There seem to be many incorrect statements in this article.
Firstly, the Pew Research Center states that there are 54 million Muslims in Europe NOW and that it is expected that 25% of Europe could be Muslim at the current rate of growth in 11 years. That is unless there is a groundswell against allowing an explosion of such an obviously non-European thinking population that has some difficulty in assimilating into any community other than an Islamic one. The problem is too many years of Islamic teaching has lead to values that are totally contrary to the educated and in the main, cultured population of Europe. No one wants Europe to change its living standards, its heritage, culture and values and compromise hundreds of years of art, music and education just to allow for Islamic people to take over yet another part of the world after having left their original countries in a very poor state with little education and certainly an entirely different lifestyle than Europe represents.
Islam has contributed almost nothing to science, education, music, art and 21st century standards and in most Islamic countries little has changed in 800 years when Islamic countries were leaders in so many ways. But it is the last 800 years of teachings and totally subservience of Muslims to the Islamic dogmas that has isolated them from worthwhile development with sharia law controlling every minute of every day. Like other religions they have a God and an afterlife and in that way are no different to the Roman church. The difference is in the way they achieve their dominance over their submissive followers. Catholicism through the promise of heaven, the threat of hell and a 'desirable' life after death and Islam through sharia law and all that means, together with the promise of a somewhat bizarre afterlife.
One cannot expect Europeans with their 'developed' backgrounds to subscribe to and embrace a lesser lifestyle. Why should they?

The philosophies and cultures are too far apart. Never the twain shall meet.

'The overarching challenge for European governments is to shift the focus from bans and restrictions on Islam and Muslims and instead try to forge a cohesive and inclusive society where all citizens - including the continent's Muslims - feel at home.'

To state the obvious - Europe is Europe. It's not about Muslims feeling at home, it's about Europeans feeling at home.

If Europeans find Mosques and their ranting Imams confronting and unsettling then Muslims should become Christian or secular and not build them. If there is a compelling need to visit a mosque then there are plenty of Mosques and ranting Imams in the Middle East and North Africa where I'm sure Muslims will feel right at home.

Well said, TR
New settlers being generously given the opportunity to live in another country, someone else's country that is, and who try and get that country to conform to their ways, should go right back home again.
If you want to stay, YOU fit in. The excessive emphasis on political correctness by allowing special privileges such as approving the use of sharia law in the UK (what next!) hopefully will never carry any weight in Australia and should not do so in Europe either. Anyone travelling to Europe to see the grandeur and culture of their years of history want it to still be there in 100 years time. There is absolutely no comparison with European history and the history of Islamic countries.
Europe's growing problem with Islam is Islam itself.

I'd be interested to see where you get your statistics from, rexw.

>>Firstly, the Pew Research Center states that there are 54 million Muslims in Europe NOW<<

According to last October's report in the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (clearly, a very different organization), they counted 38 million. Here's the link - it would be handy if you could provide yours, so that we can compare sources.

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=464

"Europe, which includes 50 countries and territories, has about 38 million Muslims, constituting about 5% of its population."

It goes on to point out that 40% of these live in Russia. And that 60% of the total live in predominantly Muslim countries - Turkey, Bosnia etc.

But please, feel free to direct our attention to different numbers. While you are about it, let us know where to find the math behind this statement of yours:

>>25% of Europe could be Muslim at the current rate of growth in 11 years.<<

By my reckoning, that will be around 200 million. Excluding immigration for a moment, that would mean that every Muslim woman between the age of 18 and 35 would need to produce twentyseven children in the next ten years.

Challenging.

I know, I know, it is really tedious having to justify such exciting "statistics". But some of us are interested to learn, rather than simply hyperventilate.

But I loved this little gem you gave us:

>>The difference is in the way they achieve their dominance over their submissive followers. Catholicism through the promise of heaven, the threat of hell and a 'desirable' life after death and Islam through sharia law and all that means, together with the promise of a somewhat bizarre afterlife.<<

They sound remarkably similar to me: the old good cop, bad cop routine, overseen by a bunch of guys in robes.

Look forward to seeing the references. Don't forget, will you. Just don't quote the IPCC, at least for a little while.

Yesterday, in a comment on an article about the plight of the Copts in Egypt, I commended a book by Egyptian born feminist Nonie Darwish entitled 'Cruel and Usual Punishment'. It has as its subtitle 'The terrifying global implications of Islamic Law'.

I also stated that Darwish has excellent qualifications: she was prevented from speaking (due to Muslim 'pressure') at both Princeton and Columbia universities. Columbia did however invite and allow to speak unhindered that liberal the President of Iran.

Darwish, together with Hirsi Ali should be compulsory reading for all who wish to comment about Islam in Western countries. Pericles please note! By the way Pericles, you use a pseudonym from the background of Western democratic reasoning. I can think of nothing further from that than Islam. Perhaps you should change your pseudonym!

No, please don't. OLO would not be the same without Pericles.

Cheers

And read that book.

Please

Shada Islam,

The following comments concern CONTEMPORARY Islam. I emphasise the word "contemporary" because religions evolve. The Islam of, say, 2050, may be different to the Islam of 2010.

Islam is a form of Nazism. It has a totalitarian vision of society. Like the Nazis before them, Islamics exercise power through terror and intimidation. The extent to which Europeans have ALREADY allowed themselves to be cowed may be seen from this piece in der Spiegel:

THE WEST IS CHOKED BY FEAR

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,669888,00.html

Quotes:

"...In that atmosphere, [of 1988] no German publisher had the courage to publish Rushdie's book. This led a handful of famous German authors, led by Günter Grass, to take the initiative to ensure that Rushdie's novel could appear in Germany ... Dozens of publishing houses, organizations, journalists, politicians and other prominent members of German society were involved in the joint venture, which was the broadest coalition that had ever been formed in postwar German history.

That was then.

"This time, however, ... hardly anyone has showed any solidarity with the threatened Danish cartoonists -- to the contrary. Grass, ... expressed his understanding for the hurt feelings of the Muslims and the violent reactions that resulted."

"...experts who had in the past defended every criticism of the pope and the Church as well as every blasphemous piece of art in the name of freedom of opinion…in the case of the Muhammad cartoons, suddenly held the view that one must take other people's religious feelings into consideration.

"But that argument was clearly just an excuse, a way of excusing the fact they had been silenced by fear…Against this threat, it seemed more reasonable and, above all, safer, to show respect to religious feelings rather than insist on the right to freedom of expression."

"A German-Turkish lawyer who lives in central Berlin recently had to go into hiding because she became the recipient of death threats after publishing a book. The tome doesn't include any caricatures of Muhammad. It's just the title that serves as a provocation: " Islam Needs a Sexual Revolution."

Half the story only, eyejaw.

>>...Darwish... was prevented from speaking (due to Muslim 'pressure') at both Princeton and Columbia universities. Columbia did however invite and allow to speak unhindered that liberal the President of Iran.<<

According to other sources, Darwish was prevented from speaking by an alliance between campus Jews and Muslims.

http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/11/19/princeton-columbia-cancel-free-speech-darwish-silenced/

"...the Director of Hillel, a rabbi, as well as the Jewish group 'Tigers for Israel,' literally conspired with the Muslim chaplain on campus to cancel Darwish at the last moment."

Food for thought, eh?

And you omitted to mention that Columbia had the previous year cancelled an invitation to President Ahmadinejad.

http://www.nysun.com/new-york/columbia-withdraws-an-invitation-to-ahmadinejad/40142/

Perhaps they should simply invite Ms Chesler again. It worked for the Iranian President. Or perhaps they feel that if they did so, the publicity value of the first refusal would be compromised?

>>Darwish, together with Hirsi Ali should be compulsory reading for all who wish to comment about Islam in Western countries. Pericles please note!<<

If you look really carefully at my post, I made no comment whatsoever on "Islam in Western Countries", outside pointing to the fact that the statistics rexw gave us were, to say the least, extremely wobbly.

And if you look really, really carefully at my previous posts on the subject of whack-a-mozzie bigots, they predominantly address that cohort's tendency towards shrill, emotional chicken-littling.

In my view, the fear and loathing demonstrated by those folk in their diatribes against Islam is akin to attempting to douse a fire by throwing petrol on it. Whether they feel so or not, it is nothing more than self-righteous rabble-rousing.

"I also stated that Darwish has excellent qualifications: she was prevented from speaking (due to Muslim 'pressure') at both Princeton and Columbia universities."

A person with excellent qualifications would have a degree from Princeton and Columbia. Darwish has neither. She's just another writer who is making a living out of peddling myths about the "Islamic threat." She was invited to speak at Columbia by student groups -- so she was not invited formally by the university itself. The student groups withdrew the invitation after pressure from other students, mainly Muslim students. Now those students have a legitimate right to protest against a speaker who they think defames them as a group.

So the whole thing isn't as sinister as Darwish and her supporters make out. Basically, she's just a Muslim Melanie Phillips. There is a lot of money in hysteria!

But I love this quote most of all:
"Islam is a form of Nazism. It has a totalitarian vision of society. Like the Nazis before them, Islamics exercise power through terror and intimidation."

