretty. I have asked the questions you will not ask. Or do you think that we should ignore hate and violence? Is that your idea of coexistence?

BB - No, Cicek need not answer for all Muslims. He should explain, however, why he misquotes the quran and hadith to make them less hideous. Ignorance or dishonesty? Figure it out.

Taner - About hate. I don’t kick Muslims. I tell them the truth. I tell them what is in their writings and ask them to explain. Do you have a problem with that?

Spare me silly epithets like Islamophobic, because this old man, like Scarlet, doesnt give a damn. I’ve been called worse. If I were afraid of Muslims, I'd have quit when your religion-of-peace friends started threatening my family.

Cicek is your standard vanilla “moderate” Muslim. As such, he ignores the hate and violence in Islam. He changes or invents verses to make them sound better. He takes no responsibility for the evils that Muslims do. He considers Mohammad to be a great moral example when his prophet was anything but moral. When you read the hadith to Muslims and point out the hundreds of evil acts done by their dear prophet, they mutter some stupid excuse and leave (if you are lucky!). There is no introspection for Muslims. Islam is perfect so don’t think (”O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which if made plain to you may cause trouble… Some people before you did ask questions, and on that account lost their faith.” 5:101-102).

I’ll tell you what I’ll do, I’ll go to Cicek’s Multicultural site and send an email asking him to explain (here on OLO) his misquotes and/or verse 9:111 I am sure he will jump at the chance to enlighten us with his deep knowledge of Islam. I hope you all noticed the sarcasm dripping from every letter.

Kactuz

PS: Thanks, Horus

David f,

I don’t know if Tamils were the first suicide bombers prior to the Palestinians—perhaps some other commentator in this thread could disabuse my ignorance-- but my comparison was between Christians and Muslims so your point is completely pointless.

As for American pilots being suicide-bombers in the Battle of Midway, one must really overstretch one’s imagination. You totally disregard the elementary fact that America had never had a self immolating or suicidal cult in its culture, as there is definitively a suicidal cult among Muslim fanatics. So your riposte is intellectually “post less” as it cannot find the address of reason.

Certainly, stating the obvious, Muslims are human, and even the fanatics among them. But the latter, like all fanatics of whatever religion or ideology, are UNREASONING humans and therefore are unapproachable by the dictates of reason. So your appeal to them will be a complete futile and barren exercise by you. And lastly, Thomas Hardy’s poem by which you thought would strengthen your argument is totally misplaced as it applies to REASONING combatants.

http://kotzabasis.wordpress.com

Email to info@intercultural.org.au

Mr. Orhan Cicek.

Dear Sir: I have read your article “Not in the name of our Islam” and related comments at Onlineopinion.org.au with interest. Here is the link:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9278

I found your arguments less than persuasive. You have misquoted the Quran and hadith and made references to Islam’s prophet that are historically incorrect and morally suspect, based upon accounts in the Traditions

Do be specific I would like to know why you misquoted Quran 5:32? Are you not aware of the full text of this verse, or is it because it sounds better the way you phrased it? Also, please tell me why you changed Bukhari’s saying “Muslims do not kill Muslims” to “Muslims do not kill people”?

While you are at it, please explain Quran 9:111. For years I’ve been looking for a kind Muslim that will explain Allah’s words to me. Is there any hidden context or statue of limitations I am unaware of?

One last thing - You say your prophet is a role model. Hummmm. I have read the hadith and it seems to me that he attacked villages and caravans dozens of times. He plundered them and enslaved men women and children. There are also accounts of murder, lying, torture, raping female captives. There is ahadith in which Aisha says “he hit me and caused me pain” so it could be that Mohammad beat his wife also. In case you want references for these claims, I will provide links (to Muslim sites, of course). By the way, aren’t all those special privileges given to Mohammad in Quran suspicious?

I am writing this because people at OLO consider you to be a decent knowledgeable moderate Muslim. Good for you. I, on the other hand, feel that even the good Muslims are less an honest when it comes to their religion and so cannot be counted on to stand for freedom, equality, human rights and separation of church and state.

I hope you will take time from your busy schedule, go to OLO. and answer these serious issues.

Sincerely,

Jay Arthur, old man kactuz

Will we ever get sick of apologizing to Muslims ?

Will they ever get sick of railing against us ?

If their God and our God were fair dinkum why do we need a Children's Hospital ?

Why are they , the Muslims the most offensive debaters ?

How does "Hate" a vexation to the spirit of humanity fit in a religious agenda ?

A recent ABC TV program showed small Boys at a school chanting , nodding their heads Koran in hand , is this brain washing ?
If it is could it cause Psychopathy , could explain a lot of issues ?

In warfare under the Geneva Convention is Hate Propagation and Brain washing allowed ?

Why is Oz such an attractive destination for migrants from "The Promised Land" are they fulfilling some doctrination requiring them to convert us or out breed us ?

Perhaps we could pay for an Islamic version of "How To Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie , in addition we could require future migrants to squat and chant it for three months ; this could be a great anti Semtex strategy "Islamic Bomb Proofing".

god, what a charming thread. (suze, thanks).

glorfindel, you claim you didn't attack cicek. he can be the judge of that. but i did read your first post. and, if you are truly interested in interfaith dialogue, i have a suggestion: perhaps don't open with "allah is a dalek".

Nice try kactuz

If Cicek responds it will be along the lines of "You are taking a few aya out of context. To fully grasp the meaning of the koran you need to be an Arabic speaker versed in 'Ijtihad'". Etc, etc.

When cornered Muslims almost never admit to the plain meaning of the words in the text. Unless of course it is to their advantage to do so as in the famous "no compulsion in religion" aya. Then they suddenly become literal minded and take offence when others point out context.

For the benefit of the usual OLO bien-pensant, yes other religions rely on the same sleight of hand when embarrassed by their "holy" texts.

katieO,

Interesting post. Thanks.

On the whole I am encouraged that few on OLO seem inclined to swallow Cicek's line.

Speaking of religious fanatics, has anyone read the stories about the security company formerly known as Blackwater, now known as Xe?

Its employees killed in cold blood, in one incident on 16 September 2007, 17 Iraqi civilians.

The Australian republished a Times article on 6 August:

"In one of the statements, John Doe 2, who worked for Blackwater for four years, alleged that Mr Prince (the founder of Blackwater) 'views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe' and that his companies 'encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life.'" (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25890728-2703,00.html)

The usual bunk - this version, support Muslims who are trying to teach Islam and all will be well.
Then continues to perpetrate the lie that Islam means peace, and is a religion of peace. So some facts.
Arabic is a consonental language - the vowels were added later to the written form. SLM are the three consonents that are used to form the word Islam. The same consonents are used to form the Arabic word Salam, which IS one of the Arabic words for 'peace'. Islam, on the other hand, means 'submission'. This is very clear from any reading of the Koran or any other Arabic text which contains both words.
If any reader is unfamiliar with the difference between submission and peace, then I submit that they are ineligible to have any serious discussion in English.
Secondly, Islam is primarily a political system, and one that claims a theological justification, much as the medieval Kings and Queens of Europe used to before they had it beaten out of them. The evidence for this interpretation of Islam is easy to find - read the official, Muslim histories of the early period of their community. While you're there, you'll find the portrait of the Prophet that Muslims construct is as a thief, murderer, rapist and peodophile. Just the sort one would like to have instigate a 'religion'.
No amount of teaching of Islam is going to turn young, vulnerable people away from violence - the teaching of tolerance and secular government is the only thing that will do that, and neither are to be found in the Koran or the Hadith.

Mr Kactuz I can see from your explainations that you have dedicated your life to condemning Islam and I understand that you will never change but stop tricking people with your posts and be honest.

