Mr Yusuf Irfan, an acclaimed Sydney-based lawyer and Islamist columnist, in an article entitled "Another attack - in the name of whose Islam", slammed the latest suicide attack at Islamabad's Marriott Hotel that killed at least 60 and injured hundreds, saying:

"The timing of the attack - during the last 10 nights of Ramadan - could not have been more sacrilegious..."

...He wrapped terror expert Dr Merv Bendle of the James Cook University for his ignorance of Islam and The Australian newspaper for publishing an allegedly baseless report on the latest Islamabad hotel bombing.

A historical and theological investigation, however, proves that it is self-proclaimed scholars like Prof Khan and Mr Yusuf, who are ignorant; not those whom they accuse of the same.

It was in Ramadan that the Muslims of the subcontinent inaugurated the violent Jihadi quest for dividing India to create Pakistan. Muhammad Ali Jinnah,

"It has become abundantly clear that the Muslims of India would not rest with anything less than the immediate establishment of an independent and full sovereign State of Pakistan…"

Calcutta...was chosen as the venue for unleashing the Direct Action. The date chosen was the 18th day of Ramadan... Secret pamphlets, circulated amongst Muslims by the Muslim League (also read out in mosque sermons), read:

"Muslims must remember that it was in Ramzam that the Quran was revealed. It was in Ramzan that the permission for Jehad was granted...we have become slaves of the Hindus and the British. We are starting a Jehad in Your Name in this very month of Ramzan." [Khosla, p51-52; Khan, The Great Partition, p63-64]

I wonder who need to go to school to consolidate their knowledge of the resplendent Islam, of Jihad in the holy month of Ramadan in particular. Should it be Irfan Yusuf and Prof. Muqtedar Khan, the self-proclaimed scholar of Islam, or those whom they criticize?

And Mr Yusuf, Another attack - in the name of whose Islam? Undoubtedly, it is in the name of Allah's Islam; Quran's Islam; Prophet's Islam.

http://www.islam-watch.org/MA_Khan/Ramadan-Jihad-and-Scholars-Ignorance.htm

Mmmmmm, delicious copypasta. You must eat it!

Yes Phillip Tang,I gave up on Irfan ages ago.He walks both sides of the track in true lawyer fashion.Religion is all about power over people via superstition and ignorance.
Do not give them any more oxygen.We have bigger fish to fry,ie our economic survival.

Probably the most important aspect of the opening article to focus on is the phrase "Who's Islam".....

This is the starting point of the various diverse reactions to most of what is termed 'Whack-a-mozzie' on OLO.

We have our usual suspects who react negatively to anything suggestive of real Islam being violent or aggressive, and they point to the vast majority of Muslims (as opposed to the religion itself...Islam) to support their view that it ain't that bad afterall.

Unfortunately, using the contemporary outward expression of a faith to evaluate that faith itself is logically unsound. The most we can reasonably do is evaluate the behavior of particular individuals or Churches or Buddhists or Hindu's etc.

If we used that method, we would be saying [Name the Religion]=Bad/good/bad/evil/not sure/bad/good/excellent/poor/deceptive/seditious/power hungry/exploitative and any other adjective we might choose which best fits the behavior of the particular group or practioner at a given point in time.

This is Cart before the Horse thinking. It would be helpful for us all to look more closely at the teachings of any faith we seek to understand.

For example, there are people who have become Muslims based on reading the first chapter of the Quran. It must be conceded that this is a most beautiful peace of writing. Unfortunately, it is not the sum of the faith nor is it indicative of how it relates to many different practical areas of life.

We could equate this with some beautiful poetry written by a psychopath, just before he goes out and slices and dices his next victim.

With Buddhism, Islam,Christianity, Sikhism,Hinduism etc.. it is most important to ask "Where did this come from?" and if it came from an individual, we must examine that individual for any flaws in his character and behavior which will give us more insight into the real person/thinking behind the faith.

Poly,

Please elaborate on why you believe "Unfortunately, using the contemporary outward expression of a faith to evaluate that faith itself is logically unsound"?

If you judge a faith purely by what some ancient documents say, the Old Testament is full of the actions of a vengefull god, wiping out whole civilizations because they got in the way of the 'chosen people'. Surely the behaviour of the faithful and priesthood as a whole is a better indicator of the heath and value of a cultural institution such as a religion.

I think the problem people have with your approach Poly, Philip Tang et al, is that you refuse to see any good in Islam, and only ever focus on either the extreme parts, or on selected parts of the Quran.

Perhaps a post praising the parts of Islam you admire the most would bring some balance to your arguments?

cheers,

gw

The attempt to make sense of any religion is basically a fool's errand, the jihadis are psychopaths and should be treated as criminals, reference to scripture is a waste of time. Millions of innocent trees have died and huge areas of cyber-space have been wasted examining the Quran in order to score some obscure point. Your basic religious loonie can extract whatever he fancies from the Bible, Talmud or Quran.

GW... u r a naughty poster :) you clearly did not read this in my previous post:

"For example, there are people who have become Muslims based on reading the first chapter of the Quran. It must be conceded that this is a most beautiful peace of writing."

Now regarding the approach of referring to the foundation documents rather than contemporary expressions. Let me elucidate.

1/ All religous documents must be correctly interpreted. Now..I know.. I absolutely know that various denominations do interpret some things differently. Jehovah's witnesses and Mormons, are cults which deliberately interpret information in line with the views of the people who started them. This is readily identifiable.

As I've said a few (hundred?) times, the difference between 'specific/historical circumstance' and 'generalized commands' must always be recognized in the Old and New Testaments.
Suffice it to be said that there is no generalized command in the OT or the NT which suggests that Gods's people should impose 'Christian' Rule on any other people by military force.
It is clearly and unmistakably and unambiguously, the message of the Old and New testament that God is seeking reconciliation with mankind, by an act of mans choice. If this were not so, why would the prophets continually call the Israelites back? You see..the prophets themselves pointed to the consequences of not living under His covenant as per the covenant document (Deuteronomy.. see the blessings and curses at the end)

So for example Isaiah spoke during the reign of various kings.

He said this:

16 wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds
out of my sight!
Stop doing wrong,

17 learn to do right!
Seek justice,
encourage the oppressed. [a]
Defend the cause of the fatherless,
plead the case of the widow.

OR.....

20 but if you resist and rebel,
you will be devoured by the sword."
For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

The 'Punisher' here is pagan nations, not God's people.

and..true to this prophetic word, during the reign of Hezekiah, Judea was sacked by Babylon and taken into exile.

@_GW_continued

On "balance", and seeking to identify the good parts of Islam, aah.. this is where we differ.

I'm guessing that in your case I am interacting with a secular mind?
That would possibly explain your desire for fairness in treating Islam just as any other human movement.

But the serious problem here, follows on naturally from my previous post, and this is of absolutely critical importance. This single fact determines why Islam can never be regarded as 'just' another faith or movement. It is also why one can never just look at good bits as if the rest does not matter.

The primary objective should be to identify the core_motivation and goal of the faith itself..

Irrespective of the contemporary behavior of the proverbial 'most muslims' it does not change or alter in any way, the truth that the 9th surah of the Quran (one of the latest recorded) is an action plan for world domination.