Thats so stupid that I don't know where to begin. Was the lobotomy painful?

Now Pericles, don't get cross because some people disagree with you. You start well and logically. I shall certainly look up the links suggested though they do seem to give a different slant on things compared to what I had seen previously.

However you last three little paragraphs are not your normal standard at all. Phrases such as 'wack-a mozzie bigot', ''self righteous rabble rousing' and 'shrill emotional chicken littling' add nothing to the discussion. The rather sarcastic tone is not becoming.

I am rather puzzled at your statement that you are not commenting on Islam in Western countries. Passing strange surely in a comment on an article that is totally about Europe and Islam within Europe. Do you mean that your comment is about another article, not this one?

Chicken Little is a nice story about illogical fear of a small, tiny threat. I do not see Islam as a small threat to Western democracy. I wish it were of course, but the evidence is too great for me to think that.

I have atated that I will take the advice that Pericles gave and look up the links suggested. A quid pro quo is that Pericles should read Darwish, for I am confident she/he would not condemn her as a bigot or rabble rouser or shrill emotional etc without reading what she says. Hence she/he has not read her work yet, so she/he should.

One thing thatI think Pericles and I would agree on is that this is a most important issue. It is hence sad to see that it has not been read all that much.

The West benefited from a period of history called The Enlightenment when critical views covered literature and religion.It taught accomodation and challenge and people absorbed the outcome and were able to live comfortably with it and develop. This cultural evolution was unavailable in Islamic countries that are now being exposed to its influences.One has only to visit the local libraries and book shops to see the plethora of Muslim women and men coming out and expresing their views openly.
Pakistan is an example of fundamentalist provincially based conservatives on the one hand and educated upper class Western oriented Muslims who enjoy a scientific sort of education in the metroploitan areas on the other hand . The agony of co-existence is clear for all to see.

This evolution will be slow in coming into the whole Muslim world because of the violence of the ignorant, backward but amply endowed from the Wahabi community but it will come even if it takes a long time. We will not be alive to see it. I have faith that a new and vibrant Islam will emerge triumphant.

The West may have had the Enlightenment but strangely enough that period in history overlapped with the Inquisition, Slavery and the Napoleonic Wars.

Here is a radical suggestion - maybe Muslims are as diverse and as intelligent as we are. Maybe not every enriching, rewarding and valuable cultural or intellectual innovation emanates from the West.

Islam does not represent a threat to the West. A small group of radical extremists do - any they may use Islam as a cover. But anybdy who has read the Bible knows that it cn be used for all sorts of purposes. We should also know that poverty breeds extremism and that as some Muslim countries are also less-developed-countries, extremists have sprung up. We experienced exactly the same thing when facism took off in Germany, Italy and Spain and when Communism took off in Russia.

Btw Nonie Darwish isn't hysterical. She's very intelligent. She knows exactly what to write so as to play off the fears of her Western audience, who are largely ignorant of Islam, so that she can sell more books. Now thats very smart. Not moral - but definitely smart.

Ther is a simple question here that needs an answer. The Author say Europe must embrace Islam, My question is Why?

As a European I wonder why Ms Islam doesn't move to the MiddleEast, Would she feel welcome there?

“The acrimonious debate over admitting Turkey to the Union now seems to be accelerating Islam and Europe towards a damaging collision course.” Shada

The fault is not with the European countries but Turkey for choosing to become more Islamic and hostile towards non-Muslims.

It is not surprising that the Muslims in Turkey want Erdogan, the Islamist, to discard the Kemalist secularism of Ataturk to becoming an Islamic country.

Recently, the Islamist, Erdogan (prime minister of Turkey), won the King Faisal International Prize from Saudi Arabia for his “services to Islam”. http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=52509

Shada puts the blame largely on the Europeans for the failure of the Muslim to integrate. The fact is that Muslims never integrate wherever they go, not in Europe, Asia, Australia, Americas nor Africa.

Truth is that we need to look at the overwhelming evidence that Muslims are creating trouble with non-Muslims all over the world, in Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, China, India, Russia, Central Asia, Eastern Europe, etc.

Chances of any integration are nil until the Muslims are willing to leave Islam and move into the 21st century. Islam is the reason why many Islamic countries are failed states.

If Muslims are serious about making real progress, the time to blame other cultures, religions, nationalities, ideologies for the state they are in has to stop. Muslims need to examine their belief system and life-style. After 1400 years, there is plenty of house-cleaning to be done.

Wafa Sultan an Arab psychologist observed why devout Muslims are psychologically and mentally defective,
“it is impossible for any human being to read the life of Muhammad and believe in it, yet emerge a psychologically and mentally healthy person” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zdN234Bp9

"By the way Pericles, you use a pseudonym from the background of Western democratic reasoning. I can think of nothing further from that than Islam. Perhaps you should change your pseudonym!" eyejaw

I agree. What about 'Saladin'?

David Jennings asks:

"Was the lobotomy painful?"

Nope. In fact it was voluntary. I had the ToTF* module excised from my brain.

--Do you think Henryk M. Broder, author of the Spiegel piece I linked, also underwent a lobotomy?

--Do you think it right that European "intellectuals" like Grass should accede to, even justify, censorship through intimidation?

--When "Piss Christ" was put on display in Melbourne several Australian newspapers published a copy of the photograph. No major Australian newspaper published even one of the Muhammad cartoons. Let's see your rationalisation for the different treatment of the two "blasphemous" images.

--Muslims are trying to introduce blasphemy laws in the guise of "defamation of religion". See http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE52P60220090326 . Would you like to see such laws enacted in Australia? We already have them in Victoria – the infamous "Racial and Religious Tolerance Act" that egregiously conflates attacks on religion with racism.

My position is this:

Any religion, philosophy, system of belief, viewpoint or ideology including but not restricted to agnosticism, atheism, Buddhism, capitalism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Marxism, socialism, Zionism and Zoroastrianism is a LEGITIMATE target for analysis, critique, satire and scorn. The critic is under no obligation to abide by a true believer's rules on "objectivity" or "fairness" or to take account of the true believers' "feelings". There should be no right not to be offended. In fact the critic has a right to make statements or construct images that a true believed may find deeply wounding. Incitement to violence, NARROWLY DEFINED**, should however be forbidden.

Do you agree with the above statement?

If not which religions, philosophies, etc should be immune from attack and why?

*Tolerance of Taurine Fertiliser

**I usually explain the distinction thus:

Judaism is a load of excrement and anyone who believes that rubbish is mentally retarded – permitted.

Kill the Jews – forbidden.

Stevenlmeyer

You should read the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (Victoria) and the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. Some of the other States and Territories are also moving to address religious vilification. So in truth some of your comments would not be permitted under the law.

Steven writes:
"**I usually explain the distinction thus:

Judaism is a load of excrement and anyone who believes that rubbish is mentally retarded – permitted.

Kill the Jews – forbidden."

Well thats a bad explanation because its wrong under the law. If somebody wanted to sue a person who made comments like that under the Victorian Act or in NSW they probably could. Read the Dow Jones v Gutnick case. Just because they may have posted elsewhere it doesn't matter so long as the publication reaches the relevant jurisdiction. Those remarks about Judaism would probably offend under the Commonwealth's Racial Discrimination Act.

And what is the point of being so rude and offensive anyway?

Aw shucks, Philip Tang.

>>(eyejaw) "By the way Pericles, you use a pseudonym from the background of Western democratic reasoning. I can think of nothing further from that than Islam. Perhaps you should change your pseudonym!"

(Philip Tang) I agree. What about 'Saladin'?<<

That's really sweet of you, but I wouldn't be able to live up to the responsibility to virtue that the name carries.

"...when the Crusaders took Jerusalem in 1099 they murdered virtually all of its inhabitants, boasting that parts of the city were knee-high in blood. When Saladin re-took the city in 1187, he spared his victims, giving them time to leave and safe passage. It was, after all, a holy city, and it was captured by the Muslims in a 'just war'."

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/saladin.htm

Such chivalry. Such humanity.

"Saladin staffed [the hospital] with doctors and druggists, and it had special rooms, beds, bedclothes, servants to look after the sick, free food and medicine, and a special ward for sick women. Nearby, he also built a separate building with barred windows for the insane, who were treated humanely and looked after by experts who tried to find out what had happened to their minds."

It's so very kind of you to think of me in this way, Philip Tang, but modesty forbids.

Europe is Europe and their choice. They are Indigenous people and should be allowed a say in the cultural evolution of their respective countries.

We should know that better than most. You cannot force cultural change on anyone.

Called cultural genocide is it not?

Lucy,

You are missing my point.

I know what the law states.

But my point is this:

THERE SHOULD BE NO SUCH LAWS.

I can think of no good reason why any belief system should be afforded special protection from critique, analysis, satire and scorn simply because it is labelled a "religion".

Laws such as Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act are censorship. We are imposing censorship on ourselves simply to appease religious folk. I, for one, have no intention of being bound by what amount to modern-day blasphemy laws.

