"BOAZ probably doesn't mean to be hypocritical. He can't help himself because he just doesn't get it."

I have often wondered.

As I've explained to Boazy before, I did once have more interest in and sympathy for Christianity, before I "met" him. For me, as for a lot of people on OLO, Boazy makes God and Christ fairly ugly characters. He's never converted anyone here TO Christianity, but he has turned many people away from it. He knows this, as he's been told several times. He also knows he has made people more sympathetic to Islam that they would otherwise be, simply because of his own tenacious and virulent attacks.

Does he care? I don't think he even realises. I think, fundamentally, his ego is more important to him that his religion. What we all find most infuriating about Boazy is his patronisingness. I think it's most important to him to be patronising, to feel superior, to feel right. God comes second.

No, he doesn't mean to by hypocritical. He doesn't know he is.

Most Interesting responses!

Foxy.. u first..thanx mate.. and I'd give you a great big hug also :)

I think the biggest difficulty in this interaction is “communication and perception”.

Maybe the questions some of my critics should be asking are:

“How important and central to Islam are the ideas/beliefs that I mostly criticize”? (Look up “Shirk”) http://www.allaahuakbar.net/SHIRK/crime.htm

Pericles.. please check that. (connect it with 9:29 and 30 and 19:88)

“How likely is it that these beliefs will translate into behavior which can effect all or any of us”?

“How widespread are these beliefs among Muslims, and does the fact that they are friendly in day to day discourse in Brunswick mean they are not latent, and likely to become prominent over time”?

-Pericles “You want to tear down mosques”...
-For Fractelle its “You dismiss my entire post” (er..no, I just dismiss that “some friendly Muslims”=conclusive evidence about the core beliefs of the faith” do you see the difference? )

Then, Fractelle says “You_accosted..and_demanded” (after all, she was there and saw everything) Remember Fractelle... one of these blokes came up to our stand afterwards, and requested me explain “The Gospel”, and asked 'What problems do you have with Islam”.. This little piece of interaction is the one which gives the overall mood of the experience. If I just say 'he came to our stand'.. how was his mood? Based on your 'accosted' assessement of my approach, I guess you would say he “Marched up with defiant anger and 'demanded' I justify my 'accosting' and 'confess' the Gospel”? Err.....no.

I went to their stand, smiling, friendly, jovial. The Arab bloke from Oman who came to ours, came with curiosity, and was friendly, as was I.

Dear Vanilla.. I'd never let either Pastor Fred Phelps nor BD determine my understanding of Christ.
Learn of Him yourself.-I am not He.

You might however catch a glimpse from this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1nBSgkkS6M&feature=related

Oliver. No, don't want Theocracy. I also believe in separation of Church and State.

There's something about that shirk stuff that rings a bell, Boaz.

Ah yes, here it is.

"I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"

Hmmmm. I wonder where I found that. Sounds remarkably like the narrative you pointed out for Muslims:

"Unfortunately some Muslims have also fallen prey to this shirk. There are many from the Indian subcontinent who often call out for help upon saints and holy men who have passed away... Those who commit shirk by humanization give attributes to God which are more appropriate for human beings than an all-powerful Creator... By taking man away from the worship of Allah, it has led him to the worship of other men, leading to oppression and tyranny. By confining man to the narrowness of this world, it will deny him the vastness of the hereafter, which leads to justice and success. Therefore surely . . . . shirk is the ultimate crime."

As an impartial observer, I'd say that both religions are saying precisely the same thing to their followers. There's only one God. It's me. And you'd better remember that, or else.

Have I missed anything?

Hello Boazy,

Do presume that each Muslim you met is an enemy?

Muhammed's political situation was not unlike Moses. He had to develop a framework to unite people.

Moses has to stop a trekking, henothesit people on an alleged exodus from Eygpt to the Promised Land, from dumping their tribal volano god, via monotheism. It was logisticalt appropiate given the circumstances. Had history adopted a different path, it is possible that the volcano God god would have been dropped and an agricultural next worshipped in the volcano god's sted. He would not have wanted his flock "jumping the gun". Herein, we see the worth of the theistic commandments. Else, there would have been factionalism.

Muhhamed did have the chance of heading-off factionalism, the Arab tribes we already ununited. He needed to unify the tribes against common threats; the Persians, Christians and Jews. After Muhammed's alleged ascension, we find factionalism creeping back into Islam, stemming from disputes of whom shall replace Muhammed.

Jesus is a different case. He seems to have been trying to establish himself as Head of the Hours of David, via organic growth. The House of David ministered to the Geniles, who, even after conversion to Judaism, were regarded as second-class Jews.

Jesus didn't take the tact of Moses or Muhhammed, whom, may have attempted to unify the sects.

Quite rightly, Jesus had the smarts to realise [even in Roman times] ancient Judaism was already monotheist and the sects were arguing about the details. As it happened, Judaism was to become Christian Judaism long after Jesus died. Owing to Hadrian's exile of the Jews from the Holy Lands, Gentile leaders were required, as a means overcome restrictions against the movement orthodox Jews [religion not ethnicity]. In the first instance Jews wore Jesus' clothing in Gentile guise to gain entry the Holy Lands. Christrian dogma was still two hundred yeaars away

Dear Oly.... must explain the Christian view of what an 'enemy' is. For the Christian, an enemy first and foremost, is an object of love, not hate. They are enemies not because 'we' hate them..but because of their animosity to Christ and His Word and His disciples.

So, even if I regard 'all Muslims' as 'enemies'.. it does not mean any ill feeling toward them from us. (Political action is not 'personal')

Now that Pericles has taken the trouble to read some source material (at last), it should be abundantly clear to him, and all others, that "Islam" as a faith, is an enemy of Christ. (and consequently all His followers)

Foxy mate.. please read that "Shirk" link.. to see how detailed, lengthy and prominent is this idea in Islam. It's not some 'back corner' doctrine.. it is absolutely central. They have even 'minor' Shirk and 'Major' Shirk.

Shirk by humanization. (Ascribing human qualities to Allah)
Shirk by Deification (Ascribing divine qualities to a 'human')
Shirk by association. (Associating any 'other' with Allah)
Shirk by Negation. (denying God... oops..that includes PERICLES)

In that last one, they mention specifically Jainism and Buddhism.

PERICLES.. you need some more attention here.

If you never saw it before, you could not 'not' see it now. Irrespective of your own feelings about the foundations of either Islam or Christianity of any other faith.. as you said "Impartial(Atheist) observer"... you can surely see why a Christian AND an Atheist like Paul L may have concerns over the growth of Islam in Australia.

You would notice from your reading, that this hate of Shirk is in the context of the 'Islamic state'..and you must already realize that all Muslims are looking to establishing an Islamic state under which they might live.

Not that this means they are all rampaging jihadi's planning to blow up the MCG during grand final....no..but u know as well as I do, that people feel most comfortable under a social system which reflects their beliefs.

So..some (the majority) will simply 'acquiesce'..while others will be more active politically and in Da'wa.(calling people to Islam)

Boazy: << ...you must already realize that all Muslims are looking to establishing an Islamic state under which they might live >>

Really? How do you know that?

<< Not that this means they are all rampaging jihadi's planning to blow up the MCG during grand final....no..but u know as well as I do, that people feel most comfortable under a social system which reflects their beliefs. >>

So under that reasoning, all Christians are "looking to establishing a Christian state under which they might live"? I thought you claimed you support the separation of Church and State.

Hypocrite.