You can detect this not just from the words as they stand, but from how those same words were used historically by those closest to Mohammad during his life.

The classic is 9:29 "Fight those who do not believe in Allah etc....until they are subdued"

This is actually an applicable command.
The reason you don't hear so much about it, is this. It applies to the Islamic Caliphate. i.e.. IF..there is one leader of the Muslim world.. a Caliph.. HE is authorized to declare was on pagan nations to establish the rule of Allah.

Now..there are some who interpret that verse more broadly and take it as justification for jihadist attacks anywhere and anytime against infidels. We call those people 'radicals/extremists/terrorists' but the fact remains..if a Caliph was running the show, he would be doing the same thing.

Hizb_Ut_Tahrir are the primary 'Restore_the_Caliphate' movement in the world today. They can honestly say "We_don't_advocate_violence"

aaaah..but what they DON'T tell you is. "once the Caliphate is restored..the CALIPH will be fulfilling 9:29..very_very_violently"

If you take the time to examine the broad manifestations of Islam today you will indeed see it, but not in big posters.

You're getting close to the line again Boaz. Careful.

But before getting to that bit, I would just like to point out a teensy bit of wilful blindness on your part.

>>All religous documents must be correctly interpreted. Now..I know.. I absolutely know that various denominations do interpret some things differently. Jehovah's witnesses and Mormons, are cults which deliberately interpret information in line with the views of the people who started them. This is readily identifiable.<<

You yourself have chosen a particular path of Christianity where the available information has been "deliberately interpreted" by one Paul, would that not be a reasonable statement?

Yet you fail to see that this puts Paul into the same position vis-à-vis your version of Christianity, as Charles Taze Russell and Joseph Smith are to theirs.

It does not automatically make that one version the only right one. In fact, I would strongly suggest that the fact that myriad factions and off-shoots have blossomed and faded over the centuries, has something to do with the dissatisfaction that some feel with Paul's worldview.

No matter. To the point.

>>We call those people 'radicals/extremists/terrorists' but the fact remains..if a Caliph was running the show, he would be doing the same thing... what they DON'T tell you is. "once the Caliphate is restored..the CALIPH will be fulfilling 9:29..very_very_violently"<<

That is simply scaremongering, tub-thumping propaganda, Boaz, and you know it.

If you wish - as you have occasionally expressed - to deny the charge of fear-and-loathing driven rabble-rousing, these are exactly the kind of wild suppositions that you should consistently refrain from.

And yes, I know that a preposition isn't something you end a sentence with.

Have a great day, reassured that despite your paranoia, they really aren't out to get you.

Pericles... you raise some worthy issues.

1/ PAUL... nope.. he is nothing like Russell or Smith.

His former life is one pointer. His dramatic conversion. His spotless life, (relative to the other 2) his self denial (as opposed to self gratification by Russell and Smith) and his closeness to the other Apostles all contribute to the clear acceptance of Paul as one of the chief Apostles. Note the word "Apostle" along with those like Peter, James and John.

2/ Tub Thumping.

No I completely reject this and in so doing I strongly criticize your viewpoint. If one points out hateful violence filled commands in the Quran alone... you claim 'Whack-a-Mozzie' but when one specifically explains (as it does need some explanation to the uninformed) that the use of those verses as constitutional motivations is theoretically limited to the authority of a Caliph..and perhaps that the interim manifestations are a bit errant.. you STILL claim whack-a-mozzie.

Now..your response here is either an admission that you don't understand enough of Islam to make intelligent informed comments about it, particularly the nature and role of a Caliph in regard to the non Muslim world, or...you are simply fanning up a smokescreen for knowledge you do have but refuse to admit.

In either case Pericles...it's not a good look. It's either ignorance or sympathetic deception.

if you doubt that Hizb and co are aiming at the very scenario I outlined, then you should so some reading. Perhaps I can challenge you in the negative. Show that they do NOT see the Caliphate in this way?

All these people who cant even read fushah arabic and have suddenly become experts on the quran (which they've obviously never read, given that they cannot read fushah arabic). Amazing. Like the "bible scholar" who cannot read aramaic, greek or hebrew - you only serve to join the ranks of the laughably sad pseudo-academia.

Since when can anyone speak objectively or with any authority - without looking like an ignorant fool - about a book that is written in a language they cannot even read. The ability to copy and paste the ramblings of neo-orientalist ethno-religious bigots about something they're not even qualified to speak with knowledge about, is obviously in full force on this forum! Bravo!

Hello Everybody

I dont know about anywhere else but lets look at Australia.
Only yesterday I was talking with a friend who was helping a X paramedic from Sydney.
The reason she moved was because she got sick of being abused by some Muslims in Sydney.
The last event she was attending the home of a very ill 4 month old child.
She had to enter the house alone because men can not go into a Muslim home if the woman is alone without her husband. She explained the child was in urgent need of attening hospital.

This caused much stress to the mother as the father was not home to give consent.
While she racked through about 14 different medi care cards( all spelt very similar to find the card for the paramedic) the husand walked in.
He punched the parometic in the stomache then spat on home and tossed her out.

So whats happening about this type of Muslim? I say we put him on a plane 'NOW' and say Tootle Pip.

I also think migrants should be given vias scripts but NOT PR or citizenship. In Germany you have to live there 22 years before you can claim any welfare.

The answer is to have 'ONE' Islamic Council 'only ' to lead Muslims not 32 etc...

Now before you all rush in and call us Anti Muslim let me assure you Boazie not all Muslim people and leaders are bad people.

Stop branding all Muslims in this manner. Your so unfair.

The Australian Government needs to take another look at their promises and how they are going to ensure we dont get woman bashers in this country.

I think Rudd really needs to address this or we are going to have enourous problems.

The biggest problem however is People trying to create mass hysteria about Muslims in Australia.



Pls remember that many Aussie Christian men also abuse women.

Maybe we should pop them on a plane too to live with people they relate to better.

Food for thought.

Hi to Philip Tang

As you are well aware, Boaz, I wasn't referring to Paul as an individual, so your character reference is irrelevant.

>>PAUL... nope.. he is nothing like Russell or Smith<<

I was, of course, referring to your observation on "cults which deliberately interpret information in line with the views of the people who started them."

Paul was the architect, I understand, of what we know as Christianity.

After all, Jesus himself had no intention to start a church, he was much more inclined to encourage folk to be nice to each other. He probably realized that if his followers formed into factions, they would spend the rest of their days fighting each other.

But it remains that you are in fact following a unique interpretation of what Christianity actually is, based on the writings of one man.

I was merely pointing out that your version of Christianity is simply the product of Paul's imagination, just Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are the construct of their founders.

I have no problem with that. Chacun à son gôut and so on. But the point I was trying to make is that your version is just one of many products of human endeavour, as is Islam.

My concern is that you gather together all these dubious and nebulous concepts to build up a picture of "the evil that will engulf us all", which you then trumpet from your soapbox.

Half-truths, Boaz, and wild extrapolations of the motives of those whom you target, are the principal tools of the soapbox rabble-rouser everywhere.

Have a hate-free day.

I've just returned from a ten day trip to
Sydney (my old stomping ground) and my
goodness what a culture shock.

It's not the city I remember at all.
In fact, parts of it are quite dreadful.
Over built, narrow streets, heavy traffic
conjestion. Where's the town planning?
How can people live like this?

