It is always good to observe the mounting frustration in your posts, HermanYutic, as evidenced by the increase in schoolboy taunts.

>>as oxymoronic as it gets (that’s like Pericles with oxy+)<<

I bet you chuckled over that one, didn't you?

>>The Swiss people exercised their constitutionally-guaranteed, democratic right to ban minarets<<

As I have pointed out before, I have no problem with anyone exercising their rights. It is their country, and they are welcome to manage it any way they choose. As are the Saudi Arabians.

Speaking personally, I would find it sad to live in a country that is so narrow-minded and parochial. But that's the Swiss for you.

I would also avoid living in a country where they have a form of religious observance that would make me extremely uncomfortable. But that's the Saudis for you.

And as such, I am delighted to live in Australia, where we - by and large, and specifically excepting you and your acolytes - we are a friendly bunch, happy to live alongside people with views that differ from our own.

If you lot had your sad, narrow-minded and religiously-motivated way on the functioning of our society, I would be pretty upset. Just because they do these things overseas, doesn't mean we should copy them.

The polls arre interesting. Knowing the way media-driven polls are conducted, I'd be interested in seeing the questions, and the demographics of their readership.

And Philip Tang - are you absolutely sure about this?

>>The views of ex-Muslims are the most reliable source about Islam.<<

They would hardly be highly motivated to be scrupulously even-handed in their assessments, would they?

Imagine. It's 1960, and you've just defected from the USSR to America.

Would you go out of your way to extol the virtues of life in the Soviet Union? Or would you make a point of emphasising how bad it was?

You'd hardly be "the most reliable source".

grateful,

<Where is the scholarly research that finds the Prophet was lacking in integrity?>

Your demand puts us in a Catch 22 situation.

Maybe I should ask you a few questions:
What would happen to the Islamic scholar who published his research findings that the Prophet was lacking in integrity?
How many of his peers would review his work, let alone validate his findings?
No Western scholar would risk his tenure and no Islamic scholar would risk his neck.

This is the strength of Islam.
The punishment for blasphemy or apostasy (not much difference here) is death.

Maybe you missed that part in the Koran (4:89).

Could this help to explain the lack of peer-reviewed, scholarly criticism of Mohammed's integrity?

Never mind, let me provide a few non-peer-reviewed examples:

Mohammed took 20% of the spoils of war, including women (Koran 8:41).
Not for himself, of course, but for Allah.

Mohammed lusted after his adopted son’s wife Zaynab after seeing her disrobed.
She divorced her husband and married Mohammed.
Nothing wrong here because Allah immediately revealed to Mohammed that this was OK (Koran 33:4 & 33:37)
Since then, Sharia law has banned adoption!

Mohammed advocated “scourging” disobedient wives (Koran 4:34)
The 50yo Mohammed even beat his favourite 6yo wife Aisha.

Etc, etc, etc.

Hey, this is fun!
Anybody can misinterpret the Koran!

But, to be perfectly fair to Mohammed (F.H.), I don’t really know how a peer-reviewed Islamic scholar would define integrity.
Perhaps grateful could enlighten us on that small point.

salami

Herman, do you want a sample of the true source of what you refer to as the “power of Islam”.

In 628, the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt. Sinai were concerned at the emergence of Islam on the Arabian Peninsula. The Prophet issued them with a document which is in existence today and reads as follows:

"This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.

(1) Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.

(2) No compulsion is to be on them.

(3) Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.

(4) No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.

(5) Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.

(6) No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.

(7) The Muslims are to fight for them.

(8) If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.

(9) Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.
No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world)."

[For a photo of the document see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Privileges]

How long has it taken the West to come close to guaranteeing the freedom of religion and human rights embodied in this Charter?
That's a real question. Has anyone of the above detractors got the ability to answer it honestly?

i'm with pericles: i think yutic is boaz.

I just think it odd that HermanYutic says he isn't religious, then takes on a nick that looks suspiciously like hermeneutic. Could be purely coincidence, I guess.

Why do the pro-Islam man attack the man so often? It seems a habit in more ways than one.