I always have a problem with these OLO essays on Islam. Invariaby they are about how the host country should make them feel welcome and assist them in integrating ---those that really want to that is, and how we misunderstand them and make life difficult etc

But when you go to source of the matter it is what they believe that is the problem, and the more devout and believing they are, the less likely they are to integrate.

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/28244/sec_id/28244

This essay looks at the problem in a measured way

'Should Muslims Asscociate With Non-muslims (kuffar), Your input would be greatly appreciated'

http://muslimvillage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=56350&st=0

And herein rests the problem. The question is inherently bigoted but is repeatedly asked by Muslims of all kinds because religious taboos (Islam has more than you can poke a stick at) are often confused for real morality.

The apprehension that many Muslims feel with regards to 'outsiders' is little different to the apprehension that the Klu Klux Klan have toward black people - "Oh no, we might become contaminated".

The problem is not so much Europe or Europeans, but Islamic ideology itself. It is bigoted by definition.

I am sick of people making excuses for Islam - for its violence, obscurantism, barbarity towards women, intolerance towards other faiths and even strands within itself, its hostility towards democracy, human rights, and critical thinking.

Islam is a mental disease, a boil on the bum of humanity.

Samuel Huntington (The Clash of Civilizations) speaks of the Islamic world’s “bloody borders and bloody entrails”. It is riddled with violence with neighbouring civilizations and within itself – Gaza strip, Lebanon, Iraq. How can one not despise such a culture?

On balance, I cannot think of a single justification for its foundation. Islam does not claim to be a religion of love - quite the reverse. Christianity has been let down by many of its claimed practitioners in the past, but it is impossible to say that Jesus Christ taught violence, cruelty, impatience and hate.

The trouble with Islam is not just Islamism. Taken seriously in terms of its own theology (and yes I have read and annotated the whole of the Koran), Islam is a vile, medieval, repressive and offensive religion. It has no place in a modern, tolerant and civilized Europe or Australia.

Once could weep many tears over the dreadful treatment of women through genital mutilation, 'honour' killings, and stonings (almost invariably of women), and the disgusting amputations of hands under sharia law, and the repressive Muslim attitude towards apostasy (converting out of the faith - still outlawed in Malaysia as well as the hellholes around Arabia), and the violence toward Christian churches and individual Christians that occurs all the time. Muslims complain at a minaret ban - where are the churches in the Islamic world?

There is no modernization or reformation for Islam - it is beyond saving. Like the "desolation before Mordor" described in The Lord of The Rings, the Islamic world is
"the lasting monument to the dark labour of its slaves that should endure when all its purposes were made void; a land defiled, diseased beyond all healing -- unless the Great Sea should enter it and wash it with oblivion.” Like Sam, 'I feel sick.'

It is unbelievable that Geert Wilders has been charged in court for his criticism of Islam. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,672925,00.html

Wilders makes the distinction between the Muslim people and the Islamic ideology. No incitement to kill or hurt Muslims in Holland yet he is persecuted for speaking the truth about Islam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8LJ-dyqDR0&feature=related

Ayaan Hirsi Ali comes out in support of Geert Wilders.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwOCUuILJIg

Error in link to Wafa Sultan on youtube in my earlier post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zdN234Bp9w

Wafa Sultan an Arab psychologist observed why devout Muslims are psychologically and mentally defective,
“it is impossible for any human being to read the life of Muhammad and believe in it, yet emerge a psychologically and mentally healthy person”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zdN234Bp9w

The Missus wrote: "Called cultural genocide is it not?"

No its not. Don't exaggerate.

Steven, the RRT Act is in place not to censor but to keep a standard of decency and civility in public discourse. A person should be able to live here without being vilified because of their race or religion. If you look closely at some of the anti-Muslim posts on this thread there are some serious exaggerations and misleading statements. Free speech is one thing, but being obnoxious is not a virtue, as much as some people think it is.

Nicely put, Lucy Montgomery.

>>Free speech is one thing, but being obnoxious is not a virtue, as much as some people think it is.<<

We certainly have our fair share of "free speech" advocates here, don't we.

>>Islam is a mental disease, a boil on the bum of humanity.<<

Wow, thanks for that insight, Glorfindel.

>>too many years of Islamic teaching has lead to values that are totally contrary to the educated and in the main, cultured population of Europe.<<

rexw is probably thinking here about the Islamic notions of chastity, their avoidance of alcohol and so on. So terribly, terribly un-European.

>>Islam is a form of Nazism. It has a totalitarian vision of society. Like the Nazis before them, Islamics exercise power through terror and intimidation.<<

A well-balanced, detached and mature worldview is always a joy to read, stevenlmeyer.

Last week's Economist carried an article on the integration of Muslims into US society.

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15211698

It encapsulates the antics of the snarling rednecks quite admirably.

"Obnoxious pundits pour petrol on the flames. Michael Savage, a talk-radio host, describes the growth of America’s Muslim population as 'throat-slitters…clawing at the gate'"

Ok people, go get those petrol cans. Time for another free hit.

"If you look closely at some of the anti-Muslim posts on this thread there are some serious exaggerations and misleading statements." Lucy Montgomery.

To truly understand the chaos Islam has caused, you need to see what is happening to Islamic countries. Read the websites by ex- Muslims such as http://www.faithfreedom.org and http://www.islam-watch.org and realise what Islam has done to Muslims.

Islamic countries are usually failed states and there are millions of Muslims trying to get to the West. Yet they can’t see the main cause of their failure is Islam. Many insist on implementing shariah law in the land they migrated, and they try very hard to establish the evil ideology of Islam that has kept the Muslim mind in the dark.

Muslims are just like everyone else but Islam has made them backward, violent and irrational. Just see what happened to Malaysia recently http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV89G-wrgDQ (Muslims run amok burning churches).

It took China about half a generation (30 years) to grow from a backward country to a world power and becoming a manufacturing hub. This they did by completely abandoning dogmatic Marxism and putting to practice the true socialism of hard work.

Obama can send billions and billions of money to Muslims in Afghanistan but they will still be as backward, lazy and irrational because of Islam

The Missus wrote: "Called cultural genocide is it not?"

No its not. Don't exaggerate.

Could be, entirely up to the country to decide if they feel it is. Nobody here has any real say or right to an opinion on it. Simply none of our business. Especially when change is forced on people, or they feel it is, up to them to have a say without bores interfering.

Pericles.

You accuse me and others of rednecked rabble-rousing, lack of balance and hypocrisy (eg on Islam's ideas of chastity and avoidance of alcohol). Actually, Islamic chastity is not about faithfulness, but about sexual inequality and repression that engenders pathological prurience and unhealthy relations between the sexes. Remember Al-Hilaly’s admission that Muslim men could only be dogs in the presence of “uncovered meat”? But yes, Western binge drinking is disgraceful.

You advance no defences of Islam, only attack those who describe its awful record. Invective isn't argument. And political correctness is HYPOCRISY. Your alias ‘Pericles’ recalls classical Greek democracy. Can I draw your attention to “democracy” in Iran today? Egypt? Sudan? Somalia? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Saudi Arabia? And…?

I won't ask you if, in your enlightened tolerance, you'd defend the US Religious Right. (OK, it’s not very attractive.) But I bet you'd badmouth even the Sydney Anglicans. It's OK to rubbish Christians and those who think the broad Western heritage is worth defending.

Old son, the mullahs, ayatollahs and other sunshines of the Middle East, Iran and Pakistan would eat you and your kind for breakfast, soon as they found out your views on, say, pluralist democracy, free speech and inquiry, tolerance of diversity, female rights, homosexuality, freedom to have or not have a religion, and so on.

Those attitudes are hypocritical, self-abasing, contemptible. So many of your postings have been remarkable for their negativity, their sneering at anything positive, their preparedness to bend over backwards to defend the indefensible. You are the guy who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Nothing has changed since President Musharraf of Pakistan told a conference on science and technology attended by Ministers from Muslim countries in early 2002 :
"Today we [Muslims] are the poorest, the most illiterate, the most backward, the most unhealthy, the most un-enlightened, the most deprived, and the weakest of all the human race."

Name a few positive things that might justify Islam. Too hard? Can I finish by putting you on the spot. Would you consider becoming a Muslim? No? Oh, WHY NOT?

Lucy wrote:

"A person should be able to live here without being vilified because of their race or religion".

No one should be subject to attack or ridicule on account of their race.

But religion?

Why ever not?

You have yet to explain why a belief system or ideology should be immune from critique analysis satire and scorn simply because it is labelled a religion.

Presumably you would have no objections if I attacked someone for expressing Nazi beliefs. But supposing they wrapped their beliefs in religion which is what the "Christian Identity" movement does. Must I now "respect" Nazi beliefs?

"Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177):

And yes, Lucy, I have heard Imams preach on exactly this hadith. It also seems to be a favourite among TV preachers in the Middle-East. Am I supposed to respect this because it is religion?

Should I fail to ridicule claims of being "chosen" by a psychopath in the sky?