Sydney to me typifies a city that has grown
so quickly - in a relatively short space of
time. It now has such a diverse population.
And as a result the problems (and the rewards)
that go with this cultural diversity.

Islam is a good example of one of the problems.
Where fear and mistrust exists towards something
that is perceived to be different from the
mainstream in our society. With time hopefully
this will change. And we will adjust, to what
unites us, rather than divides us. As we have done
in the past with other cultural groups.

For now however, voices of reason, like Irfan Yusuf's,
should be encouraged. We need these voices of reason,
to counter-balance the extremist hysteria probagated
in the media.

Firstly mac,
There are a number of Quran translations to English and if you care to trawl through the articles and posts by Irfan Yusuf, on OLO, I believe you may find him validating at least one version, as I recall.

So one does not have to be able to understand Arabic to read the Quran. The same applies to the Bible as it also has been translated. Mind you I do not read either and stay out of religious debate.

Pale,
I thought you would have better understanding of our laws than to simply say "So whats happening to this type of Muslim? I say lets put him on a plane "NOW' and say Toodle Pip"

Whats happening to this type of "person" now is that if the person assaulted wants to go ahead with charges, the offender will face our courts in the normal manner. We cannot simply deport a person because he allegedly punched a woman in the stomach.
This applies no matter what nationality, religion, culture or anything else.

A citizen cannot be deported. Only non-citizens can be deported and then only if there are clear grounds to do so, such as conviction of a crime where there is jail for 2 years or more. Even then the person can appeal the deportation.

I recall a case of the courts allowing a convicted drug dealer to stay because he had fathered a child while here and to deport him may make it difficult for the child.

What needs to be done is that we must ensure that all prospective immigrants are made aware of our laws and culture/society, BEFORE they commit to come here. If we desire a harmonious society, our immigration has to be discriminatory. We should deny those cultures that have shown they cannot/will not abide by our laws and social standards.

Added to this tough penalties and enforcement for those that will not integrate. Examples here that come to mind are those that carry on old hatreds, those that continue holding cockfights and those that continue subjecting girls to FGM.

Pale,
I should have added that I am not surprized that your female paramedic was assaulted by a Muslim. There have been many complaints of verbal abuse by Muslim males to females who work in jobs where there is frequent contact with Muslims. Jobs such as police, ambos, teachers, shop assistants, nurses, receptionists, etc.

My inquiries lead me to believe that the main problem we have here is with Lebanese Muslims. I am not sure if this is simply because there are more Lebanese muslims than other nationalities of Muslims. I note that in England and Europe there seem to be problems with Muslims of various nationalities.

There seems to be a very strong male dominance part of some cultures.

Violence is simply unacceptable, Muslims, Christians, Aussies, Poms or anyone else.

Banjo
Courts costs have trippled with cases involving people from other countries.

We can and should deport them if they punch someone because of their religion Banjo.

It’s sad really and I agree with you about many Leb Muslims.

The problem is Banjo its almost too late IMO.

Years ago the Government should have provided services to assist them to assimilate.
Try being a young leb kid just arrived in Australia. Dad says son you can’t go out drinking and chasing girls with the rest of the blokes because it’s wrong. You must say home.

Dad says look son at all these Aussie kids drunk and on drugs. I refuse to have my son and family member carrying on like that and bringing shame to our home.

Now I can understand that and I am sure you can too. All parents want what they think is best for their kids.
I actually think the Government should encourage the parents to let their kids live a little of the Aussies way of life just to have the experience to cope in a new country and make friends.

They young Muslim boy of course desperately wants to fit it.
Same as the girls wanting to attend the party the school dance etc.

Mostly they don’t attend the parties or go out playing football with the other young blokes and meet for a beer after.
Mostly they stay home or miss with other boys and girls of the same faith.
Unlike Aussie kids they tend to listen to their parents.

These kids usually feel they don’t fit into either the Aussie way of life or the Muslim way.
This leads to some very angry confused young men and women.

Education of the parents to encourage them to allow their kids to mix in should be 'strongly encouraged ''before' they arrive and that’s the Australian government’s responsibility.

I honestly feel to bring them here without some guidance and just dump them is 'almost cruel' in the end.

Pale,
It may be too late in England and some European countries to achieve some decent social harmony, but i do not think it is too late in Aus. We need to act fairly quickly though. It is madness to continue to allow people to come here with cultures that have shown they cannot/will not accept our social norms. It has been partly our own fault in that we have not taken the trouble to ensure prospective immigrants were fully aware of our culture, laws and how we live. This has to be done before the people commit to come here.

It is our country and we, through our elected representatives, make the rules and those coming here have an obligation to fit in, if they wish to stay. For too long we have said, "Oh, we are multicultural and you can carry on same as you always have done in your old country". "We will compromise our ways to suit you"

Thankfully, I believe that era is fast coming to an end.

From what i have seen, Muslim parents tend to keep a tight rein and close supervision on the girls but allow the young males much freedom. They can have cars, socialize in groups unsupervised and be with girls.

But having said that, I think it is hard for them to walk between two different cultures.

Banjo,

I think you have confused me with someone else, my point was that examining scripture was a waste of time, since any interpretation can be drawn from this nonsese.

Banjo
Its way too late for England I agree. I think we Australians and our Government must state at the outset that its not our intention to offend devout Muslims. We must explain to them we are not trying to hurt their feelings or to embarress them in any way.

I know Banjo from personal dealings thatMuslims are good, hard working people mostly and many have overcome iompossible odds to make a new home in the west.
However we know lots of muslims take personal offense at any criticim of their religious beleifs. They cant understand that " freedom of religioun in the west means that people are free to critize Islam as well as any other religion.

This fredom is something we gaurd with our lives. its hard for them to get it because they lived in Isklamic countries.
If they did that there it would be punishable by death.

However since Muslims evidentlty dont have a problem what so ever

in openly critizing other religions, why should they have a problem with people who critise Islam. After all its the samre bill of rights that guarantees to Muslims the freedom to critise other religions.
Its got to cut both way and its up to OUR government to educate people BEFORE they come.
I might addd i havent met a Muslim yet that worries too much about that type of thing but I know they do exsist.
After all look at the Parometic.

What I hate is people calling us racist simply for holding a view and standing up for the principle of your own country that your Fathers and grandfather fought to allow us to live in freedom.
I am not speaking about Boazie either that is spreading hatred.

mac,
You are quite right. I attributed spooky's comments to you. I am sorry about that. My apologies.

Pale,
You have made a very important point. "Its got to cut both ways and it is up to OUR Government to educate people BEFORE they come"

EXCELLANT This may have been the case forever, but we have only been giving immigrants information about us, our society, etc. after they have got a visa to come here. This is too late as they already have decided to come. They have had to rely on their own resourses to get info and if they relied on friends and relos here, then of course they want them to come so a rosy picture is painted.

This may not have mattered much when most migrants came from England and Europe but that has not been the case more recently, so it is well past time that we changed what and when we inform prospective migrants.

In the last half of last year the then Minister ordered this info be made available when someone picked up a visa application. I understand that printing of the material, in various languages, was being done. I don't know what has happened since, but I think the matter is still under review by the new Minister. I only hope it is continued as it is vital.