Mr Cicek's quote about the Koranic verse is as follows: "On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person, it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land." (Koran, 32:5) and here is another verse: "You shall not kill any person - for GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice......"(Koran, 17:33). ('Justice' meaning the judicial system of the nation you are living in).

I came accross another posting which states, "All Muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims". How stupit can a person be? Oklohoma City Bombing (Timoty Mc Veigh), I guess he was a Muslim too. On October 8, 1990, 22 Palestinians were killed and over 100 others injured by Scores of Israeli right wing extremists who stormed the Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. (I wonder if they were also Muslims in disguise). I can give you many more examples of acts of terror which were committed by non-muslims. However, as I said before, playing blame games will not get us anywhere. Instead of adding fuel to the fire, we should be looking into solutions. It is about time people like Kactuz decide wheter they want to be part of the solution or the problem. I would like to congratulate some other posters who have been quite erudite about the whole issue.

Well, they're just about all here now - OLO's usual Islamophobic suspects, gathered to put the boot into a moderate Australian Muslim who published an article condemning a bunch of frootloops who allegedly planned a terrorist attack in the name of Islam. What a pity PorkyBoaz is no longer with us - he would have had a ball.

There's about as much point in continuing in this discussion as there is the likelihood of Muslims integrating into Australian society when confronted by such trenchant bigotry.

You people are far more of a problem for social harmony in Australia than people like Orhan Cicek. I truly hope that he and others like him aren't discouraged from their efforts by bloodyminded haters like you lot.

CJ Morgan wrote: "david f - I think you've confused me with Philip Tang above. I'm not flattered ;)"

I did indeed. I writhe at your feet in an agony of humble self-abasement. (Figuratively, of course) My philippic should have been Tangwise.

Horus wrote: Not only is Orhan saying that Islam is blameless with regard to the current round of terrorist acts, but (in sub-text) Islam is not guilt of any of the past injustices associated with its expansion – and further, Islam could never be responsible and anything unsavory.

In that respect, there is not a lot of difference between fundamentalist and moderate camps.

Dear Horus,

Many Christians deny Hitler’s Christianity although he never disavowed his Catholic religion and had a Concordat with the Vatican. They also deny authorisation in the New Testament for the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, the wars of the Reformation and other horrible acts of Christians.

There is a big difference between Christians who carry out those acts and Christians who deny that Christianity had anything to do with it.

I see the same difference between fundamentalist and moderate Muslim camps.

Neither Christians nor Muslims have a monopoly on virtue or vice. Both have fundamentalist and moderate camps. Both contain many individuals who fail to see the humanity of the other side. Neither has the truth because there really is no truth for either to have.

Themistocles wrote: And lastly, Thomas Hardy’s poem by which you thought would strengthen your argument is totally misplaced as it applies to REASONING combatants.

Dear Themistocles,

I remember my service in WW2. We were shown films telling us how evil the Germans and Japanese were and how the Russians were almost the same as us. On both sides we generally don't have reasoning combatants. I think that's part of the point of the poem. Reason has little place on a battlefield or among religious fanatics regardless of religion.

I have the distinct feeling that some of the posters regard Muslims as exempt from the feelings that motivate other human beings.

Davidf,

“Many Christians deny Hitler’s Christianity …Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, the wars of the Reformation and other horrible acts of Christians”

Aye David that is true, but...

If such a Christian made such denials on this forum, what reception do you anticipate they’d receive?
If past instances are any indication, they would be subject to a good deal of ridicule, if not downright abuse!

On the other hand, moderate Muslims can come on to this forum make a similar denials about Islam’s culpability for past/present injustices – and, when they are ridiculed -- their critics are labeled “Islamophobes”!

As I said earlier, all I am trying to do is keep with good multiculturalism practise and be INCLUSIVE – what is good for one, is good for all!

You raise an interesting point Horus. Did Hitler think of himself as a Christian? Was he intent on exterminating Jews, Gypsies and others "in the name of Jesus"?

Don't get me wrong. I have no love for Christianity. Christian leaders poisoned the minds of Europeans with Jew-hatred for centuries. Without that there would probably have been no Shoah. In a very real sense Hitler and his Nazis reaped the hatred that Christianity sowed.

I know that Hitler gave speeches in which he appeared to portray himself as Christian. But he also gave speeches in which he portrayed himself as a peace lover! Hitler and truth are not exactly synonymous.

For what it's worth here is one view:

Quote:

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."

See:

http://answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html

Did Hitler perpetrate his deeds in the name of Christianity in the same sense that, say, Muhammad Attah died on 9 / 11 in the name of Islam?

I don't know. Fact is, Hitler seemed bent on exterminating a lot "untermenschen" - slavs for instance - who were not demonised by Christianity.

Tanner. You forgot the exception clause in 5:32 (“unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land”). What kind of god would use a stupid, vague word like “mischief” (often translated ‘confusion’) as a basis for punishment? Allah would. This verse has been used by Muslims tyrants for centuries to kill opponents. Allah obvious can’t write. There is also the fact that he is a plagerist. The “to kill one man” verse (5:32) was lifted almost word-for-word from a 2ndCentury Talmud passage. And why did you skip the next verse, 5:33? llah declares that he will not only kill but brutally torture anybody that opposes Islam (“execution, crucifixion, cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides”). Allah is really nice.

Let me be direct. The hate and violence in Islam is disgusting, but meaningless by itself. The problem is that Muslims refuse to consider this hate and violence. Because they will not address this issue they will not overcome the problem and therefore cannot be trusted. That is my position. It is simple and logical. Has Mr Cicek responded? You tell me why I should trust a people that will not condemn hate and violence in the Quran, or why I should believe that people who say “praise be upon him” after the name of a man that murdered, tortured, raped, enslaved and etc are people of good will? .

There is also the fact that Muslims refuse to consider how they treat non-Muslims where they dominate. Does Cicek care? I am sure he will make the appropriate sweet noises about love and brotherhood in his multicultural meetings, but at the end of the day he will bow to a god that delights in death and misery and it doesn’t bother him. Figure out what that means.

Taner, I don’t know if I am part of the problem or solution and I don’t care. I do know that I have the moral highground. I am right about Islam. I do know that Muslims can’t debate their way out of a wet paper bag.

kactuz

CJ Morgan,

Thank you for your compliments.

I am as proud to bear the label "Islam-o-phobe" as I would be to be called a "Fascist-o-phobe".

These labels simply mean that I have an aversion to illiberal, occasionally murderous, ideologies. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Kactuz,

It is not you who is "part of the problem". It is not even Muslims who are the problem. It is all the people who should know better and who are willing to give an illiberal, occasionally Fascistic, ideology like contemporary Islam a free ride who ARE the problem. These are the people who would smack down a Catholic Bishop if he tried to explain away child abuse but swoon over a Muslim who denies that Islam is involved in any of the horrors for which Islam has become notorious.

To add to your post.

There is CURRENTLY no such thing as "moderate Islam". Maybe there will be one day. But that day is not yet.

There are however Muslims who are relatively moderate in their outlook. Cicek MAY be one of them.

A "moderate Islam" would require a radical re-interpretation of the koran and ditching of a goodly portion of the ahadith. I see no sign of that happening within any of the mainstream Muslim traditions. I'm happy to change my mind if someone shows me the evidence that I'm wrong.

david f - no problems, mate. Your Tang-ent was a mere fillip :)

I'll have to leave you with this lot, I'm afraid. I really couldn't be bothered wasting any more time with these hateful idiots. Like I said before, they don't want Australian Muslims to integrate into mainstream society - and they intend to make it as hard as possible for that to happen.

They're entitled to be bigots and to express that hatred, but we don't have to give them any more oxygen.