Am I supposed to take seriously the claim that an itinerant Jewish preacher who happened to be God incarnate rose from the dead in first century "Palestine"?

Or that the creator of the universe, no less, told a seventh century merchant-warrior "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter" (5:33)

Get real Lucy. These claims are risible and labelling them religion should not make the immune from ridicule.

See also:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ExMuslimUK#p/u/6/JSfQrMvuGf0 (EXCELLENT!)

Unless we are free to challenge all beliefs - robustly -we cannot have a democracy. That's the bottom line.

Ah, you noticed, Glorfindel.

>>You advance no defences of Islam<<

Very perceptive of you.

I am not in the habit of defending Islam, or any other religion.

What I do object to is people such as yourself filling this forum with your bile.

I consider your dedication to constant denigration to be corrosive to society at large.

As you yourself point out...

>>Invective isn't argument<<

Yet, despite this insight, you provide us with such gobbets as:

>>Islam is a mental disease, a boil on the bum of humanity.<<

Be honest with yourself for a moment. Is that an argument that you are presenting? Or simply your opinion, framed in the manner typical of your self-righteousness.

But your blindness isn't complete, because you quite correctly point out that I "advance no defences" of Islam.

I've already told you why. Which makes your next sneer totally redundant.

>>Can I finish by putting you on the spot. Would you consider becoming a Muslim? No? Oh, WHY NOT?<<

Why, oh why do you people always believe that it is necessary to belong to - or even identify with - a particular religious cult?

>>It's OK to rubbish Christians and those who think the broad Western heritage is worth defending.<<

Again, a significant misperception.

I have no problem with Christiantiy. Some of my best friends are Christians. Some of those are also evangelical, and enjoy a brisk discussion on my commitment to atheism versus their commitment to Christianity.

But they don't spend their time finding new and different ways to insult everyone who doesn't share their views, nor scour the world for examples of how evil other people are.

Your religion has been - and still is - responsible for murders, daily, around the world. Other religions have been - and still are - responsible for murders, daily, around the world.

There's a common theme there, which one day you might spot.

Not yet though. You are still too deeply immersed in your fear and loathing to join the dots.

>>You accuse me and others of rednecked rabble-rousing<<

Yep. Would you like to deny it?

But Steven surely you can find a way to "challenge" these religions without being obnoxious? A man of your intelligence can surely manage that.

Can one be both European and Muslim?
The question is absurd.There are already European Muslims living useful and law-abiding lives. There are also some who are not useful Muslims who are giving every muslim a bad name. They should be got rid of. Those who demand the conversion of everyone to Islam should be deprived of citizenship and deported because they are purely trouble-makers.

socratease

Pericles: I am not corroding Western society - its corrosion is coming from two sources:

1. ITSELF - its postmodernist nihilism, cynicism and relativism, loss of sense of what is important, of belief in the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, beautiful and ugly.

2. ISLAMIC IMMIGRATION AND NON-INTEGRATION.
Islam wants not to share but to BE the world. It wants huge social and even formal legal power over the individual in areas Westerners regard as matters of conscience and individual rights. It is incompatible with CORE Western values of tolerance, free inquiry, creativity, hard work, enterprise.

In 2007 Gregory Clark wrote "A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World". In his review of this, under the heading 'The Culture of Prosperity', Wolfgang Kasper writes (at
http://www.cis.org.au/policy/winter08/kasper_winter08.html ):

“All-important shared cultural values can erode or be lost if too many immigrants with persistent Malthusian mindsets join in only to exploit the comforts of a wealthy host country. The result may be the same if kindhearted multiculturalists remove the pressures on newcomers to adapt to the needs of productive life in Australia. The necessary integration does not require that immigrants give up their cuisine or festivals, but they must adopt fundamental values such as the commitments to self-reliance and to save and invest, as well as a respect for the fundamental rule of law, which also implies shunning violence.

“The naive suggestion … that world living standards could and should be raised by mass migration from the third world to the first, simply overlooks what a valuable but vulnerable asset a shared culture is. Our forebears created valuable cultural capital by inculcating in us the value of responsibility, effort, and honesty towards all, not just our own tribe. Such cultural capital is a highly productive possession, which every new generation must cultivate and conserve by not distributing its rewards to all and sundry. The do-gooders who want us to share this possession with all comers remind me of young children who invite the whole street to share the contents of their parents’ fridge.”

Majority of muslims are terrific, but we never hear from them. Look at Pakistan 80% culturally muslim only yet image far more severe. Does not take many. Swiss mineret vote I think 90% non-practising and many voted in favour of the ban as it is not culturally appropiate for them either. The Islam Useful Idiots are only supporting the religous extremist and not the majority. Many moderate and non-practising say they battle the useful idiots and extremists, so two enemies.

Lucy,

When I read some of your posts I wonder. Are you yanking my chain or are you being serious. I shall assume the latter - for now.

Firstly I am glad you are no longer conflating racism with attacks on religion. One of the most poisonous aspects of the RRT is that it does precisely that.

Can I challenge beliefs without being "obnoxious"?

No.

For the simple reason that to the true believer ANY challenge to their beliefs is regarded as obnoxious. To some extent obnoxiousness will always be in the eye of the beholder.

Is the ABC's "Chaser" program "obnoxious"?

Of course it is. It's one of the things the viewers liked about them. Should they have been taken off the air for that?

You write that the purpose of the RRT was "to keep a standard of decency and civility in public discourse".

This sounds so grand. I mean, who could be against keeping public discourse "civil".

The trouble is that once you try to LEGISLATE civility in public discourse you open the way to censorship by lawyers. Most people cannot afford to fight a law suit. Threaten them with legal action and they will fold, apologise, agree to remain silent, forever hold their peace, etc.

There is even a name for censorship by lawsuit. It's called SLAPP, Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation. See eg:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SLAPP%27s_in_Australia

The RRT places a powerful weapon in the hands of SLAPPers. Well funded special interest groups can use it to intimidate people into silence.

The drafters of the RRT understood this. The Islamic Council of Victoria certainly understood this. So did the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. And, what's more, Lucy, I suspect you understand this and that your protestations that the RRT is not censorship are just a wee bit disingenuous. I don't believe you are nearly as naïve as you come across in your posts.

“I have no problem with Christiantiy...”Pericles

“Srebrenica, for example, saw the "largest mass murder in Europe since World War II", and was conducted by your lot [Christians], on purely religious grounds.” Pericles

“If you look closely at some of the anti-Muslim posts on this thread...” Lucy Montgomery

Its OK Pericles to be a Christian basher and/or an apologist for Islam. There’s nothing to be ashamed of being an apologist of Islam. We believe in the freedom of expression.

Pat Condell sums it up nicely in this youtube presentation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4FpTvp0tgs&feature=relate

You are taking Pericles out of context. He's not anti-Christian.

Steven, after all that I think that you are just trying to justify to yourself why you can be a bully to a particular group of people based on their religion. Thats just sad.

Lucy wrote:

"...you are just trying to justify to yourself why you can be a bully to a particular group of people based on their religion."

LOL

It's the religious folk who are the bullies and the RRT places an almighty club in their hands.

The way I see it is that Muslims from all parts of the world are tired of the ignorant imams who put their own spin on the Kopran to suit their masters and to exercise their growing authority that owes nothing to ther religion. Any educated Muslim and especially theose with a scientific background seek freedom from the restrictive practices in their homelands and flee to Uurope,USA, New Zealand and Australia. The unfortunate part of the wave of "asylum" seekers are hordes of "sleepers" who come with them. Their poison infects some of the disaffected who may have been born in the UK or USA and persuade them to raise their hands against the home land, unfortunately. Eventually this will die down after an attritional phase.
We shall yet see the new Islam emerge from the lands of promise outside the conservative Saudi Arabia, Yemen,Pakistan,Iran, and countries like them. The spirituality of the world will be considerably enriched in the years ahead. Maybe the dead world of capitalism and postmodernism's pessimism will benefit from an emerging fresh breath of a new spirituality.

I would like some viewws on this p o v,please.

socratease

Thank you Lucy Montgomery. But Philip Tang is fully aware of that already.

>>You are taking Pericles out of context. He's not anti-Christian.<<

But it is part of his schtick to pretend otherwise, as he does here....

>>Its OK Pericles to be a Christian basher and/or an apologist for Islam.<<

As I have made clear so many, many times before, Philip Tang, I am neither a basher of, nor an apologist for, any religion.

It is the mindless mozzie-baiting that I object to. If there were mindless christian-baiting, I would object to that equally.

My reference to Srebrenica was merely to point out that no religion has a monopoly on terrorism. As, of course, you knew very well. But again, you like to pretend otherwise.

It is a pity that you cannot even be true to yourself.

Glorfindel has the same problem.

>>Pericles: I am not corroding Western society<<

Constant, drip-feed hate-mongering is corrosive, Glorfindel. To the hate-mongerer, where it destroys any capacity for compassion and tolerance. And to the target, who ultimately use it as proof that they are being victimised, and react accordingly.

And these are simply symptoms of your own corrosion, Glorfindel.

