It's quite novel to be called irrational by one of OLO's most obvious frootloops.

Boazy: << based on media stereotypes and sensationalization...RATHER than a careful, studied, information based approach. >>

You mean, like comparing Muslims with Nazis, for example?

No "sensationalization" there, of course.

Paul.L
1.About sharia law, I do not think many people could support sharia law even between Muslims. I am sure all non Muslims will reject it. I wrote about sharia law and I will continue to write against it.
2. Freedom of expression.
We have problems with Muslims about this basic right and I do not indent to abandon it because some Muslims do not like our comments or satire.
3. Women's rights there is a huge problem in Muslim world or from Muslims about Women's rights and it has nothing to do with Sharia law, as there is sharia law only in a small number of Muslim Countries. In Australia we can not accept the violation of Muslim women's rights.
4. Religious freedom. Muslims must respect the right from any person to believe or not in any religious, to choose the religious he/she prefer, to change religious. It is unacceptable the death penalty because a Muslim change religious or become atheist.
There are something in Muslims we westerns do not like very much but I am sure many Muslims do not like them too. We the westerns have many bad too. If we want to be credible and Muslims to trust and listen us we must say the truth AND THE TRUTH IS THAT WE ARE NOT VERY HONEST, VERY FAIR, THAT WE USE DOUBLE STANDARDS!
I have Muslims friends and they are not bad at all, some times we make them radicals, we press them, we humiliate them.
WE DO NOT KNOW HOW TO BEHAVE TO MIGRANTS, HOW TO BEHAVE TO MUSLIMS. IF WE ARE FRIENDLY WITH THEM THEY WILL BE FRIENDLY WITH US TOO.
TRUST THEM, UNDERSTAND THEM, RESPECT THEM. I have huge problems with Anglo Saxon racists, the idiots created to me big problems, and really I feel confident with Muslims although I have major differences with them.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

I was thinking that the last post by Boaz was written by someone else. It indicates that a different line of thinking has been adopted by the author, whoever it is. No quotes from the Old Testament taken out of context and used to support some extreme point of view, no hate or bias.

The line quoted by CJ is one example,

"based on media stereotypes and sensationalization...RATHER than a careful, studied, information based approach."

Boaz, is it really you saying that? I've never read a post of yours promoting that line of thinking.

Dear_Ditch

when it comes to Islam, and what I present here about it, that is exactly where I'm coming from 'studied'.....

If I sound 'paranoid' to CJ (who by the way has tessstified that he has pretty much zero interest in 'obscure religious documents' including those of_Islam)- it's because OF that ignorance which he himself fessed up to.

The study and reading which my comments rest on, is valid.

Invoking Godwins law when Hitler is mentioned would be valid IF..there was NO connection between the theology of Islam and the tone of Mein Kampf.

I challenge anyone, you included, to dispute this by documentary evidence to the contrary.

The case is easily made 'for' that assertion, but I fail to see how it could be disputed thus.

If you notice..there are historic similarities between the Hezbollah rallies, the same salute.. the same 'Death to Israel/Jews' chants.. one would need to be blind deaf dumb and retarded not to see that.

If it was just some loony few we might rest better. But the theological basis is the concern.

If a Christian stated "Islamic jurisprudence has 2 forms of Jihad. the defensive AND the Offensive" the usual thing is "Oh..ur biased, ur interpreting it YOUR way to suit your purposes"

BUT..if a prominent MUSLIM says it.... then surely such criticism is no longer valid. If MANY prominent Muslims (usually they only say this in places which they control, or are trying to control) say it..then how can people like CJ reject it? (thats why I call him 'irrational')

So... you have the textual/theological basis, AND the same thing being said by the community. I can provide a truckload of living color examples if you desire.

The usual irrational response of course is:)

1/ Oh-but those people are the exception- radicals/extremists.
2/ How can you tar all Muslims with that brush?

The Muslim response usually is to quote 'abrograted' earlier 'Christian friendly' verses from the Quran.

That brings us full circle back to the Theological- "Islam"

It ends there, or just goes round a few more times until people tire.

Boaz,
Further to Paul L's Info about the Islamic situation in England.

Reported in UK Daily Mail, 2-6-2008

Two Christian preachers were handing out extracts from the bible and were told to stop and vacate the area by a community support police officer. He told them they had been warned, it is a Muslim area, and that trying to convert Muslims to christianity was a race hate offence.

Where did this take place? Birmingham, England.

Thought you both may be interested in this occurance

Hi Banjo... well pointed out. Yep..I read it separately and it was Birmingham.

You nailed the problem exactly. It would appear from the available facts that those 'community liason' officers were Muslim. There is no other reason for them to speak as they did.. secular police would know that giving out Christian literature is not a hate crime of any sort. It is indicative of the 'give them an inch, they'll take a mile' kind of mentality and it DOES show that they will, if given any licence try to establish Sharia law wherever they can. "Muslim area"? WHAT-the!

Holding up signs calling for the decapitation of people criticizing Mohammad IS hate speech of the most vile kind, and it does disturb me that some here actually defend this. They defend it by criticizing criticism OF such things.

I think we are ok here now though with the Terrorism laws, which include conduct likely to stir up hate. There is a proviso though, conduct which is likely to cause hate but which is for a political purpose, and has a goal of changing the law is exempt.

We must be clear... in WHO is criticism of certain aspects of a religion likely to stir up hate in? If it is those who wish to defend mass executions, mutilation of living prisoners, sexual abuse of children and captive women..assasinations of political or social enemies, spousal abuse then I have no regrets whatsoever about exposing them. (or those who support them)