One of the greatest ally of Hitler was the Mufti of Jerusalem. It is not surprising that when totalitarian, genocidal organizations get together they find many things in common, Islam and Nazism. They are good friends.

“In 1945, Yugoslavia sought to indict the Mufti as a war criminal for his role in recruiting 20,000 Muslim volunteers for the SS, who participated in the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary.”

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/muftihit.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLRTe-lZMB0

It is unfortunate that some Jews don’t even know their own history and are taken in by Islamists’ revision of history (lies).

The leadership within the Catholic Church did not oppose Hitler but there were many German Christians who fought the Nazis e.g. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German Lutheran pastor and theologian. He was also a participant in the German Resistance movement against Nazism, a founding member of the Confessing Church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer

It is only when Christianity has been hijacked by politicians e.g. during the times when the Roman Catholic Church was at her most powerful (Dark ages or Early middle ages) , that she has lost sight of her mission of helping the poor and oppressed.

CJMorgan

Your last finishing post laden with abuse inimitably exposes your bitter nature, weak character, and lack of gray matter.

Vergil's Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito, will never apply to you.

Philip Tang wrote:

It is unfortunate that some Jews don’t even know their own history and are taken in by Islamists’ revision of history (lies).

It is only when Christianity has been hijacked by politicians e.g. during the times when the Roman Catholic Church was at her most powerful (Dark ages or Early middle ages) , that she has lost sight of her mission of helping the poor and oppressed.
Posted by Philip Tang, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 9:05:17 PM

Dear Philip,

When Christian Spain expelled the Jews they found refuge in the Islamic world as they did many times when they escaped massacres by Christians.

Bonhoeffer and others who resisted the Nazis were noble souls. However, most of the Christian churches went along with the Nazis. I think it is you who are ignorant of history.

Islamic universities during the Christian Dark Ages were open to Christians, Jews, Buddhists whatever. Christian universities were open only to Christians. The record of tolerance of islam far surpasses the Christian record. Currently Islam is largely in their own Dark Ages, but historically Christianity has been far more intolerant. "The Closing of the Western Mind" by Freeman tells how the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire brought in the Dark Ages. Constantine’s Sword by James Carroll, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001, tells how the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire changed Christianity to a religion of war and Jew hatred. Then followed a period of great violence as Christianity imposed its religion on most of Europe. With the exception of Ireland this was effected by bloodshed. eg. Charlemagne gave the pagan Gauls the choice between beheading and Christianity. Richard Fletcher wrote "The Conversion of Europe from Paganism to Christianity: 371-1386" describing that bloody process.

Calvin burned heretics at the stake. Luther was a violent antisemite. Protestantism was no great shakes. It has been as intolerant and violent as Catholicism. In the Wars of the Reformation both shed each other's blood.

The history of Christianity is far bloodier than Islamic history.

"they don't want Australian Muslims to integrate into mainstream society"

No, CJ, we want them to integrate. That means accepting values that are understood to be part of mainstream western civilization. I am talking about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom, equality, and separation of church and state. Your idea is to leave them in their bigotry and not say anything that may upset them, and you call this "integration." You give up your right to freedom so they will smile at you and leave you alone - for a while.

I have a right to criticize any church, political party, or whatever. That includes Islam. I will not give up this right so you and Ahmed and Ali can sing kumbayah and be happy. You have a right to criticize me and my views. I can take it. I am not afraid of criticism because this old man defends the same standards for everybody and I don't make excuses for murder, hate, discrimination and other evils. I try not to do them and I abhor those who do and or who refuse to be honest about these things. In this context, that is a fancy way of saying "muslim".

Tell me once again where are all these "moderate" Muslims in Islamic societies? Do you have any idea of the discrimination (and violence) they practice against non-Muslims? Do you know how many have apostasy laws? Now tell me why I should think they are any different from people like Cicek?

Islam and western values do not mix. Pick a side.

Signing off, old bloodyminded hater kactuz

PS: Thank you, Steven, for the support

I think it is such good fun looking at comments from people comparing who were the most murdering oppressive religions.
What a hoot it is all just the silly thoughts of weak people!
Compare the latest religions from the crooked and murdering Joseph Smith (Mormons) or Ron L Hubbard (Scientology).
In the 1960's I worked for a shipping Co and we imported the E meters for the Scientology business. The whole place seemed to be staffed by nubile young women. What was going on there?
I have to say religion is either sex or money just like most things and you people have got to have a real, long, hard, Australian look at yourselves.

Sept 11th, 1683. Violent global jihad stopped at the walls of Vienna, under armies of Polish King. 2001 was Al-Zawahiri's 50th year. After leading the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981, he told us, quite plainly, the "true Islamic religion" was being resurrected. He later joined the two dates in history: 9/11.

My concern is that Orhans strongest evidence isn't presented. Sayyid Imam [Dr. Fadl] wrote the edicts used by Al-Qaeda. Then renounced violent Jihad. He now attracts interest due to his 'deradicalisation' of Muslim youth. The drop-kick groupies, who have been bred, fed, educated and nurtured in 'infidel' nations are simple pond scum in the eyes of Islam. Why? Democracy is forbidden over Dhimmitude and the quest to dominate the world for Allah. Jihad is reached after lengthy debate/discussion/introspection.

Egypian jails working their magic on Fadl? Torture however, doesn't explain why Bin Ladens "battlefield comrade", UK based Mu'man Bin Othman, is also mighty pissed at Extremists. They still seek our demise - but fear for the souls of misled Muslims. *Indiscriminate* killing of Muslims, isn't sanctioned.

http://firesnake.org/index.php?post_id=373256

Noting the above, the authors general thesis has significant merit. In defence of defending a genocidal medieval scam artist [God changed his mind and by sheer fluke, we have to kill anyone who won't join me; Abrogation], it was truly those who followed that took his model and cut loose - no pun intended - polluting the world with the insanity we see today. Still, modelling oneself on a monotheistic sociopath who beheaded 7-900 polytheistic Jews, launching 1400 years of anti-Semitism, is disturbing.

Where he loses most is reinterpretation of scripture, denying evolution and calling for more faith school propogation of ignorance - at tax payer expense, of course. Hard to argue against ignorance being exploited, then insist the solution is more intense ignorance factories. His fragility is exposed in his failure to note UN Human Rights Commission has been hijacked by a twist of the right to free speech vs exploitation and /or abuse of same, used malignantly to supress democratic nations voicing concern over Islamic violence. What scamologists call "Islamophobia".

Paradise awaits any who prosecute the prophets doctrine - including via Taqiyya - which is most unfortunate for any Muslim in pursuit of trust, and devastating for Orhans quest to be representing key dynamics. Not one pillar of Islam was raised for elucidation.

Orhans failure to acknowledge the UNHR tragedy is deeply, deeply concerning. How he expects a patient ear, when the erosion of human rights in favour of the Cairo Declaration - which largely demotes humans to agents in the realisation of Allahs rights- global domination - is chilling. Humans have no rights, only Allah.

http://firesnake.org/index.php?post_id=370757

How can a sociopolitical model - which Islam is - that demands destruction of all we have achieved to secure equality, rights, tolerance and avenues for social justice be "integrated" into an opposing social model? It can't. How can calculated lies and misinformation fed to children, shown to invite social division and derision of innocents add anything beyond ignorance, withdrawal and conflict?

The view that Islamist teens and young adults will all be good little citizens is much like saying if we educate young drivers speeding, accidents will reduce. Well, no they don't. So at the last we turn to science to understand the brain - not mind - of precognizant humans. And we see the ability to act rationally, is 'compromised'.

