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.