I want applicants to know that our beach girls are very scantily dressed, we don't eat dog meat, girls work and drive themselves, christmas is celebrated and shops decorated,FGM is unlawful as is arranged marriages, polygomy, honor killings and cockfighting, for example. With pictures if necessary.

With this info some may decide not to come and if they do then we can honestly say that they were told about us and our life style.

At the same time we must enforce our laws and maintain our social standards.

Philip,

If I remember correctly Egypt initiated the Sinai liberation/yom kippur on the 6th of October 1973 (which was the 10th of Ramadan of the Islamic calendar) and was supported by most muslim countries. I am no expert but I don't think its a black and white thing. So you and Irfan are both right or both wrong :)

Peace,

Re Trees/Mac
“Millions of innocent trees have died … have been wasted examining the Quran in order to score some obscure point”
So that’s why the Middle East is so devoid of trees!
They used to say that desert landscapes begat religiosity but perhaps it’s the other way around.

Re Polycarp
On the main issue, I tend to agree with David.
What is a proper study of Islam an examination of the Koran and Haddith, or the study of your next door neighbor who claims to be Muslim but only follows what takes his fancy?

If you see the measure of Islam as the niceness of fellow humans living in a prosperous society, then it’s easy to see David criticisms as over-the-top .
-There’s been no further attacks on US soil since 9/11.
-The London bombings are fading from memory, and
-The Australian terrorist wannabes , if past standards are maintained , will sooner or later be given early release and compensated for some or other technical breech of their rights.

But, if you look outside our liberal Western bubble.
Terrorism which claims inspiration from Islamic texts, is a daily part of life for many in Asia and Africa,
And yes, there are other forms of terrorism, but:
i) Whining ‘They do it too’ hardly absolves Islam, and
ii) Islam’s brand of terrorism seems to be particularly long lasting and systematic

To characterize it in genetic terms .There are some nasty genes in Islam’s genome.They may not always find expression – but they’re always there awaiting the right environment or demographics to pop up.

Banjo,

Your last sentence is the key to the survival of liberal democracy,we must maintain the institutions of the secular state and demonstrate that liberties can't be surrendered inch by inch in the name of "multiculturalism". I can't think of any majority Islamic country that's democratic,some Moslem immigrants cannot accept that, in Australia, theirs is just another religion among many. With time,given the influence of democratic societies Islam will be "modernised".

It's nice to see a few voices of reason arguing against the usual OLO Islamophobic fear-fest. Many thanks to Pericles, Fellow Human and mac.

Horus,

“There are some nasty genes in Islam’s genome.They may not always find expression – but they’re always there awaiting the right environment or demographics to pop up”

Agree with a minor adjustment, above statement is valid to every faith or ideology. Hitler Christian party came to power through a democratic process, Jewish people were a minority migrants in British controlled Palestine before 1948. Recently Hamas came to power after a democratic process (I am sure there are examples outside the Abraham religions).

The more important question is what needs to be done to make sure that a democratic system is capable of cleansing itself and learning from the past? What happens when a democratic process brings a religious movement (simply cause they got the numbers)?

Should we introduce the 'informed voter' or the 'secular informed voters only' to the system? Problem with that it becomes too exclusive to half the population in any average country.

I don’t have the answer.

Peace,

SPOOKY first.. err.. your comment about criticism of anything Islamic being invalid unless we understand Arabic is... to be honest absurd.

The simple method is to examine translations done by Muslims, who are fully versed in both English and Arabic. You then consult commentaries and explanatory notes, just as we do for the English versions of the Bible. I hardly think you would suggest that in order to 'properly' understand Islam in order to embrace it, one must first learn Arabic.
-nuf said on that.

PERICLES.. debating the New Testament and origins of Christianity with one who knows little about it :) i.e..you. Well.. I live for that. You consistenly claim you have little interest in these ancient documents... yet you make these wild assertions? tap tap..'hello' is how it goes I think.
You see.. your argument that we are following the interpretation of ONE man is not supported by the evidence. The letters of Peter,John James, Revelation, Jude, and writings of Luke all portray the same Gospel of saving grace.

You might like to do a topical study of "Salvation in the New Testament"
Wiki has a good article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation

But you could always take the long and narrow road (which leads to life) by reading it all yourself. (NT)

Jude says:

3Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share,....

You (and all here) can share in it too...if you wish.

The ‘war on terror’ is a failure. As usual, the West is barking up the wrong tree. The source of the contagion is not Al Qaeda, nor Osama bin Laden, but is to be found in many of the mosques and Islamic religious schools all over the world.

If a Westerner (such as Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer) were to be critical of Islam, they would be described as biased and called all sorts of names. As such, Muslims who have left Islam are the ones non-Muslims should turn to for a clear explanation why a large proportion of all recent terror attacks are done in the cause of Islam. It has little to do with Islam hating the West, because India, a secular country, has nothing to do with the war in Iraq suffers the second highest fatality rate caused by home-grown Islamists terror attacks.

M A Khan, editor of ‘Islam Watch,’ is an ex-Muslim who gave an interesting personal account of how and why he left Islam. http://www.islam-watch.org/ma_khan/MeherApostacy.htm

“… the reactions [9/11] of the Muslims in Canada ranged from indifference to outright support of Islamists. It made little sense because these Muslims would never live in an environment with harsh Islamist rules…most Muslims in the West, are leeches on the democratic capitalist system.” (by Isaac Schrodinger, Pakistani ex-Muslim)
http://www.islam-watch.org/Isaac/MusingsMurtad.htm

Ali Sina is an Iranian who left Islam and runs the number 1 website exposing Islam for what it really is. He proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no such thing as a ‘moderate Muslim’ by examining Dr. Mohammad Mahathir (once held by the world as an example of a moderate Muslim leader) speech when addressing a Islamic conference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J57-NDr5Eqk

His recent article is addressed to the “Lukewarm Muslims” http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina80614.htm
.

Patrick Sookdheo is an ex-Muslim Anglican pastor who runs an organization supporting Christians persecuted for their faith.
http://www.barnabasfund.org/ He wrote a scholarly work, ‘Global Jihad’, documents the link between classical Islam and militant Islam

You're wandering off the point again, Boaz.

Sometimes I wonder if you do this deliberately, when you run out of rational argument.

>>debating the New Testament and origins of Christianity with one who knows little about it :) i.e..you. Well.. I live for that. You consistenly claim you have little interest in these ancient documents... yet you make these wild assertions?<<

The only debating in which I indulge is to shoot holes in the more obvious rash claims and assertions of others. You don't need to be particularly smart or scholarly to be able to do that. I know very little about conjuring tricks, for example, but enough to know that the rabbit that appears out of thin air is likely to be the result of sleight-of-hand, rather than magic.

In any event, this is irrelevant to the current discussion.

>>You see.. your argument that we are following the interpretation of ONE man is not supported by the evidence. The letters of Peter,John James, Revelation, Jude, and writings of Luke all portray the same Gospel of saving grace.<<

It has nothing to do - on this thread at least - with how many letters were written, to whom or by whom.

The point at issue is, I should remind you, "cults which deliberately interpret information in line with the views of the people who started them."

I simply observed that Paul was the architect of your on particular version of Christianity, and that you do exactly what you criticise in others: interpret information in line with his views. Exactly as do the followers of Christian Science and Mormonism adhere to the interpretations of Charles Taze Russell and Joseph Smith.