Perhaps an analogy. Islam is the Nissan with the big exhaust. "Sure dad. Promise. I'll never speed". The difference, is the UN now prevents governments from confiscating these 'cars'. Sacred vessels. "It's our religion and saying speeding kills is abuse of the right to free speech. Doubt me you filthy infidel copper? Suffer man, the UNHR backs me up". Oh - and tax payers pay for the car, the court case, the material... the lot. "Hoonphobia" must be stopped. This hideous abuse of our deepest beliefs...

The UK legislated to allow Sharia Law Courts, to assist with integration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9BPH32tJKI&feature=related

Islam; what the west needs to know:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-871902797772997781

Also, "Farewell Israel" is enlightening. Pro-Jewish, but with an entire religion against them, I can hack one movie to balance things out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-IwwfeLp4M

david f,

"The so-called “members of other faiths” alluded to by Muslims are nearly always just nominal members who have no active involvement. They are neither inspired by, nor do they credit religion as Muslim terrorists do, and this is what makes it a very different matter. Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make. Muslims who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges. By contrast, Islamic terrorists staged nearly ten thousand deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001. If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period. In the last six years, there have been perhaps a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined. No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year. Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it. Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god. Muslims may like to pretend that other religions are just as subject to "misinterpretation" as is their “perfect” one, but the reality speaks of something far worse. The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, Cont...

david f,
...Cont. 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians. By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world. Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death. As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity. The Crusades were provoked by the harassment of Christian pilgrims from Europe to the Holy Land, in which many were kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam or even killed. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time). The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They never attacked Saudi Arabia or sacked Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople. The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched over less than two centuries. The Muslim occupation is in its 1,374th year."

Themistocles, Kactuz

There is a certain kind of self-righteous pundit who, on finding himself at the losing end of an argument, declares a moral victory and then retreats behind a barrage of ad hominem attacks. Rather than engage with the substantive issues – in this case the outlandish claim that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism – he repeats the same empty pieties over and over.

There is no point in getting upset with someone of that ilk. They are what they are.

In the case of a professed atheist like CJ Morgan the arguments he advances are especially egregious. He asks us to give Muslims a free pass in cases where he would be leading the charge were Christians to make analogous claims.

David f

I am no admirer of Christianity. But your description of relationships between Muslims and non-Muslims is a-historical. Yes there were times and places when relatively enlightened Muslim rulers in Dar ul Islam allowed a reasonable amount of diversity. Those times and places were the exception rather than the rule. Most of the time "kafirs" did it tough under Islam. By and large they still do.

For a run down on the fate of "kafirs" under Muslim rule I recommend Andrew Bostom's "The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims".

See: http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Jihad-Islamic-Holy-Non-Muslims/dp/1591026024/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249999724&sr=1-2

For a more specifically Jewish angle try Robert Wistrich's "Anti-Semitism: The Longest Hatred". It has a long chapter on Muslim Jew-hatred.

http://www.amazon.com/Antisemitism-Longest-Robert-Solomon-Wistrich/dp/0805210148/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249999828&sr=1-3

The best that can be said about Jew hatred in Dar ul Islam, as opposed to Christian Jew hatred, is that Muslims weren't as efficient in organising pogroms as Christians. On average they killed fewer Jews per pogrom.

The other saving grace was that Muslim rulers often appointed Jewish viziers – sort of Prime Ministers. The reason was entirely practical. A Muslim vizier might overthrow the ruler. A Jew couldn't.

For Jews secular democracy is always the best option. Theocracies, be they Muslim or Christian or anything else, always turn out to be bad news.

Well, as far as I am concerned, this posting has run its course.

Thanks to all of you - or at least those of you - that care about liberty and human rights enough to speak up for them and not accept the idea that we must be silent so that others can feel good about themselves and/or a religion.

Notice that Cicek has not responded. Note that he twisted and misquoted both the Quran and ahadith to make them sound better. Note that he doesn't want to talk about the vile actions of the man he considers to be a great moral example. This should tell you all you need to know about "moderate" Muslims.

Thank you, Constance, for the great summary of history. Note that our apologist friends here would have a hard time finding an example (at least in the last few hundred years) of Christians chanting "Jesus saves" while killing men women and children. Now think Beslan. Think of bombings. Think Darfur. Think Pakistan. It will get worse.

Stop making excuses for Islam. Appeasement will only bring greater sorrow and suffering. I wonder if I will live to see a major political leader in the West (other than Wilder) stand up and national TV and tell an Imam the truth about Islam. All we need is one brave person to get a guy like Cecik on TV and ask him "Listen here, I want you to explain your love for a god that enjoys torture. I want you to explain why you say PBUH after the name of a man that lets his men split open the bellies of pregnant women. I want you to explain the apostasy laws and discrimination in Islamic countries. Oh yes, I don't want to hear stupid excuses and I don't want you to blame others, as Muslims always do." At that point, we can begin to have a dialogue.

Kactuz

PS: I am still looking for a "moderate" Muslim to explain that verse about Muslims being put on earth to kill and be killed (9:111)

This discussion has been quite interesting especially with people who have been bringing historical evidences to argue which religion has been more violent than the others. The arguments had nothing to do with social harmony or social inclusiveness. They were all based on hatred possessed for "The Other". Some even went to extremes by confusing integration with assimilation. There were individuals like Kactuz and firesnake who worked hard to prove that Muslims were the only violent people in the universe. They claimed that the only way we can achieve social harmony is if Muslims denounced their faith and embraced western values. Now I would like to state one important thing here to the unsuspecting true-blue ozzies who read these forums. The two individuals I mentioned above, are they realy westerners? Perhaps, instead of concealing their true backgrounds, they should declare their ethnic background, religion (if they have one) and culture of origin so that all readers may get an understading as to why they hate Muslims so much.

Firesnake and Kactuz if you truly believe in justice, honesty and common human values; do a search on the amount of innocent human lives lost within the last 20 years. You will see that most of them will be Muslims. Do not try to deceive people with your demagogy. The people of the West have woken up to hypocrites like you, they know where all conflicts originate from. Wheter you like it or not, true Muslims, Christians and Jews will continue to built bridges through sincere dialogue activities. We are in the business of construction unlike you lot who are in the business of destruction.

Taner wrote:

"…do a search on the amount of innocent human lives lost within the last 20 years. You will see that most of them will be Muslims…"

If you are talking about violent deaths you are wrong.

Nearly a million people, probably none of them Muslims, died as a result of North Korea's great famine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_famine

Chalk that one up to Of Kim Jong Il

Probably close to 4 million people died in the resource wars in central Africa.

http://www.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v4/v4i1a2.htm

In both the above neither the victims nor the perpetrators were Muslim. The same cannot be said about Sudan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Darfur

Taner,

there is no question that many Muslims died violent deaths in the past 20 years.

Now a question for you.

By and large who were the perpetrators?

Clue:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6789071.ece

Not finished, Iguess…

Taner, I am aware of the deficiencies of Western civilization. I could argue them better than most. As to “sincere dialogue,” that is me. Yes, most Muslims are killed by other Muslims – doesn’t that tell you anything?

The major difference between us and Islam is that we talk about our errors. We can discuss the inquisition, slavery, wars, aborigines, church sins, terror in the old testament, witch hunts, change religions, whatever… Its called freedom. Nobody is his right mind believes democracy or Christianity to be perfect. The Bible is full of passages condemning men, priests and prophets that did terrible things.

With Islam this is not true. It is “perfect” so any criticism is suppressed, even by force. Muslims will not consider the hate and violence because to do so is heresy, so nothing changes. There is no self-criticism in Islam so the only issue is who to blame.

