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?