If you accept my point a), that Paul is the individual who interprets your version of Christianity, then you need to accept b), which is that he is simply one of many.

As you have recounted in so many posts that you profess a), I'm surprised that you now try to deny it.

Dear Pericles..you say:

"I simply observed that Paul was the architect of your on particular version of Christianity, and that you do exactly what you criticise in others: interpret information in line with his views."

I quite reject that 'Paul was the architect' as you put it. I totally accept that Paul best 'articulated' the deeper truths of the already existent Gospel, and did so in harmony with the totality of Scripture found in the letters of Peter, John, James and Jude.

Notwithstanding Peter the fisherman's complaint that

15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2Peter 3:16)

You might note here that Peter does not denounce anything Paul says, but rather denounces those who DISTORT it. So there is no disharmony.
Paul was a Co-Architect....not 'the'.

Russell and Smith, Mary Baker Eddy and Co, were individuals like Mohammad. "Their condemnation is just". (Rom 3:8)

I reiterate.. we are not following the ideas of one man, but a team.

Philip Tang is correct. Classical Islam is linked to Militant Islam and it call get's back to......one man.

OK Boaz, assuming for a moment that I accept your argument...

>>I reiterate.. we are not following the ideas of one man, but a team<<

Assuming this, could you explain the difference between following the interpretation of one man, and a "team"?

The point remains totally valid, that your adopted stance towards religion rests upon interpretation, by normal, everyday human beings. As indeed does every version of Christianity, and the vast majority of other religions.

What puzzles me is how this fact inevitably escapes attention. What you are effectively arguing is not that one version is right and another is wrong, but that one individual's - oh, sorry, team's - interpretation is somehow better than another's.

As I mentioned earlier, Jesus himself had no notion of "Christianity" as the cult became known, and I suspect, from the scant information that survives about him, that he would have disapproved strongly.

In fact, I'd assume that he'd be horrified at the manner in which the example he set is continually being revised, adapted, modified and selectively interpreted.

Would you not agree?

Fellow Human,

We talk of -nasty genes- but I wonder if we concur on what is nasty.

Standing in the western liberal tradition whose catch cry is - individual rights- the majority Islamic position on blasphemy & proselytizing would seem to be ‘nasty’

However, I am thinking if one is standing in another tradition which places -loyalty to God- as paramount, perhaps these may not be seen as negatives.

I mean if God is all wise/knowing and you have a record of his literal word/blue print then there are likely to be a number of issues that are simply not open to the democratic processes.

What say you?

Dear Pericles you raise a most interesting and important issue.

The difference between one man and a team is this.

Firstly it begins with Jesus himself. He is the 'one man' from which it all comes. But he himself gathered a team around him, and it is from they that we receive the traditions about Him. The Gospels are not contradictory in any way which undermines the nature of Christ expresed in the others. John, while very different, is complementary not contradictory.

Sure, Matthew might mention 2 blind men while Mark may mention 1... and the chronological order of some events may not be the same in one Gospel or the other, which of course raises the question of the authors purpose, which was not to give a complete and strict biography of Jesus, but to convey the information about Salvation in Him. It does not matter if Luke compiles a number of parables in one section and we might see those parables in a different setting in Matthew.. because the idea that Jesus only told his parables once is fanciful.

Then..there is the issue of his followers taking the message of his Word and Resurrection to the world.
It should be remembered that Jesus Himself sais "You are witnesses of these things" and that "Thus it is written in the Law, Psalms and Prophets" (about his sacrificial death and resurrection) Luke 24

I tend to agree that our Lord would not be thrilled with the inter-denominational squabbling which used to go on. (not so much these days)
But did he intend a 'Church' to come to be? absolutely! The Church is His body and the body has many parts.

All of it begins with Him and takes the word about Him to the world. The simple fact that this is occurring in a human framework means there will be differences of understanding.

Discernment is needed to separate the weeds from the wheat. (a parable of his)Matt 13:24ff Please read it.

You are still missing the point here, Boaz.

>>The Gospels are not contradictory in any way which undermines the nature of Christ expresed in the others<<

I don't have a problem with the fact that the versions contained in the Bible are reasonably consistent with each other. After all, they were, as a group, carefully selected for exactly this purpose. It would hardly be sensible if the canon had included stuff that was internally contradictory.

But the fact remains that it is indirectly reported, way after the events it is supposed to record, by people with a vested interest in putting together a coherent and convincing narrative.

In other words, it is just another interpretation of history, designed specifically to create a religious movement.

And that is the only point at issue here.

You claim that it has some kind of uniqueness when compared with other factions, cults and creeds. That is fine with me, and entirely necessary for you to invest so much faith in its contents.

Where we disagree is when you use this interpretation as some form of weapon against those with whose own interpretation you disagree.

And while you make these kind of statements with breathtaking naivety, I know we will continue to have issues:

>>I tend to agree that our Lord would not be thrilled with the inter-denominational squabbling which used to go on. (not so much these days)<<

Is this how would you describe your relationship with Islam?

An "interdenominational squabble"?

Pericles.. sure.. I totally agree that in one sense the Canon is an interpretation of history by people who had a vested interest in it forming a foundation for the living faith that they held.

The thing is.. they already had the faith, based on the Gospel communicated to them by word alone. For an example of that Gospel I refer you to Peters speech in Acts 10 to Cornelius.

Now.. the rest is an expansion on that same Gospel. Yes..it was guarded by the Apostles and Church fathers. But please remember they did all this from a position of social exclusion and military oppression at times. Their primary interest was truth...

The glaring contrast with the work of one man, such as Mohammad... is that it's much easier to identify self gratifying content in a work by one man. I find no self gratification, carnal self glorification, no promotion of any state, in the words of Jesus nor in the Canon. Yes, Jesus' claim to be Son of God was forthright, but this itself brought Him nothing but what he predicted, i.e.. a cruel and painful death for your and my sins.

If one looks at a man who surrounded himself with women, and claimed specific justification for furthering and enhancing this rather comfy situation, the reasonable mind would call into question the source of his writings and definitely not accept them as from a Holy God.

What you see in the unfolding of Islam is acceptance of Mohammad's word based mainly on military advance. People pledged alleigance to him when he won victories. I don't even have to argue this, it is clear from the Muslim sources themselves. The thing is...they simply don't see that as a problem whereas I and those who think... do.

No, Boaz, you are still arguing in a totally circular manner.

>>the reasonable mind would call into question the source of his writings and definitely not accept them as from a Holy God<<

The "reasonable mind" that you refer to, and that which I would call a "reasonable mind", cannot possibly be the same.

And therein lies the problem.

Your a piori position is that Paul and his friends were sincere, and had nothing to gain from the invention and/or embellishment of a story, while everyone else (you pick on one particular religion, but you really mean all) perforce creates their story out of greed, malice, envy, powermongering or whatever.

What you refuse to accept is that those you have chosen to be the sole bearers of the tale that you accept, might equally be consumed by the same vices.

History is forever being sanitized, and I have no doubt in my mind that these stories that you rely upon so heavily are nothing more than carefully selected propaganda sheets, often using each other as a "source", (Mark seemed to be a very popular foundation document for this practice) all designed and selected to reinforce the emotional blackmail indulged in by the church leaders.