Worse yet, Muslims want to impose their standards on us. They don’t want us to criticize Islam. Islamic morality is linked to Islam, even if Muslims pretend otherwise. So Muslims must pretend that the terrorists are not real Muslims even if they do Shahada, 5pillars, dress, etc and worship next to them in mosques. Muslims live in a world of denial, ignorance and deceit that is surreal. I don’t know how many times I have been told that words don’t mean what they say (or bad translation, whatever). It would be funny if people weren’t using those words to spill blood.

A Muslim cannot condemn Islam and remain Muslim. He cannot concede that Allah delights in violence and remain Muslim. He cannot condemn the evils that Muhammed did and say PBUH. So it is denial and misdirection, usually the kumbayah of multiculturalism (cant we all get along) – or threats.

Maybe I am picky but I see no reason to build bridges with people that will not condemn immoral acts and words, and have one standard for others and none for themselves.

I don’t know how this will end, but it aint gonna be pretty.

kactuz

Constance wrote: The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They never attacked Saudi Arabia or sacked Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople.

Dear Constance,

Speaking of Constantinople, in April 1204, the Crusaders of Western Europe invaded and conquered the Christian (Eastern Orthodox) city of Constantinople, capital of the Byzantine Empire. The Latin soldiery subjected the greatest city in Europe to an indescribable sack. For three days they murdered, raped, looted and destroyed on a scale which even the ancient Vandals and Goths would have found unbelievable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade contains the above material.

The Crusaders in Europe also massacred, Jews, Albigensian Christians and others.

Some Christian sects such as the Quakers, Jehovah's Witnesses and Amish oppose war. The violent aspects of Islam are evident. However, in central Asia in the nineteenth century there was a nonviolent jihad against the czarist government.

"War and Peace in the World's Religions" by John Ferguson examines 15 religion. All of them have tendencies to both war and peace.

Buddhist is put forth as a religion of peace, and it often is. However, the Buddhist clergy in Sri Lanka and the Buddhist officer corps of the Japanese army in WW2 have both supported and carried out great violence.

I like the note of Taner's post, but I don't know what 'true Muslims, Christians and Jews' are. The violent ones are as true as the religionists who try to build bridges. The adjective, true, often describes the side one favours. If it were possible I would rather eliminate all the mumbo jumbos rather than build bridges between them.

Religion is deep. People are generally not going to renounce their faith. Both Christians and Muslims support missionaries. The business of a missionary is not only to spread their faith but also to get other people to renounce their faith.

I think it is better to accept that different people have different beliefs and try to live with them.

david f. wrote

"Jesus was neither the founder of Christianity nor a Christian. He lived and died a Jew, and other people founded a new religion in his name."

David lives in a world of his own. That is why the opposite of Islam for him is Christianity. It is not. The opposite of Islam is non-Islam (or the opposite of Muslim is non-Muslim.)The islamist are fighting with

The wars that Muslims made with non-Muslims is documented in the website
http://www.historyofjihad.com/ (history of Jihad)

The biggest casualty of Muslim atrocities are the Hindus. About 100 million Hindus died at the hands of the Muslims
http://www.historyofjihad.org/india.html?syf=contact

The name "Hindu Kush" means 'slaughter of hindus'
http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/hindu_kush.html

The recent suicide bomber in the hotel in Jakarta Indonesia was a very likeable Muslim florist who turned into a jihadist. One can never tell when a "nice" Muslim is going to be a jihadist sucide bomber.

Recently the largest number killed by Muslims are Muslims. That is why non-Muslims have to help Muslims by having the Koran banned as a hate-book, close down mosques and Islamic schools. The US should continue to assassinate radical imams.

http://wasteofmyoxygen.wordpress.com/2007/10/09/staggering-statistics-on-muslims-killing-muslims/

Dear David f,

One eyed David. You really are in denial of the broader picture of history which is reflected in present times. That is what is ultimately relevant if we do all wish to live “honestly” among each other in peace with human rights respected. There has to be a two street which is not happening.

Yes, I am well aware of the schisms which had occurred between Eastern and Western Christianity but is occurring today? Are they at it others’ throats today like the different Muslim sects? At least the Catholic authority at the time in the 4th Crusade was against the atrocities.

Did you know that it was the Crusaders who invented the concept of CHIVALRY? I tell you as a female, I thank God that I was baptized a Christian and not a Muslim. I recommend you listen to some very brave ex-Muslim women (yes, of course they both need body guards) such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan - both are Realists, and Irshad Majid (I think is Sufi).

You probably also wouldn’t think that largely, Christianity has had much hand in creating Western Culture, it has especially inspired much of the fine arts which we appreciate today. I’d say it was the Church which was the instigator actually – think about it. Yes, also those joyful Catholic monks loved and still love making some great plonk too (champagne and beer). They liked to celebrate life you see. Not to mention that it is likely that the Catholic Church is the largest contributor of charity and education throughout the world including Muslim countries. Missionaries are passé; ie. no longer occurs. My goodness Christianity certainly does not have any serious consequences for their converts to other religions like one so called religion has. Yes, come to think of I’m pretty sure it was universities that actually have their roots from their earlier beginnings in Catholic monasteries.

Get real, David.

Philip Tang,

I think it was 300,000 hindus actually who were slaughtered in Bangladesh in 1971.

Taner,

I'm focusing on an article, and the durability of its argument within a piddling 700 words. You blinker yourself to evidence and target "the messenger" then claim to be "building bridges"? Matey, you've simply scanned my post and ignored the links. You might like to broaden your reading horizons before generalising.

The entire notion of "Interfaith" is interesting, yet too little, too late. Recently, I supported criticism of the "instant Christian" in politics. The notion was raised by Carmen Lawrence and she noted when we, as a nation, kill Muslims, it's often related to "Christianity" thus, suggests we're "locked in" to USA foreign policy.

Immediately, the threats arrived. Rather graphic. Or, rather - pornographic. Fast forward and it appears "Patriot" Aussies, wished to off me because I wasn't contributing to the "war between Christians and Muslims". Clearly - noting I'm perhaps the only person within miles who considers Christian activity more damaging to democracy than Islamic behaviour, and insist this "war" reflects human nature - you have little experience with the secular mind.

Perhaps you should "build bridges" with those who seek a robust debate about intellectual processes, vs those who sustain the dirty, ugly racist underside of true Australia. Nutshell? I vehemently disagree with many notions stemming from Abrahamic religions. I have a right to form and voice demonstrable opinions. Most others simply wish you pain, and good riddance.

Now. Care to comment on the evidence, and my points on "deradicalisation"? Of course not - you've been told all there is to know, need no further instruction, and even know the mind of god. You are not building bridges - you're refining theocratic arrogance.

Your problem is you assume thinkers wish to live without religion. No, we wish to live with the religious, in harmony. This means you must acknowledge certain realities before counting imaginary enemies.

Dear Philip Tang,

I am not one-eyed at all. I see the great difference between Christianity and Islam.

Islam is a religion with a record of appalling violence that portrays itself as a religion of peace.

Christianity is different.

Christianity is a religion with a record of appalling violence that portrays itself as a religion of love.

Their conflict is in many respects a civil war because they are alike in many ways. They both feel they have a truth that is denied to the rest of humanity so they send out missionaries to spread their mumbo jumbo. They both have the habit of massacring those who don’t want their mumbo jumbo.

The Crusaders didn’t invent chivalry.

http://medievalhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/chivalry_in_the_middle_ages

‘Chivalry was largely inspired by the courteous behaviour and codes of honour observed by some Saracen warriors.’

The Christians got it from the more civilized Muslims. Chivalry employed the virgin/whore dichotomy promoted by Christianity. The illiterate knight would hire a scribe to compose verses to his noble lady. He could get his rocks off by raping a peasant girl and slaughtering her father and brothers who might object.