>>[Western society's] postmodernist nihilism, cynicism and relativism<<

As opposed of course, to your own archaic, blind absolutism.

>>Islam wants not to share but to BE the world.<<

That's the paranoia coming out.

All of your fear and loathing stems from that one overriding terror, doesn't it. Which in turn justifies your personal religious war against Muslims.

>>It wants huge social and even formal legal power over the individual<<

You just made that up. Admit it.

Sure, Islamic countries allow religion to dictate some laws. Just as Christian countries do. But it stops at the border.

It's sad, really.

Your religion, Glorfindel, preaches love-thy-neighbour tolerance (or at least used to, when I was at school), yet you are so flat-out intolerant.

Why is that?

Pericles and Lucy,

The both of you are thoroughly confused. Mixed up about what’s going on in the world today.

How are you to explain the Muslims burning churches in Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt and Nigeria?

Many Coptic Christians are killed in Egypt. This has nothing to do with the USA or the West.

Did India send troops to kill the Iraqis? Why did 10 Muslim jihadis went on a rampage killing about 120 people in Mumbai (Hindu), India?

In south Thailand more than 3000 Buddhists have been killed by Muslim terrorists.

Pericles, Christians are called to “love thy neighbour”, but not to appease an evil ideology like Islam. There is a big difference between the two; if you’re not blind you’ll see the obvious difference.

The following video shows how in Islamic education Muslims as young as 3 years old are indoctrinated into believing that Jews and Christians are apes and monkeys. They show cartoons glorifying suicide bombing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJweh5MO9wg&NR=1

Islam is definitely not a religion but teaches the Muslims to hate non-Muslims at a very young age.

Lucy, may I know your view on Islam, is it a purely a religion?

Is it any wonder that Mohd. Mahathir thinks 9/11 was staged by the US to attack Muslims? http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/1/21/nation/5516554&sec=nation
Probably the Jews did it eh, Pericles?

Philip Tang, I don't consider myself at all confused.

>>How are you to explain the Muslims burning churches in Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt and Nigeria?<<

Terrorism. It happens. Sometimes between religions, Hindu vs Muslim. Sometimes within the "same" religion, Catholic vs Protestant, Shia vs Sunni.

You might detect a theme there.

>>Many Coptic Christians are killed in Egypt. This has nothing to do with the USA or the West.<<

Many civilians are being killed in Iraq and in Afghanistan. This has everything to do with the USA or the West.

What's your point? That only Muslims are or ever have been religious terrorists? I don't think so. Was the Northern Ireland conflict resolved by one religion winning and one losing? No. Both sides realized they needed peace in order to survive.

>>Pericles, Christians are called to “love thy neighbour”, but not to appease an evil ideology like Islam.<<

That's useful. Qualified love. "Oh, you should love your neighbour, except of course for the ones you don't like".

>>Probably the Jews did it [9/11] eh, Pericles?<<

Better you ask Arjay or daggett about that one, Philip Tang. I'm pretty sure they will be able to find an appropriately Jewish conspiracy for you.

Pericles wrote:

"… no religion has a monopoly on terrorism…."

You understate the case.

Religions as such have no monopoly on terror. Followers of ANY ideology are capable of atrocities. "Godless" communists perpetrated mass murder on a scale that is truly hard to comprehend. Pol Pot, for example, probably killed one in six of his fellow Cambodians. We may never know how many people died during Stalin's reign of terror.

But the prime monster of the twentieth century is probably Mao Zedong.

Whatever you want to say about Pol Pot, Joe Stalin and Mao, they were not God botherers. Nor is North Korea's Kim Jong Il.

You write:

"It is the mindless mozzie-baiting that I object to…"

You've used that and similar expressions often. But you've never explained what it means.

What is the difference between "mindless" and "mindful" mozzie-baiting?

For that matter, what do you mean by "mozzie-baiting"? Does any critique of Islam qualify as "mozzie-baiting"? If not, what are the criteria?

Even if you objected to what you call "mindless mozzie-baiting" do you want to legislate against it? Should there be an anti-mindless-mozzie-baiting law? If you do want such a law you'd better define "mindless mozzie-baiting".

For example, does pointing out that different versions of the koran have been discovered and that therefore the current version cannot be the uncorrupted word of God qualify as "mozzie-baiting"?

Does pointing out that a book that gets the basic facts of geology wrong is unlikely to be a message from the creator of the universe qualify as mozzie-baiting? Unless off course you posit an absent minded creator which is, I suppose, possible. I mean if you've created trillions of planets you may well forget the details of some of them.

Am I mozzie-baiting?

Is mozzie-baiting more or less pleasurable than masturbating?

Good night.

Pericles: "Terrorism. It happens. Sometimes between religions, Hindu vs Muslim" (YES). "Sometimes within the "same" religion, Catholic vs Protestant,"(LONG TIME AGO AND WAS NOT THE CAUSE IN IRELAND.) "Shia vs Sunni." (YES,THE ONES INTENTIONALLY! KILLING CIVILIANS.)

Syrian Poet states:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylv8sYjZvGo

Iraqi politician of rare kind speaks up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT031csTNcE

Liberal Behraini author expresses his opionions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0lut5DyQl8

Traditional Muslims vs. Liberal Muslims - Roots of Conflict:
Young Muslims in America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxej5bIkfo0

Former Qatarian Dean: Our culture responsible for terror
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WcWWBdaesM

Winston Churchill Views on Islam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OonT6Gr3soc

Pericles,

Now this is what I REALLY call "mindless Mozzie-baiting":

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6999909.ece

QUOTE

A report drawn up by French MPs will this week call for a ban on Afghan-style burqas and other garments that cover a woman’s face.
The proposal has strong public support.

According to an opinion poll by Ipsos for the magazine Le Point, 57% of voters favour a ban while 37% are opposed.

END QUOTE

I understand the need for laws against appearing naked in public. You probably would not want to permit people with covered faces to enter banks. Sometimes you need people to identify themselves.

But legislating dress codes? Gimme a break!

I think you might be better placed than I to test this out, stevenlmeyer.

>>Is mozzie-baiting more or less pleasurable than masturbating?<<

Do let me know your conclusions.

And Constance, if you believe that the conflict in Northern Ireland has not been between Catholic and Protestant, you probably also believe in leprechauns.

Take a quick look at these sites

http://www.iraatrocities.fsnet.co.uk/

"Even today in 2009 Protestants are being attacked day and daily by bigoted Roman Catholic republicans whose heart if they have one is a black as coal and full of hatred and evil."

And this one.

http://www.jrank.org/history/pages/7810/Orange-Order.html

"The history of the order in Canada includes a nasty record of anti-Catholic bigotry, neighbourhood violence, social exclusion, and sectarian riots."

And this one, too.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-11056518.html

"Roman Catholic and Protestant children start learning to fear and loathe each others' communities as young as 3 years old, a newly published study found Tuesday, blaming parents and Northern Ireland's religiously divided school system"

Sadly, the situation does not seem to improve. Only the number of casualties changes from year to year, not the underlying problem.

Wow, Pericles, you really have blown things out of proportion, whilst completely ignoring the links I had attached of some balanced Muslim gents expressing their opinions of the need for constructive self-criticism in their societies. As one of them says, more dialogue, more humaneness, not booby traps. Where’s your response to the gist of my posting?

The Irish issue began with the English invasion and oppression of that country where they killed off almost 40% of the Irish population - not religious, just England’s past empirical motto of conquering and dividing countries. Yep, there’s bound to be some vestiges of past prejudices – and? Those Tykes and Prodies are certainly a menace in our world today, right(?)

Once again, denying or ignoring the real Ogre. “Escape from Reality” was a good song from Elvis, wasn’t it?

Pericles.

I have a strong view of the difference between good and evil. I criticise evil when I see it in the behaviour of human beings of any kind, including those calling themselves Christians.

I can recognize people of good will born into any tradition. Gus Dur, former President of Indonesia, was a mind and a voice for tolerance from within Islam.

You don't appear to understand anything about serious, modern, internalized Christianity.

But I really can't be bothered debating with you. I'm a positive person who affirms life and the values that make life good. You carp and focus only on the negative. I haven't seen you positively affirm any good value. But I am genuinely disturbed by your preparedness to defend evil.

Have a good life if you can. I don't think your attitudes are going to make for one though, either for yourself or anyone else.

There you go, Pericles. You're going to burn in Hell - the elf said so.

Clearly, you ought to be making "positive" contributions to this Islamophobic gabfest - undoubtedly of the kind modelled by stevenlmeyer, Philip Tang, Constance, Glorfindel et al.

Mind you, I'm positively anticipating the results of steven's experiment.

LOL Pericles,

I note that you have – again – failed to define "mozzie-baiting" be it "mindless" or "mindful". Under the circumstances I don’t see how I can report back. What am I reporting on?

So here's the deal. You tell me what is mozzie-baiting and I'll tell you whether I find mozzie-baiting or masturbating more pleasurable.

Specifically, I need to know the following:

--Is ANY attack on Islam mozzie-baiting?