The weight of evidence, from my point of view, is firmly against them being truthful. For example, the "miracles", that preposterously provide the lie to the entire set of documents.

Kind, nice to people, caring, charismatic perhaps, wise even, all are qualities that I can accept for your hero.

But there is not one single shred of non-aligned evidence for Lazarus.

Wouldn't you expect that someone would have found it interesting enough, perhaps, to make the columns of the Bethany Mercury?

Or the Al-'Azzariyyah Comet, perhaps, given the confusion over exactly where it took place. Bethany, Al-'Azzariyyah, hey, what's in a name? After all, nothing really important took place there, eh?.

So this particular "reasonable mind" begs to differ with your "reasonable mind" on this, and many other wild assertions you make about your own religion as well as - more reprehensibly - that of others.

Meanwhile, back to the discussion on the father of your religion, Boaz.

Even in Paul's time, there were competing versions of who Jesus was, and what he stood for.

"For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super-apostles"... For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ" 2 Corinthians 4-5, 13.

Rather gives the impression, that there were a few other "super-apostles" doing the rounds at the time, each with their own version or interpretation of the story.

Given this, it would seem to be even more suspicious, would it not, that the set of books emerging from this confusion displayed any consistency at all. Corinth itself sounded as though it were victim of an apostolic log-jam.

These different interpretations continued to vie for precedence for centuries, and it is reasonable to assume - knowing the venality and expedience of your average sinful human being - that the winner was determined by the exercise of earthly power, rather than divine guidance.

So the question remains, Boaz. Not for me, of course, since I haven't the slightest interest in the answer. But for you.

Why do you believe your version over others?

What is it, in rational terms, that convinces you that your version is superior? Or is it, as I suspect, pure emotion. You like the sound of this story best, so you stick with it.

It wouldn't be a problem if you weren't forever lecturing Muslims on the topic, using your personal selection of an interpretation of their position.

You do the same for Christian groups. I suspect, for example, that you regard Joseph Smith's story of the golden plates in the same light as the transcribings of Mohammed.

What you fail to see is the thread that runs through them all.

It's just another story.

Boaz/Polycarp,

Although I gave up on your prejudice an double standards, I couldn’t let this one go:
“What you see in the unfolding of Islam is acceptance of Mohammad's word based mainly on military advance. People pledged allegiance to him when he won victories. I don't even have to argue this, it is clear from the Muslim sources themselves”

Parking above propaganda aside, here are the facts:

1. Muslims early wars were survival wars being outnumbered by 9 to 1 and in some cases 20 to 1.
2. Most Muslims today are non-arabs (86%) and most of this number is in countries where there were no wars.
3. Fastest growing sect of Islam is Sufism (Mystic) Islam. How can that be accepted or adopted by wars?
4. Fastest growth in Muslims in the last 100 years in non-arabs even though when the culture and the faith is as week as. Why are there still more people adopting Islam today?

Boaz, faith is a matter of choice and one choses a story that makes sense to him/her. The fact that you claim to chose a story and trash everyother story can only imply that you are not happy with your choice.

So back to Pericles question: “Why do you believe your version over others?”

Well said, F_H. It's refreshing to get an actual Muslim perspective on these issues at OLO, as opposed to the often malicious and paranoid interpretations of Christian fundamentalists, closet racists and other assorted wingnuts.

Not that I blame you for your absence - OLO harbours some of the most intransigent and extreme Islamophobes I've encountered anywhere, and they can be quite nasty at times. Full credit to you for attempting to engage them at all.

FH.. welcome back. Your perspective lacks one vital ingredient.
Those choosing Islam today do so in the light of it being an established religion, they most likely do not examine closely it's early development. If they did so they would see that it happened exactly as I described.
I am one of those who looks very critically at how things begin and develop.. I look at the founder and his immediate followers.. apart from such an approach I cannot see how a person can properly evaluate any idea or movement.

PERICLES You keep referring to 'my version'...this is quite spurious.
During Pauls time there were indeed some who sought to capture the hearts of young Christians for their own reasons. One such group was the circumcision party referred to in Galatians and in the reference you cited. You would need to look at the actual issue.

The idea that there would not be competing elements in any group of people is silly. The important thing is to identify the truth and separate it from falsehood.

Paul made this abundantly clear in 1 Cor 15:3-8 "I passed on...that which I received"

he then outlines the Gospel:

Christ died-for our sins....according to the scriptures.
He was raised...according to the scriptures.

Anything competing with this is heresy. That is why Islam may be considered a heresy. Hinduism is not a heresy, it's just plain syncretism. Buddhism is not a religion it is psychology.

Our 'version' as you put it, is right/true/correct because it is the same Gospel which Paul received and passed on.

Christ died..for our sins..and was raised according to the scriptures.

To find out what errors arose, you need to see the heresies in the early church.

The Islam that terrorist practise is the only brand of Islam that deserves attention on this forum.

The fact is terrorists believe in the social governance of the all people by the enforced laws of Allah. What they practise is not a spiritual God like faith, but a social controll of people by Governance.

Daniel in the time of Israel's exhile in Babylon was able to release the people from the fear of the Dragon god by exposing the priests footprints in the dust of ashes at the altar of sacrifice. Terrorists do not operate from a freed conscience but under bondage to political leadership and ideology.

In true religion God is revealed by consistent devoted attitudes, actions and relationships that amplify LOVE. Actions that mean sacrifice even of ones life to reconcile enemies and make enemies friends.

That is the meaning of Jesus death and prayers of forgivness for his enemies even at the time of his crucifixion. Terrorists cannot accept that because it does not fit their revelation of god. That sinners must be put to death. That is the reason that to them the death of Jesus is illogical, because it frees sinners.

The apostle Paul who once murdered Christians for that reason as a result of his Damascus revelation learned the truth and changed his faith from legalist Judaism once enforcing Talmud laws to now follow Christ as a freed man. Even sacrificing his own life to live and tell that news at every opportunity. This finally meant the Judaists who persued him all his life appealing to the Roman authorities finally had him executed. That was the price of speaking and living reconciliation of sinners and even enemies. The Judaists could not accept sinners being freed from their lawless disobedience to God. So Paul at the Courts of Caesar wes executed for his teaching. That Christ the perfect one died for my sin and by affirming that I am free from the punishment due to me. This teaching is equally abhorrent to terrorists and their supporters.

Occasionaly, Boaz, your claims are nothing short of breathtaking in their arrogance and blindness.

>>Christ died-for our sins....according to the scriptures. He was raised...according to the scriptures. Anything competing with this is heresy.<<

For the one thousandth (and I'm probably not even exaggerating here) time, Boaz, anything "competing with your view" is nothing more nor less than... another view.

Another story.

Another narrative.

Your inability to even contemplate that your insight is just one amongst many is what separates you from other people.

Most of us recognize that there is at least a tiny percentage chance that we are wrong about something. Heck, I was even wrong myself once. Somewhere around 1973, as I recall.

What that acceptance provides us with, Boaz, is a humility and willingess to listen and learn that seems to have passed you by completely.

There are still people here trying to help, to lead you to this amazing place called knowledge, via the way-station called thinking.

Nobody here is trying to deny you the right to believe in anything you want. Nobody is trying to change your belief system, or to suggest that you would be better off with another.

