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