Much of western culture also comes from Islam. Early Islam developed chemistry, mathematics, astronomy and other sciences. That is reflected in our language in the scientific words of Arabic origin - apogee, perigee, alembic, algorithm, Deneb, Aldebaran, etc. At that time Europe was still in the Dark Ages enthralled to a mind-deadening Christianity that had destroyed the spirit of free enquiry of the classical world.

As European Christianity left the Dark Ages because of the Enlightenment and the growth of the secular state which allowed freedom from the oppressive hand of Christianity Islam entered their own Dark Ages which they are still in.

We recently had a school teacher from the Solomon Islands visiting us. In the Solomons and other Pacific island states they still do not teach evolutionary biology because as our visitor said "it is against the word of God". Fundamentalist Christianity is still keeping people in ignorance.

Many humans apparently need religion, but we need neither Christianity nor Islam.

david f,
“that the crusades brought about, created chivalry.” Hello!

In addition to your address to Philip Tang in error, you have ignored my reference to Christian charity (work of love) – sorry mate, quiet actions speak louder than your words. I’m actually not particularly religious but I have a lot of respect for Christianity.

Fundamentally, the Church detested war and violence. In the words of Christ, "They that take the sword shall die by the sword." The Church hated war, but had to recognise its existence and therefore tolerate and even justify it.

A French scholar, Sylvain Gouguenheim has challenged Islamic intellectual heritage to the West. He claims knowledge acquired by the West is the product of its own discoveries. The West benefited from the translations done at the request of abbots and bishops by clerics familiar with the Greek language, like Jacques de Venise who, after studying several years in Byzantium, spent the rest of his life translating Aristotle and other Greek philosophers at the monastery of Mont Saint-Michel, in Brittany. The West also benefited from a constant relationship with Byzantium, where Greek was the everyday language and Byzantine scholars were quite familiar with the Greek heritage. Thus, most of the knowledge discovered or transmitted throughout the period extending from the 8th to the 12th centuries resulted, not from Islam, but from the intellectual appetite of European Church elites. This explains the first Western Renaissance, known as the Carolingian Renaissance, which took place at the turn of the 9th Century. Cont'd..

david f., CJ Morgan;

One would like to share in your optimism that it is possible for Muslims to integrate into a non-Islamic society, but it takes more faith to believe that than the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection or that God has come in the flesh.

In the face of historical evidence, the current state of Islamists terrorising non-Muslims and born-Muslims (had they the choice, they would have left Islam) and, the hatred of non-believers contained in the Qu’ran, preached in the mosques and taught in the madrassahs, your optimism is built on blind faith.

Islam deals only with “religious” matters. The “golden age of Islam” is a myth. The fact of the matter is that when Islamists captured non-Muslim lands there were many forced-conversions. It is from these people, many of whom were Persian, Greek, Egyptian, Byzantine, Syrian, Jewish, etc. that made “Islam golden-age" possible.
http://frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=21117

When these societies are completely Islamised, only poverty, violence, hatred, murder, rape, corruption and terrorism flourishes e.g. present day Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Sudan.

Islamic society never did produce any outstanding scienctist, nor made any positive contribution to the world-community nor ever will.

It came close to winning a Nobel prize in physics, but he was an Ahmadi (Ahmadiyya Muslim Community) whom the Muslims persecute in Pakistan and Indonesia. It was only in the UK that he could do the research to get the Nobel prize

Orhan said:
“I say, come on Australia! Let us encourage and support all forms of positive social and educational activities and events that will help Australian Muslims to integrate more rapidly.”

Ok Orhan, I think most Australians would agree, we could do that, we’re reasonable people.

However, until many Muslim families stop the apparently common practice of sending their sons back to whatever country they originated from to be taught to hate everything about the society and people of their adopted countries, reasonable people will retain the right to be suspicious and will have the right to question the ability of Muslim men to integrate into Australian society.

If, as you say, education is the answer, then why are they being educated in this way?

Orhan said:
“According to Islamic principles, no individual or group has the right to declare themselves as the Judge, jury and executioner to pass judgment on others.”

We must all ask ourselves then Orhan, why should Australians welcome you if many of your sons are continuing to be taught the opposite of the above, and they are having instilled in them an ongoing terrible desire to blow us up?

Reasonable people don’t do this.

Hello david f,

...Cont’d. Greek knowledge became accessible to the Islamic world thanks to the work of Eastern Christian scholars who translated Greek works into their own Syriac language, and then from Syriac into Arabic. Islamic civilization is itself culturally indebted to early Christian scholars. For example, because the translation of Greek documents into Arabic raised major problems occasioned by the total absence of scientific terms in that language, it became incumbent on Christian Melkite translators to develop most of the Arabic scientific vocabulary. They were responsible in particular for translating into Arabic 139 medical books by Galen and Hippocratus and 43 books by Rufus of Ephesis. Also of interest is the fact, attested by several Muslim writers, that the Arabic “coufic” writing was developed by Christian missionaries in the 6th Century." Also Irish monasteries and Charelmagne preserved Western knowledge.

The so called Islamic Golden Age was not any product of Islamic scriptural knowledge, nor was it due to any degree of devoutness of religion Islam, rather it was due to short-lived opportunity of freethinking and rationalism induced by the famous Mu’tazillites and facilitated by the liberal minded Abbasid Kingdom.

The Quran emphatically forbade pursuance knowledge and learning that falls outside the scope of Quran and Sunnah for fear of going astray by emulating path of error and heresy. Quran directly contradicted the very principle of Mu’tazilies. Hence, Islamic theological knowledge had very little to contribute to the attainment of the Golden Age.

Today, almost 95% of world's leading scientists are the sons of Christians. Should we then consider that Christian religion/Bible are the storehouse of all science? Does the world history support this? Or, should we say that ancient Hindu Kafirs got science of mathematics (numerals) from Rada Krishna?

Dear Constance,

Many like Sylvain Gouguenheim deny the influence of one culture on another.

You referred to the "so called Islamic Golden Age." It was a real Golden Age.

You referred to the Christian Bible. My King James Bible is 1078 pages. The Jewish Bible or as Christians call it the Old Testament takes up the first 815 pages or 76%. Jews wrote it without thought of Christianity. Mistranslation of Isaiah served the Christian mythology. In the Hebrew almah (a young woman) shall give birth. The Greek version has parthenos (a virgin) giving birth. The rest of the Bible was all written by Jews with the possible exception of Luke. Luke takes up 35 pages. About 3% of what you called the Christian Bible was actually written by Christians. However, I won't call it the so called Christian Bible. Christians have made it theirs.

Likewise the Muslims made the ancient knowledge theirs. The Christian scholars who translated the ancient Greek works into Syriac and then into Arabic did not do it alone. Jewish scholars worked at the same time and in some cases together with the Melkites to convert the Greek works into Arabic. However the Arabs developed their own scientific vocabulary to add to the translations. Algebra (from al-jabr) and algorithm (from the al-Kwarizmi, the name of the Arab who developed the idea), azimuth, perigee and zenith are words of Arab origin in astronomy or mathematics. Even the beautiful names of many of the stars are from Arabs watching the heavens. Deneb, Aldebaran, Betelgeuse, Zubenelgenubi.

The Crusades also involved trading and cultural transmission. The knowledge of the ancients along with the contributions of the Muslim civilisation found its way back into Europe to spark the Renaissance.

I never contended that The Golden Age was the product of Islamic scripture. People accept Scripture as truth and forbid questioning. Both the Koran and Bible have been used this way.

Charles Freeman’s "The Closing of the Western Mind" described how the adoption of Christianity as the Roman state religion caused Europe to replace the classical spirit of enquiry with Christian dogmas.