--If not, what distinguishes a "mozzie-baiting" attack on Islam from a non-mozzie-baiting attack?

--What is the difference between "mindless" mozzie-baiting and "mindful" mozzie-baiting?

If you can answer these simple questions I promise to report back promptly.

If you can't answer these questions – ie if you cannot give a reasonable definition of mindless and mindful mozzie-baiting – then I must conclude you are just another self-righteous blowhard.

And while we're about,

CJ Morgan,

You have again weighed in with one of your favourite words – "Islamophobic".

Please provide a definition.

Is ANY attack on Islam "Islamophobic". If it is I plead guilty. But SO WHAT?

If not please explain what constitutes a "non-Islamophobic" attack on Islam.

If you cannot provide a reasonable definition of "Islamophobic" I must conclude that you too are just another self-righteous blowhard.

Steven, since it's a neologism I think the Wikipedia definition is as good as any:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia

It seems to me that your prolific obnoxious comments about your fear of Islam and contempt for its adherents fit well into that definition, as do those of your cohorts in this thread.

Speaking of which, when it comes to Islam there are few correspondents here who "blow harder" than you do.

You need to brush up on your history, Constance.

>>The Irish issue began with the English invasion and oppression of that country where they killed off almost 40% of the Irish population - not religious<<

You will find that every "invasion" of Ireland - including those conducted by the Scots - had religion at its roots.

>>Those Tykes and Prodies are certainly a menace in our world today, right(?)<<

They are to each other.

You perform the same mental gymnastics as your confederates here. If it is Christians doing the bashing, or the terrorism, or the murders, or the genocides, it "isn't a menace in our world today".

Very convenient.

And as for you, Glorfindel, you need to take a long hard look at yourself, if this is what you genuinely believe.

>>But I really can't be bothered debating with you. I'm a positive person who affirms life and the values that make life good.<<

Here's some of your recent positive affirmation.

>>Islam is a mental disease, a boil on the bum of humanity<<

Heaven help us all if you ever became a negative person who finds evil everywhere.

>>You don't appear to understand anything about serious, modern, internalized Christianity.<<

Dead right I don't. But if the bile you spew around the place is anything to go by, I'm very glad to stay ignorant of its joys.

>>But I am genuinely disturbed by your preparedness to defend evil.<<

If you describe taking aim at people who say things like "Islam is a mental disease, a boil on the bum of humanity" as defending evil, than I'm glad to be guilty as charged.

The attitude shown here by people who proclaim that they are made in their God's image, says some pretty "disturbing" things about that deity, I'm afraid.

Constance
The recommendations are pretty good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WcWWBdaesM

But these are lone voices in the Muslim wilderness. You would recall that Mamoud Taha a Muslim reformer was charged with apostasy and hanged in Sudan soon after shariah law was imposed.

“Through the influential Muslim World League, President Nimeiri was openly pressured to have Taha tried and executed as an apostate”.
http://static.rnw.nl/migratie/www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/region/africa/sud060118-redirected

The Muslim World League is present in many Western countries.
Pericles may be one of their members.

Phillip,

It is so very sad that Mahmoud Taha was executed. His predictions and stance say a lot. If only he was still alive. Oh what the Sudanese government has gotten away with and to think that they once held (fairly recently) the Presidency in the Human Rights Commission of the UN. You have to wonder about the UN?

“Why should I bring him up to be hostile to the world” as quoted by Dr Al-Ansari. He and the Iraqi politician spoke of the hatred of others espoused in the Arab (Muslim?) education system . The Iraqi politician spoke how glad he was that the Iraqi school curriculum was now bettered/replaced since the arrival of the Americans because the existing education was so hateful of the other.

This sick Leftie cringe and their alliance with the Islamists is so weird. There is so much hypocrisy. I heard an Iraqi speak at a non-political but social/world citizen- like event in Berlin over a year ago and he was also astounded and non-plused how the new Lefties blame the US and allies for all the deaths in Iraq if so the sectarian fighting had nothing to do with it. I saw an interesting documentary at a Sydney Film Festival a few years ago about an aspiring Iraqi student film maker experiencing a somewhat Hollywood film making trip in the Czech Republic who expressed his glee of the American invasion of Iraq to deaf ears of the Leftie Canadian director of the film he was participating in who refused to understand where he was coming from and just ignored/rejected anything he was saying. This Iraqi man had pictures of Charlie Chaplin on his Iraqi bedroom wall and was in pain and cursing the Sunnis and Shites while sitting in his bedroom.

I myself am ambivalent about the whole Iraqi invasion. Saved souls from further annihilation from Sadam Hussein, yes, I think. But the repercussions of Western involvement - what's it worth? You heard the politician's comment about the oil.

Yes, they are Cassandras in the wilderness, but who listens?

"It may be that Western culture will indeed go: The lack of conviction of many of those who should be its defenders and the passionate intensity of its accusers may well join to complete its destruction. But if it does go, the men and women of all the continents will thereby be impoverished and endangered."
– BERNARD LEWIS, Cultures in Conflict: Christians, Muslims, and Jews in the Age of Discovery.

From NICK COHEN, "What's Left? How liberals lost their way" –

"The contempt for universal standards of judgment suited the liberalism of the late twentieth century which placed an inordinate emphasis on respecting cultural difference and opposing integration, even if the culture in question was anti-liberal and integration would bring new freedoms and prosperity. It fitted neatly with a form of postcolonial guilt that held that not only were we ‘wrong to force western rationality of western science down other people’s throats, but that their rationality or their science was every bit as good as ours.’

"The Islamist dream of a Caliphate [is of a] sexist, homophobic, racist, imperialist theocracy that would oppress about a billion Muslims.

"In 'How Mumbo-Jumbo conquered the World', Francis Wheen said that the claims of a portion of the Left to possess a sceptical intelligence had been destroyed by its inability to look squarely at a cult of death.

"Human rights are universal or they are nothing. Relativists have to diminish their importance and say they apply only to favoured groups, races or classes.

"If the liberals and leftists are wrong, and there are good grounds for thinking that they are horribly wrong, history will judge them harshly. For they will have gazed on the face of a global fascist movement and shrugged and turned away, not only from an enemy that would happily have killed them but from an enemy which was already killing those who had every reason to expect their support. "

A good selection of opinions.

You are of course aware that Bernard Lewis also wrote:

"The emergence of the now widespread terrorism practice of suicide bombing is a development of the 20th century. It has no antecedents in Islamic history, and no justification in terms of Islamic theology, law, or tradition." [Islam: The Religion and the People]

Here's his view on how *not* to address the problem.

"There are things you can't impose. Freedom, for example. Or democracy."

I like Nick Cohen. But he is guilty of oversimplification with...

"It fitted neatly with a form of postcolonial guilt..."

"Postcolonial guilt" is a perfectly meaningless catch-all cliche. He's far more convincing on home soil

http://nickcohen.net/

"The Islamist dream of a Caliphate [is of a] sexist, homophobic, racist, imperialist theocracy that would oppress about a billion Muslims."

I'd be interested in the context of that remark. As it stands, it's just the alarmist view of the Islamist dream. Impossible to prove, impossible to deny, just somebody's idea of somebody else's dream.

>>Francis Wheen said that the claims of a portion of the Left to possess a sceptical intelligence had been destroyed by its inability to look squarely at a cult of death.<<

I'm a great fan of Wheen too. But seriously, since when has any group been able to "look squarely at a cult of death".

How "squarely" did the world view Pol Pot in 1976?

Some of Wheen's spotlight-on-PC-thinking aphorisms ring very true, though

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2004/feb/03/top10s.modern.delusions

"If the liberals and leftists are wrong..."

More conditional alarmism. What is it with these guys? Presumably it is how they get their jollies, tell the proles they're doomed. Just another bit of Hampstead macchiato journalism.

Hey, we all have a right to our opinions. These folk just as much as anyone else. For my part, I choose to disagree with their expressions of paranoid hysteria.

But none of this, Glorfindel, excuses your incontinent, inflammatory language.

>>Islam is a mental disease, a boil on the bum of humanity<<

At least the excerpts you provide us with avoid such gutter-talk.

You should try it sometime.

"The emergence of the now widespread terrorism practice of suicide bombing is a development of the 20th century. It has no antecedents in Islamic history, and no justification in terms of Islamic theology, law, or tradition." [Islam: The Religion and the People]

It’s saying the obvious because the development of powerful explosives is of recent origin and not available during the 7th century.

“The sword has become a suicide belt, but the fighter is still a martyr. A famous hadith proclaims that "Paradise lies beneath the shades of swords" (al-Bukhari 4:73). Today, it lies beneath the shades of suicide belts.”
http://www.meforum.org/2478/suicide-bombing-as-worship

>>Islam is a mental disease, a boil on the bum of humanity<<

Very true indeed. Dr. Wafa Sultan was described by Times magazine as one of the top 100 most influential person. She is a professional psychologist and she says exactly the same thing . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zdN234Bp9w

We’re all waiting for Pericles to say why Islam is a peaceful religion based on something more substantial instead of ad hominem arguments

Unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam exalts violence and hatred. On sex, it is Freud in spades. Racism and slavery are endemic in the Muslim world. According to the Arab League Educational Cultural and Scientific Organisation, 75% percent of the 100 million people in the Arab World are illiterate.