What is missing is a reciprocal position from you.

And, of course, an acceptance that it is bad form to use your religion as a weapon against others, given that its foundations are in your head, and not supported by what we in the real world call evidence.

Think what you like, Boaz. It's one of our freedoms, to indulge in exactly that.

But you can expect resistance every time you say "Boaz right, you wrong", on the topic of religion.

Dear Pericles

you are always free to dispute what I say..and usually do. You know my position well by now. You call it arrogance and narrow mindedness, and an unwillingness to learn... but as you also know, this is a faith issue.
As I said to a young man tonight "I get attacked from every angle on line for my faith, but it does not make a scrap of difference to me, because when you read about the healings which Jesus did, ..I've felt and experienced that"

That young man is now growing in grace and in Christ. The change has been dramatic so say the least.

We who know Christ, in our hearts, minds and experience, will never see things in any other way.. i.e.. it just does not register that what Paul said is just one view among many.

The reason you struggle to see this is your secular and as yet unregenerate mind. No..I'm not insulting you.. I did not say 'degenerate'.. but you are on the side of the equation of not being born anew..and you will see life and faith from that perspective.

We speak from within the (Christian) faith community and you from outside it. So.. what to us is faithfulness to the truth of the Gospel of grace is narrow mindedness and blinkered world view to you.

I'm sure Paul was called arrogant and a host of other names along his way.

Once again...the answer (for you and any non Christian) is found in Scripture and in the Gospel of Salvation. 1 Cor 15:3-5 is a restatement of the simple and essential elements of it.

It was the view of Jesus, the pre Paul apostles.. and Paul experienced it and passed it on as he received it... how can we speak of 'one interpretation among many'? I don't see how that's possible.

Pericles - if I'm not mistaken, all of Porky's last post above boils down to "Boaz right, you wrong", no?

Once again, I marvel at your patience.

The principle of revelation of God is that all life depends upon the sacrificial giving up of the life of others for our wellbeing. This principle is not dependent upon our moral purity as all men live from the life and living of others for their very existence. In radical Islam the impure and immoral are not worthy of life.

The mindset of the Islamic terrorists and their supporters is based in a moral judgment on those that they believe do not adhere to their moral standard and therefore deserve and must be put to death. This will create enough fear in the community so that observers will accept the laws of Allah. The first law being, "there is no god but Allah". For the terrorists any who do not ridgidly uphold that law are guilty of violating Allah's words and should die. They do not deserve to live under Allah's laws.

Jesus was put to death because he mixed with violators of the Jewish Talmud's religious laws. The Jewish zealots held out in the desert who plotted the overthrow of Rome tried to entice Jesus to join their plan, but he denounced them as opposing God (Matt 4). Islam is a branch of that religious view. The terrorists Kor'anic laws were influenced by the second Jewish Talmud that was formulated by the Jewish zealots during the years of Mohamet and he was deeply influenced by their strict religious world views. For them any person who ignores their religious laws are legitimate subjects for death. For them Allah has judged them guilty and death is the due punishment.

Paul in his his Roman defence contrasts such a view with the Christian view of forgivness offered to violators of God's laws. It is called grace. That God can forgive the guilty and call them his sons. That is the reason the apostle Paul is rejected by Islam because they believe he perverted the teachings of Allah.

CJ...not exactly "me right P wrong".... I was seeking to explain the reasons for our different perspective.

Where Pericles is incorrect/wrong/misled/misinformed is in his appreciation (lack thereof) of the mindset at work in the Islamic scriptures. We can leave "Muslims" as a group out of that argument for the moment, and simply focus our gaze on the 9th surah of the Quran.

FH claims that in a general sense the wars Mohammad fought were wars of survival, and to gain a few more points he says it was always the few (muslims) against the many (enemies).

That is only true in some cases, not all. So it is historically incorrect to characterize all of Mohammad's wars/battles as being about 'survival'. One prime (of many) example which comes to mind is the seige of Ta'if. That was the town which initially mocked/stoned the weak Mohammad and he never forgot this.

When be became strong, he went and beseiged them (this is called 'aggression') and tried to force them to at least submit to his rule, and definitely tried to force them to embrace Islam. They withstood the seige, but the leaders saw the historical writing on the wall as they did the number crunching for the Arabian Peninsula (other tribes status) and the issue became quickly 'Islam or death' for them. They chose Islam out of fear and intimidation.

If you feel I'm misrepresenting their situation, by all means read up on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta%27if#630:_The_Battle_of_Hunayn_and_the_Conversion_of_the_City

620 they stoned Mohammad
630 they capitulated (via a delegation) to Mohammad who was newly victorious at the Battle of Hunayn.

The 9th surah contains Mohammad's mindset of 630 and that is the mindset the Muslim Ummah has inherited to this day. This is the mindset which is like a time bomb residing in the heads of Sunni Imams and clerics.

Sufi's are considered heretics by some Sunni's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufism#Sufism_and_Islamic_law

<<The Modernist criticisms of Sufism emphasize the claim that Sufi masters have introduced special prayers and devotional acts into their schools that are not part of early Islam, or even that Sufi Muslims have contrived entirely new beliefs.>>

The ignorance of Muslims (or dishonesty) about their writings is appalling. From the beginning Islam has been a religion of aggression. Consider the 26 raids Mohammad led personally plus the other 28 he sent out (incl. night and early morning attacks). Of the many battles he fought, only two can be considered defensive (because they Meccans were tired of his attacks). Yes, M was a good general, but these were not “survival” wars.

Any country that takes Muslim immigrants is foolish, asking for trouble. Muslims do not share our values of freedom and equality. Just look at their societies if you have doubts. The Muslims that post here are less than honest about basic facts.

Understand that there are no “moderate” Muslims.

If you think so, try this… Find a “moderate” Muslim. Get a copy of the Quran and Hadith. Start reading from it. Ask about the verses that teach hate and violence against non-Muslims. Ask about the passages that tell them to conquer and subdue us. Ask about why Allah even says they can kill or torture those who oppose Islam. Ask them to explain all those special privileges that Mohammad put into the Quran to benefit Muhammad.

Then go to the Ahadith, Islamic traditions. Ask about the attacks, plunder, murder, enslavement of men women and children, torture, lies, rape of women and even Muhammad beating his own wife. Ask them how they can say “Praise be unto him” after Muhammad’s name and consider him to be a moral example when their own traditions, written by friends/followers, detail hundreds of vile deeds. Of course, to Muslims, anything that Muhammad did is not evil, by definition. Figure out what that means.

Ask about the history of Islam. Ask about the so-called “rightly guided caliphs” that are also considered moral examples. Ask about their looting and conquest of half the known world. Ask about the slave women and the wars. Ask about the violence when thousands of Muslims killed thousands of other Muslims, all for the glory of Allah. Ask why 3 of the 4 so-called rightlyguided caliphs were murdered.

Continued…

Read about Karbala/Ashura andhow Muslim fought Muslim and how in 50 years after the death of their prophet a Muslim army was carrying the severed heads of Mohammad’s grandson and infant greatgrandson as trophies for the caliph. Read about 1300years of war against non-Muslims. They will mention the crusades so ask about Islam’s wars on other people back to the time of the prophet. Ask about the brutal 800years of Muslim domination of India. Ask why there arent Buddhists in that country. Ask what the Turks did to the slavic peoples for 600years. Ask about Muslim pirates attacking Europe for a thousand years.