David f
I say so called Islamic Golden Age because it had nothing to do with Islam.
According to the American Thinker, Dr. Jonathan David Carson, "The 'Islamic scholars' who translated 'ancient Greece's natural philosophy' were a curious group of Muslims, since all or almost all of the translators from Greek to Arabic were Christians or Jews." Read Philip Tang’s post.) Besides, all the ancient luminaries like Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Buddha, Confucius, Euclid, Epicurus, Democritus, Lucretius and Aristarchus et al. were born long before Prophet Muhammad and his Islam but they all had direct and profound influence in laying the foundation of today’s world of science, education, politics, human rights and justice.
Another interesting point is most of those renowned Muslim scientists were non-Arab. Such as: Al-Khwarizmi (Uzbekistan); Al-Razi (Tehran); Al-Ghazzali (Khorman, Iran); Al-Tabari (Tabristan); Al-Farabi (Turkistan); Al-Biruni (Khwarizm, Uzbekistan); Ibn Sina (Bukhara, Central Asia); Ibn Rushd (Cordoba, Spain); amongst the non-muslim scientists and philosophers were such as: Albategnius (al-Battani, 853–929)who belonged to the star-worshipping Sabian sect of Northern Mesopotamia, alchemist Stephanus of Alexandria (d. 641 CE), Christian monk of Syria named Morieus Romanus, Ibn Butlan (d. 1066) and Ibn Tilmid (d. 1065) of Baghdad; Gregorius Barhebreus (d. 1286) (aka Abul Faraj), and Ibn Ali Isa (d. 1290 and so on. All those scientists/philosophers happened to be sons of Muslim.

david f,
Ancient Greeks left the greatest scientific heritage of all the ancient peoples. Most scientific successes were achieved during the Hellenistic period who established world's largest ancient library at Alexandria (Egypt), where half a million books were kept. No one can think about ancient science without naming Hippocrates, Aristotle, Thales, Pythagoras, Euclid, Galen, etc., and obviously, those scientists did not learn science from Islamic Allah or Judeo-Christian’s God. Another very interesting factor is-all the above mentioned civilizations, somehow or rather, came in contact with each other (overlapping one by the other) at the Middle Eastern region. Had there been no ancient Egypt, Mesopotamian, Greek, Roman, Chinese, Indian, Persian, etc., there could be no science available to Arab to transmit them to the west. Just as, had there been no Judaism, Paganism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Bahaism was existed in the Middle east-there could be no Islam or no Qur'an written/produced (copied) by Muhammad.

Also following your previous post, yeh, Arab-named planets and there are at least 35 lunar craters named after Jesuit Scientists, not to mention their ongoing work in Astronomy. Go figure.

Science started its journey right from the day when ancient cave peoples made their first weapon from the stone. Necessities and human curiosities were the engine of all sciences. Science never dropped from the sky for anybody. Science is the continuous product of human civilizations. Not by one or two, but by all civilizations of the world such as: Ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Chinese, Indian, Assyrian, Persian, Greek (Hellenistic), Roman, Islamic Arab, etc, etc. All of this civilization took part in the "RELAY RACE" of shaping up ancient science, which was the building block of modern science. Ancient Egyptians (3000 BC) studied the heavens to forecast seasons, used advanced geometry to build Pyramids. They also learned human anatomy, physiology, surgery and medicine, etc. All of the above mentioned ancient pre-Arab civilizations were very advanced in medicine, astronomy, geometry, mathematics and other scientific fields much before the arrival of Islamic-Arab civilization.

Dear Constance,

I really don't understand what your most recent posts were about. Science is a way of knowing which really has little to do with any religious belief. It is called the Islamic Golden Age because scientific advances were made in Islamic controlled territory. At that time Islamic controlled territory was much more open to intellectual speculation than was Christian controlled. Some time later the Christian world emerged from the Christian dominated Dark Ages, and the Islamic world entered the Muslim dominated Dark Ages.

The ancient civilisations had the knowledge of their times. Science builds on the knowledge of past science. Newton said, "If I can see so far it's because I stand on the shoulders of giants."

Religion often takes in ideas and then calls them their own as Christianity has done with the so-called Christian Bible. Sometimes religion replaces past unprovable propositions with new unprovable propositions.

To talk about Judeo-Christian’s God is nonsense. Christianity is centred around Jesus, the incarnation of God. In Judaism Jesus is no more significant than any other person. Judaism and Islam are strictly monotheistic holding that there is only one indivisible God. Although Christians have hijacked the Jewish Bible it makes more sense to refer to the Judeo-Islamic God than the Judeo-Christian God.

You wrote: "Science is the continuous product of human civilizations."

I agree with that.

Okay David,
Can you please name another religion that is more charitable (which you have been ignoring in my posts) than Christianity, especially Catholic (including towards other faiths) for a start. Goodness David, I’m no theologist . Actions speak louder than words as I have said before, and I am living in the present which you seem to dismiss and are forever obsessed with the past, however true or untrue the historical statements are that you choose to bring up. I was brought up Catholic so did not inherit literalism – more symbolism and mysticism. Heck, don’t ask me anything about any bible. I learnt more in my Catholic schooling about social justice issues. And I had a lot of respect with all the selfless charity work my father did when he already had a full life with a large family and demanding changing careers. I do not go to Church but I tell you it stays with me. Also,I wish to add that a lot of Catholic women clergy have their own power and do their selfless charitable work autonomously.

You come across as another John Pilger, ie. self loathing of their Christian western (white!) heritage and forever ranting very narrowly, of which any balanced western person would have to wonder and be totally put off. Although I do admire him being the first to bring up the Cambodian issues. An extremist, like a lot of loony lefties these days who are now siding with Islamists, have now become. As Nick Cohen (you should read his book) – an enlightened ex-leftist who has now despaired and left the Left because of this. Human rights activists these days have lost the plot.

I sent my last post as a reaction to your glorified statement of Western culture owing all to Islam, of which you don’t seem to have fully read anyway, and have also ignored some specific cultural western references I have mentioned. And how about the lack of science terminology and Arabic script with Christian origin I mentioned.

Dear David,
In a lecture intended for delivery at La Sapienza University in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI undertook to address this issue of protest of him speaking, and to show that faith cannot exist without reason and that reason itself cannot flourish without the faith. His whole argument is based on the concept of the Western university, whose emergence in the Middle Ages was not some sheer historical fluke, but an outgrowth of the intellectual requirements of the Christian faith itself -- a point which suggests why universities did not develop in Asia, Africa or the Middle-East.

The pope first notes that "the true, intimate origin of the university lies in man's craving for knowledge". In this sense, "the Socratic questioning is the impulse that gave birth to the Western university". He then explains that it is precisely as a response to this kind of questioning that the Christians of the first centuries embraced the faith: "They accepted their faith as a way of dissolving the cloud that was mythological religion so as to discover the God that is creative Reason as well as Reason-as-Love.

Dear David and Constance
Your respective "religons" have maimed, killed and enslaved people for you and your co-religonists vanity. It is all just superstitious nonsense usually promoted by people for their own particular power trip.
For goodness sake, you seem sensible educated people, just think it through and stop behaving in so weird a fashion albeit one that has been going on for centuries. Now both of you stop talking and start thinking.

Dear JBowyer,

You are mixing up colonisers with missionaries. They did not have the same approach. You should broaden your perspective - be more open-minded. Enough is enough - as it has not been fair enough. I'm just reacting to the unbalanced, unthoughtful and dismissive diatribe by the hardcore anti-religionists, who also tend to put all religions in the same basket without any analysis. I'm no holy Joe and have never defended Catholicsm at all before. But I have had a gutful of this selective judgement. I'm thinking, how about you?