A great article by SMH writer Miranda Devine, 23-1-10, describes cogently the enormous tragedy Islam is for the whole world -
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/frustration-fuels-acts-of-hatred-20100122-mqq2.html

ED HUSAIN, in ‘The Islamist’, chapter on Saudi Arabia, writes -

"The social structure that Saudis imposed on their foreign workforce had the following pecking order: Americans at the top, followed by Brits, then other Europeans, then Lebanese, Syrians, Egyptians, Yemenis, and other Arabs, followed by the Sudanese. Asians (Filipinos, Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis) were at the bottom, above only poor black Africans from Chad.

"After Syria, I refused to be pigeon-holed by Arab racism, to be seen as an inferior hindi, or Indian. In the racist Arab psyche, hindi is as pejorative as kuffar. In countless gatherings I silently sat and listened to racist caricatures of a billion people by Saudi bigots.

"The hallmark of a civilization is … how it treats its minorities. My day in [the suburb] Karantina … was one of the worst of my life. Thousands of people who had been living in Saudi Arabia for decades, but without passports, had been deemed `illegal' by the government and abandoned under a flyover. … While rich Saudis zoomed over the flyover in their fast cars, others rotted in the sun below them.

"It dawned on me that Britain, my home, had given refuge to thousands of black Africans from Somalia and Sudan: I had seen them in their droves in Whitechapel. They prayed, had their own mosques, were free, and were given government housing. How could it be that Saudi Arabia had condemned African Muslims to misery and squalor? …Muslims enjoyed a better lifestyle in non-Muslim Britain than they did in Muslim Saudi Arabia.

<MORE>

So if Saudi Arabia has some very unpleasant characteristics is that a religious thing, a cultural thing or a racial thing?

It sounds a touch like the Old South in the US, so maybe its a cultural thing and cultures can change with reform.

<Conclusion of quotes from ED HUSAIN, The Islamist, chapter on Saudi Arabia>

"All my talk of ummah seemed so juvenile now. It was only in the comfort of Britain that Islamists could come out with such radical, utopian slogans as one government, one ever-expanding country, for one Muslim nation. The racist reality of the Arab psyche would never accept black and white people as equal.

"Saudi racism was not limited to Karantina. It was an integral part of Saudi society, accepted by most. My students often used the word `n*gger' to describe black people. Even dark-skinned Arabs were considered inferior to their lighter-skinned cousins. I was living in the world's most avowedly Muslim country, yet I found it anything but. And alongside the racism and intolerance I was appalled by the imposition of Wahhabism in the public realm, something I had implicitly sought as an Islamist.

Since the founding of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, two Wahhabi-educated generations have been busy imposing `Islam' on their society. But … the mainly Muslim 7-million strong immigrant workforce loathed life in Saudi Arabia and, given the chance, would prefer to live almost anywhere but there.

"Segregation of the sexes, made worse by the veil, had spawned a culture of pent-up sexual frustration which expressed itself in the unhealthiest ways. Millions of young Saudis were not allowed to let their sexuality blossom naturally and, as a result, they could see the opposite gender only as sex objects.

"My students told me about the day in March 2002 when the Mutawwa'een [religious police] had forbidden fire fighters in Mecca from entering a blazing school building because the girls inside were not wearing veils. Consequently, fifteen young women burned to death, but Wahhabism held its head high, claiming that God's law had been maintained by segregating the sexes. What sort of God was this?”

You're not still on about that, are you Philip Tang?

>>We’re all waiting for Pericles to say why Islam is a peaceful religion<<

You're like a broken record.

This is from an earlier post on this very thread...

>>As I have made clear so many, many times before, Philip Tang, I am neither a basher of, nor an apologist for, any religion.<<

Life is far too short to make judgements on other people's weird beliefs.

And for heaven's sake Glorfindel, read what you write before making such ridiculous generalizations.

>>Unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam exalts violence and hatred. On sex, it is Freud in spades. Racism and slavery are endemic in the Muslim world<<

I have little direct knowledge of Judaism, although I believe they use the Old Testament a great deal. And there are a few verses in that document that exalt violence and hatred, I can assure you.

“Thus saith the LORD of hosts... Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” 1 Samuel 15

As for Christianity, it depends a great deal whether you look at theory or practice.

Most Christians I know defend their religion on the basis that Jesus was a peaceful kinda guy, and went around saying peaceful things. Like...

“For I say unto you... those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” Luke 19

And sex? There's nothing so hung-up as a true christian when it comes to sex.

Augustine set the pattern

“The man who fused Christianity together with hatred of sex and pleasure into a systematic unity”

http://www.jknirp.com/aug3.htm

Racism and slavery were not entirely foreign to Christians either, Glorfindel. I'm sure I could find some examples for you.

>>Muslims enjoyed a better lifestyle in non-Muslim Britain than they did in Muslim Saudi Arabia<<

I think that is a good thing. I too would prefer to live in a tolerant society.

Unlike you, obviously.

Pericles,

The issue at hand is about Islam and its ideology.

It is good for you to admit that you can’t give any rational defence of being an Islamic apologist.

The following is a good example of how an Islamic apologist goes about defending Islam after a Muslim doctor committed the Fort Hood massacre killing more than 10 soldiers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8dIeRmYg_g

Not at all, Philip Tang.

>>The issue at hand is about Islam and its ideology.<<

The issue at hand is people who go around forums such as this proclaiming "Islam is a mental disease, a boil on the bum of humanity", and similarly peaceful Christian sentiments.

>>It is good for you to admit that you can’t give any rational defence of being an Islamic apologist.<<

Since I am not one, I have no need to present a defence, rational or otherwise.

But I do realise that you find it mentally challenging to take on board such simple concepts, and make allowances accordingly.

Pericles,

You have completely failed to account for the

(i) Muslims conflict with Hindus in India,
(ii) Muslims conflict with Christians in Nigeria,
(iii)Muslims conflict with Buddhists in Thailand
(iv) Muslims conflict with Jews in the Middle East
(v) Muslims conflict with Socialists in China and Russia
(vi) Muslims conflict with secular humanists in the West
(vii)Muslims conflict with Muslims in Iraq and Pakistan.

"Islam is a mental disease, a boil on the bum of humanity", aptly describes the current position of Islamic terrorism and the way Islam denigrates women, homosexuals, non-Muslims.

Thus far you’ve only been ranting against Christians and Christianity. You need to go beyond that.

On the reference to Luke chapter 19.

Twisting words of scripture to make a deliberately misleading point is dishonest, intellectually bankrupt, and worthy of no respect. As Shakespeare says, "The devil can cite scripture for his own purpose."

Luke 19 contains a parable about a man of noble birth who went abroad to be made king, handed out various sums of money to his servants for prudent investment while he was away, and then returned. In 19:26 the parable concludes with, NOT JESUS, BUT THE KING IN THE STORY, saying that his enemies should be brought before him and killed. Such was common practice in those times; the image is used to emphasize the indignation of the king. Read the account in the NIV for clarity.

I am astounded how anyone can read the whole gospel of Luke, and the other gospels, ignore the consistent thrust of all of them, take out of context a single verse and purport it to be what it is not. Now why would someone want to do that? The only answer I can think of is that the person wishes to undermine and destroy Christianity.

How about equal attention to the Koran and the Hadiths? Mind you, it'd be hard knowing where to start, given the contradictions (defined away as 'abrogations' - Allah obviously doesn't know his own mind).

I've got a life, and I wish for Pericles, with no malice at all, that he would get himself a life too.

As Jesus said (John 8:31-32) - "If you hold to my teaching ....then you will know the truth, and THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE."

BIG BROTHER is snooping this web site. BEWARE.
Cool it,guys.
Start saying nice things about Islam.The government is being so generous and humane.They never do anything wrong. So dont you.
They should get 10/10 for their policies.

socratease

Philip Tang after that insightful critique of the Muslims, would you care to share with us your thoughts on the Germans?

In a paper delivered in Brisbane, BUDDHIST monk and Honorary Professor at Griffith University, Chin Kung, said:

*A good person is the product of good teaching.
* Confucianism and Mahayana Buddhism ... seek to change the world with compassion and universal love by transforming evil to good, enemies to friends.
* Chinese saints and sages taught that we should treat others with filial piety, love, loyalty, trust, compassion and love, and live in accordance with all with courtesy, honour, harmony and equality.
* When a member of a family does something wrong, the parents should reflect on how they failed. Have they been good role models for the others in the family? Have they taught the children properly?
* An ancient Chinese saying states that "When a person only cares for wealth and material needs, and cares not for the proper moral and virtuous education, he or she is closer to being a beast than a human being. ... A respected and efficient ruler is one who leads his people with the nourishment of proper education and teachings."
* There were four types of education in ancient China: family, formal, social, and religious education. Family education was the basis of all.
* To bring lasting peace and stability to a society, a nation, or the world, promotion of moral and virtuous education should be the top priority."

