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.