Where's my mate, David gone? I need more talking.

Constance: I think that you are saying all the other religions are doing it wrong unlike you, but then they are saying exactly the same.
My problem is the total stupidity of people talking about a god and then oppressing others in the name of that god. Just stop it! You are all the same from the dopey jews right up to the crazed scientologists. You have all oppressed others and its all your fault,collectively that is.
I am an atheist and I really do not want to stop any religion as it only encourages them anyway but I have no thoughts of superiority I can assure you. Actually there is no way I can stop anyone doing anything much less indulge in all this superstitious nonsense.
I reckon David's brains have burst from thinking about religion too much!

I am not saying I'm right, they're wrong at all. It is just so simplistic to say they are all the same which is not really true. I'm just saying that anti-religionists do not analyse religions, because they just don't do that, do they? Selective dismissive judgements is not adequate for any genuine debate.

Music today would be poorer if we didn't have for example the African American gospel singers that have so much inspired other musicians. Music which I enjoy today. That and other art that religion has inspired. Think about?

Dear Constance,

I have been in Sydney for a few days. That is why I have not been participating in this discussion. While I was in Sydney I attended the 80th birthday party of a Marxist. There was a lot of good food. Most of the people there were Marxist believers, but I am not. Two musicians played the “Internationale”, and most of the assemblage lustily sang along. After approximately 100,000,000 Marxist generated corpses they can still believe.

Although Buddhism is regarded as a religion of peace that most violent group of men, the Japanese officer corps, in WW2 were almost all Buddhists. Currently the Buddhist clergy in Sri Lanka have backed the bloody suppression of the Tamils.

Uncritical belief in having a truth denied to others is found in both religion and secular philosophies. That sort of belief has led to atrocity. Marxist and Buddhist believers can exhibit as great cruelty as believers in God.

I also talked with a man who assured me that Prime Minister Rudd was trying to destroy Christianity. I pointed out that he has just allocated 26 billion dollars to independent schools mostly Christian. He retorted, “A big coverup.” His paranoid fantasies can be found at http://www.cosepp.com/. Click on Police Persecution, Barbarism, Tortures... of Joseph Costa, in Australia.

Went to hear a talk in Sydney parliament house by John Keane, author of “The Life and Death of Democracy”. He spoke of the tremendous devotion to democracy by poor people in India. The poorer they are the more likely they are to vote. During question time an Indian in the audience remarked that the voting turnout among poor people was simply due to the fact they got paid to vote, and they needed the money. It was evidence of corruption not devotion. Professor Keane was another uncritical believer. Nevertheless he has written a good book.

Sorry Constance, I really do not wish to be rude to you but what you say is said by all religions.
Join us, give us your all and we will look after you and you will have eternal life. The only difference between Mohammed the violent fraudster, Jesus's disciples and Joseph Smith is two fifths of stuff all. The passage of time allows the past to be sanitised and for religions to then claim, as they do now, that they are a special case. The rules of common sense do not apply to us, black is white, up is down.
Personally I believe religion is a personality trait in humans that we need, sorry you need to be ruled. I am married so I already have a ruler thanks.

Dear Constance
I would suggest its you who possibly needs to have a little think...atheists/anti-religionists/secular humanists/skeptics are all desperately hoping we will eventually live in a sane world free of the madness of the supernatural. These days’ non-believers all over the world are working towards this by studying all aspects of all religions. Funnily enough, most non believers have actually read more of the bible than the average modern religious person. Just plug Atheist into Google and have a little read to get up to speed on what non believers the world over are really analysing.

Oh and those lovely voices you spoke about, the African American Gospel singers, you seem to forget that their beautiful music full of sorrow was born in the cotton fields when they were slaves, torn from their own countries, worked to death and considered to be no better than farm animals....absolutely no credit there to the church for their musical influences.

JBowyer,
On the contrary, my faith has given me freedom, just like Germaine Greer’s convent education has given her. My only ruler is my conscience.

trikkerdee,

Augustine took the view that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason. In "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" (early 5th century, AD), St. Augustine wrote:
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

Also, re the gospel singers, you seem to have missed the whole point of what actually was their spiritual salvation which brought them comfort, beauty and artistry in their despair.

Well Constance I too am free and ruled by my conscience so I am certainly happy for you.
I have to take issue with you on slaves singing though. Religion was happy for people to be slaves and you are complimenting it for relieving their despair in slavery? No sorry you cannot have it both ways. Of course the people who were instrumental in starting to abolish slavery were religionist. Although thinking about it what could they be, as anti-religionist were persecuted at that time.

Ah, good old Augustine, who was but a human with human failings. Haven’t we learned an awful lot since Augustine’s time and surely reasoning and experience is what educated us, not religion? Forced compartmentalising of the brain so it can integrate the supernatural is, in my opinion, a sadly disillusioned and treacherous road. Why don’t we treat religion as we do all the other myths from the ancient times and get on with our living? The empty promise of a reward in death seems to me to be the ultimate insult to ourselves and our wonderful intelligence.

With the advent of the internet, access to so much information has begun an investigation and conversation about religion that has never happened before. Time will tell what this will bring. We desperately need to learn to live together in peace above all else. Seems to me that the veiling of reality in a mist of the supernatural of which none can agree which is the true one will soon bring about our destruction.

Without too much trouble anyone can reveal for themselves that all is not as it was always thought to be. Seek and ye shall find takes on a whole new depth of meaning, lets hope we, as a human collective find some sane answers.

Shame on you Constance for smugly dismissing the pain and suffering of the original African Americans just to glorify the role of religion in their misery. Your so called ‘point’ of comfort and spiritual salvation was certainly a cruel and empty reward for what they were forced to endure.

Trikkerdee,

You need to cool down brother. Maybe it just comes down to that some of us have artistic genes, some with genes for a talent for mathematics, and just some of us with genes for spirituality – I don’t know, just a theory. How dare you accuse me of being indifferent to the suffering of African slaves. The pure (hardcore) rational thought without any magic or a sense of the other, is pretty dull and cold to me. Do you not think music may have brought a lot of us together ultimately, and is likely to be the most effective? You’re speaking if so I was insinuating, Oh yeh, great music, thanks for the suffering. Humanity is full of tragedy and pain (which any decent human being must find disturbing and have compassion for, and of which we, our privileged selves feel helpless and useless), and it is the other forces in play which no rationalism will ever be able to define or fathom. You need some more imagination. It seems most (or all) of the suffering in the world have some sort of religious or pagan faith because it gives them hope and solace, and as a spiritual consequence, are sometimes inspired to creativity in music and art (and by not just the downtrodden) – that is all I meant. Again, like religion, art and music is not easily definable – but something that speaks to the soul.

..Cont'd.
On another note, your selective judgement will never want to recognise any of the selfless charity work done by Christians (particularly nuns) world-wide including to people of other religions, and it’s not missionary work (those times are gone). As what their vocation demands is to go to those in need, and I must say, it is from the heart. It can occasionally get political, like the American nun murdered in the Amazon for her leadership in defending the indigenous rights for their land. Or the Australian nun working in AIDs treatment and defending one or more victims of AIDS in a small village in the highlands of PNG because she and her child are being harassed/ostracized by the villagers. Or even, a group of nuns working for the disabled in Jordan which is the only charity in the country for the disabled it seems. They work quietly, hardly ever in the headlines. It wasn’t any secular or Marxist organisation that were that were the innovators of charity work.

It would seem that you are the smug who is actually indirectly saying the African Americans gospel singers et al are superstitious fools.
The world does work in mysterious ways. If you come back with some cracker diatribe I will not respond from hereon because I just don’t want to waste my time any more with the unreasonable.