What a contrast between benign Buddhism and Christianity, and Islam!

In the video link provided by Phillip Tang, Wafa Sultan said:

"The language of Islam is negative (and) dead, replete with violence, anger, hatred and racism. If (a man’s) life is dominated by negative language, he will emerge as a negative, reckless and non-productive person.

"The negative language of Islam has failed to produce people with a spontaneous and positive outlook. It has produced negative people.

"When a faith manages to strip its believers of their last grain of compassion, it strips them of their spirituality as well.

"Islamic teachings have become dreadful in the skulls of Muslims. I see no alternative but to clean (out) the life-threatening cancerous cells in these brains."

So when China supports the governments of Sudan. Burma and Sri Lanka is that consistent with Buddhism? ie funding atrocities. What about when China invaded Vietnam in 1979? Were they just spreading the good word?

You can spin the facts anyway you want.

I absolutely agree, Glorfindel

>>Twisting words of scripture to make a deliberately misleading point is dishonest, intellectually bankrupt, and worthy of no respect. As Shakespeare says, "The devil can cite scripture for his own purpose."<<

And I do wish you and your fellow Christian evangelists would stop doing it.

>>I am astounded how anyone can read the whole [Qur'an]... take out of context a single verse and purport it to be what it is not. Now why would someone want to do that? The only answer I can think of is that the person wishes to undermine and destroy [Islam].<<

Now do you get it?

Somehow, I doubt it very much.

Any religion is capable of atrocities thats why they were invented all the estimated 2500 of them, we cannot single out any one. Our high court ruled that charlatanism is the price we pay for religious belief and that if any religion was asked to prove their superstitious beliefs all would fail. Religion is charlatanism and all whom practice them are charlatans! Every megalomaniac despot in history has used religion to agitate the masses to slaughter the perceived enemies of Christ or Mohamed or Allah for the Islamic zealot etc etc. From the prehistoric to the holy roman empires "first Reich", through the religious dark age nonstop religious wars and inquisitions and pious witch hunts to the Nazi "third Reich" whom had Gott Mitt Uns "God With Us" on their belt buckles, religious writings just like the gun sights now on USA weapons (look them up along with second Reich). From Hitlers favorite biblical allegory, of Jesus throwing the Jews out of the temple with a whip, which he emulated by carrying a rhino hide bull whip to be like his hero Jesus. An allegory which he used to commit genocide on the Jews for Jesus. Hitler was pronounced the new Jesus Christ in 1937 by Reich minister for religion Hans Kerri,(look it up). Or if you prefer another Jesus quote, I have not come in peace but with a sword to turn father against son and mother against daughter etc etc.

And before the first brainwashed religious cult devotee babbles about communist dictators, these megalomaniacs simply started their own totalitarian religions where they are the unquestionable Gods. What is Kim Jon Il but the God of North Korea, these guys are as communist as last weeks TV guide. Seminarians like Stalin learn everything they know from studying in the priest hood, Mao, Pol Pot were catholic educated on pure old testament evil. Both Hitler and Stalin modeled their Gestapo and KGB on the catholic Jesuit order, it is said that no one knew or used religion better then them! The Islamic are simply the current religious killers?

HFR

It's bad enough posting a silly diatribe which reveals historical ignorance and a mad rush to throw out baby with bathwater.

But for heaven's sake, don't keep using "whom" when you mean WHO. Didn't you do grammar at school? That is a really annoying, illiterate affectation. WHO is the subject of a clause. WHOM is the object of a verb or a preposition. Thus:

The boy who was there
The boy whom we saw ... (object of 'saw')
The boy who we thought was there (boy ... was there - subject of 'was')
The boy whom we thought to be there (as object of 'we thought')

etc etc !

No Pericles, I don't think Glorfindel gets it.

Or maybe he does, and is desperately trying to hide his rank hypocrisy behind silly grammatical pedanticism.

Glorfindel, WHOM, didn't like the truth of endless religious inspired slaughter, It must of really pissed your religious delusions off? I have seen the religious have a petty pathetic bitch but that took the cake? Tell me why do you Christian religious cult members wait until the first Sunday after the (Nth hemisphere) spring equinox following full moon to celebrate the pagan festival you call easter? And why is almost every religious festival and new year of every culture celebrated on a full or new moon, this really is the basis of all religions, pagan astrotheologic worship of the Sun and the zodiac? You do realize that if you change the words God, Jesus, Lord or light in the bible to "SUN" you will get the real meaning and proper wording of the ancient allegories from which they was plagiarized before your Jesus Christ was invented by Paul of Tarsus?
Holy Bible, Helios Byblos "Sun Book"!

Dear Lucy,

China is a Marxist country, not a Buddhist country.

I'm leaving this forum and let the Islamist apologists continue brawling. They have to truly ask themselves, would they like to live in an Islamic country? If not, they are hypocrites and better keep their peace.

Don't quite understand what HFR is on about.

Bye, Philip Tang.

>>I'm leaving this forum and let the Islamist apologists continue brawling.<<

See you the next time you choose to display your bigotry on this forum. As you undoubtedly will.

>>They have to truly ask themselves, would they like to live in an Islamic country? If not, they are hypocrites and better keep their peace.<<

This is the part that you "truly" don't understand, y'know.

I choose to live in this country for the simple reason that it is a significant supporter of free speech and thought. I specifically choose not to live in one of the strongly ideological Islamic countries, where free speech and thought are both curtailed.

But the hypocrisy is all yours, old chap.

It is you who would like to turn this country into a nation of anti-Islamists, with your incessant chorus of "they're evil, they're evil", and observations like "Islam is a mental disease, a boil on the bum of humanity".

In doing so, you want to turn us into a mirror-image of those countries that you profess to despise - the ones that outlaw religions that are not their own.

How does that make sense?

On the one hand, you complain that we as a nation are tolerant of other religions, and wish us to become intolerant.

On the other, you complain that Islamic countries are intolerant of other religions, and wish them to become more tolerant.

How is that not hypocrisy?

"On the other, you complain that Islamic countries are intolerant of other religions, and wish them to become more tolerant."

Let's make it simple for Mohammad Pericles.

Assuming a Christian/Buddhist/Hindu etc. country, X, closed down all the mosques in the country. Country X would only allow a mosque to be built only if a church/temple/temple etc is allowed to be built in Saudi Arabia. I am advocating fairplay.

As it is, Islamic countries would put to death any Muslim that leaves Islam or make it very difficult for Muslims to leave Islam.

Pericles, I am sure you are aware of what's going on in the Islamic world and the harm Islam does to Muslims and Islamic countries.

What you are advocating is not tolerance but suicide of secular democracy; it can be clearly seen to be coming from one with a demented mentality, not able to differentiate good from evil.

However, if you are a Muslim or having some kind of a relation with Islam I do not blame you for the position you take.

Goodbye Pericles, see you at some other forum

Philip Tang: Thank you for your excellent posts and links. I also won't be posting more on this thread, but I hope you will stay on OLO, if not this thread.

A-propos of you-know-who, I think I'll fall back on two quotes from George Bernard Shaw:

“Silence is the most perfect expression of scorn.” - Ecrasia, in Back to Methuselah (1921)

“Dogmatic toleration is nonsense: I would no more tolerate the teaching of Calvinism [read Islam] to children if I had power to persecute it than the British Raj tolerated suttee in India. Every civilized authority must draw a line between the tolerable and the intolerable.” - “Biographers’ Blunders Corrected,” Sixteen Self Sketches, Constable (1949).

Oh - and I'm not a Calvinist either!

It wasnt all that long ago that I could have been counted in the number of anti-Islamists, a rabid,barking mad one at that, not much unlike some who post on this web site,by the way.

One day an old Muslim woman sat me down and talked to me quietly and passionlessly about our misconceptions and theirs. One question she put to me explained a hell of a lot to me.
"Why do you think so many Muslims are fleeing Islamic countries?" They find the Islam being spread in their former countries intolerable and very anti-Koranic. These imams are uneducated, some even illiterate. They have been put into positions of authority by those who can build them mosques and supply disaffected politically radicalised Muslims, mostly young people and just as uneducated, knowing only large parcels of the Koran they learnt by heart.
She conceded that with the influx of moderate and would-be-progressives have come the "sleepers" and now in Perth where it seems there are backyard imams who have set themselves up in the business of stirring up hate against Australia. Many African Muslims who cant get the jobs they aspire to are fertile material and ready to do whatever is required to get to Paradise and claim their 77 virgins.
These are about 1% of the Muslims in Australia but that is a large number. Too large to keep tabs on.

socratease

I hope you keep your word this time, Philip Tang.

>>I'm leaving this forum and let the Islamist apologists continue brawling.<<

As Glorfindel so aptly put it:

>>A-propos of you-know-who... “Silence is the most perfect expression of scorn.”<<

You could learn from that, you know.

I look forward to many happy weeks, enjoying your scorn.

Dare I hope, months?