Ask about current events. Ask how many bombs and murders in how many countries this last ‘holy’ month of Ramadan. Ask about how Muslims treat non-Muslims where they dominate. Ask about treatmentof women, gays and minority sects of Islam. Ask about apostasy laws in Muslim countries. Ask why there are so few Hindus now in Pakistan as compared to partition. Ask about the Armenian genocide or even what Paki Muslims did to Bangladesh Muslims, just 3 decades ago.
Ask why the Maldives have a law that non-Muslims lose their citizenship. Ask about the reeducation camps in Malaysia for exMuslims. Ask about increasing radicalism in so many Islamic countries, from Algeria (new laws against non-Muslims) to Egypt (persecution of Copts/Bahaii). Ask about honour killings, forced/child marriages, genital mutilation, abuse of women (evenwith how-to videos). Ask about Muslim trying to end our freedoms and kill those who criticize Islam/Mohammad.

These facts are not hard to find. Of course, Muslims have excuses. They will tell you that you don’t understand. They will say it is out of context or cultural. They say that others did these things too. They will say that the people that did or do these things are not ‘real’ Muslims, etc.

Maybe I am just picky, but I do not believe that people who are aware of these facts and still say “Praise be unto him” after the name of a man who did the evil deeds described in Islam’s own writings to be ‘moderates’.

Kactuz

Here is an interesting example of..... 'Da'wa' Islamic evangelism ?

I'm not sure what to make of this but it certainly deserves some attention.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TKahCRbWnkw&feature=email

One has to ask what went on with Fisher-Price to enable such a thing to be produced and deceptively sold.

If Christians ever stooped to the level of promoting the Gospel in this way I would be most dissappointed.

Errr.... Boaz?

>>If Christians ever stooped to the level of promoting the Gospel in this way I would be most dissappointed.<<

http://toys.about.com/b/2005/04/12/new-talking-jesus-doll-being-released.htm

Much fuss about nothing, in my view.

It has certainly brought out some interesting reactions in the US though. Here's one of my favourites from a blog called "mosquewatch" (I wonder what their phobia could be?)

"I had one of these devil dolls for my 2 year old. When I heard it preach the devil's tongue i burned in and saw satans face in the smoke! PRAISE JESUS TO GRANT ME A HOLY SWARD TO VANQUISH EVIL!"

I now have persistent mental images of a patch of green grass, battling satan...

What makes people so fearful? Is it the constant reinforcement from evangelical preachers, perhaps, that tell them every Sunday that they are in danger of being murdered in their beds by marauding bands of scimitar-wielding Muslims?

It is also fascinating that they believe that a doll that says "Islam is the light" is somehow capable of brainwashing a child.

And they truly do believe this - here's another excerpt.

"You know how kids get attached to their toys and this is a deliberate way for kids to start asking about islam or what it means. Besides, the "islam is the light" message will stick inside their heads, as kids are sponges and tend to remember childhood messages quite well. This is PURE Indoctrination!"

Jumping at shadows.

And Boaz, one more thing.

>>One has to ask what went on with Fisher-Price to enable such a thing to be produced and deceptively sold.<<

What makes you think that there is deception involved?

Why is deception involved P asks?

simple.. it is marketed as a religion neutral doll. "Mummy coo coo" kind of thing.

That it has a religious subliminal message is absolutely brain washing.

The Jesus doll is MARKETED as such... dare I be mildly insulting and say "even you" can work that out. More accutately though -SPECIALLY you can work that out, but you choose to deny the obvious.

The comments you cut/pasted are a bit bizarre for sure.. they exist.. what more to say?

But if you don't see a HUGE problem ethically with a doll being marketed as a 'doll' with no religious connections, and then it says "Islam is the light" to impressionable children then... dear Pericles....you need your head examined.

Either that or the level of your deception here is much bigger than anybody might have thought. The evidence is piling up old son.

CJ Morgan,

Thanks you for your encourgagement. I actually regularly follow olo but contribute in logical rational arguments
which is against Boaz's 'religion'.

Boaz,

"Your perspective lacks one vital ingredient... Those choosing Islam today do so in the light
of it being an established religion, they most likely do not examine closely it's early development"

I was expecting you to address above facts instead you came up with another piece of propaganda.
Anyway facts time, I think you would agree with the following:

1. Those chosing Islam today have lots of resources including books and internet. So the blind choice does not apply.
2. That most sources on Islam (published and on the web) are the hostile version not the friendly one.
Using google it will confirm that 80-90% of every article is an anti-Islam not a pro.

Another confirmation that facts, logic and rationale have no place in your angry comments about the Islamic faith.

Kaktuz,

The conflict between Shiaa and Sunna you referred to is a struggle over the system of governance between arab tribes
post the prophet's death and is not a religious conflict. It was one of those ugly bloody conflicts in the history
of Islam. Having said that, I am sure you are aware of similar bloody conflicts betwen Jewish tribes and the history's longest war (the 116 years war known as the 100 years war) between different groups of Christianity.

Peace,

I think I understand now.

>>That it has a religious subliminal message is absolutely brain washing.<<

There are some people who are so paranoid, that they can actually persuade themselves that a child's toy that speaks one - totally harmless - phrase, amongst many, can drive their children to a life of religious enslavement.

Quite frankly, that is beyond comprehension to normal mortals.

Boaz, if you doubt me, try to find another phrase, spoken by a toy, that has had a similar effect upon a child.

The concept is so outlandish, it defies belief.

>>The comments you cut/pasted are a bit bizarre for sure.. they exist.. what more to say?<<

There is more to say, Boaz.

These are responses from people who respond to your dog-whistle whack-a-mozzie antics.

This is the kind of thinking they employ, although thinking might be too strong a word. These are the pre-packaged reactions that you encourage, and like some form of contagion, spread through the groups of people whom you target with your fear-mongering.

It will be interesting - if it ever comes out - to discover whether the message in the doll was put there by a bored employee on a Chinese assembly line, but I somehow doubt that Osama bin Laden is involved.

To me, the whole episode is an absolute hoot.

And the reactions from the nutty pentecostalists - "I heard it preach the devil's tongue i burned in and saw satans face in the smoke!" - only serve to underline the ridiculousness of it all.

FH

Let's say they google "Basic Islam"

They will come up with sites like the following:

http://www.islamfortoday.com/beliefs.htm
The 2nd result is this one

http://islam.about.com/od/basicbeliefs/p/intro.htm

The 3rd one is this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/

Let's take just that last one. It refers to Islam as:

"Islam began in Arabia and was revealed to humanity by the Prophet Muhammad. Those who follow Islam are called Muslims."

In all 3 of those sites, I found not the slightest bit of negativity, but the last one clearly states "was revealed".. suggesting legitimacy and that God is the source.

FH..I'm curious about what you make of the sequence of events between Surah 33:50 and 51 and the Hadith which explains where 51 came from.

33.50 "I can have more wives than the believers including any beleiving women who offeres herself." (Paraphrase)

Hadith Muslim Book 008, Number 3453:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: I felt jealous of the women who offered themselves to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Then when Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, revealed this:" You may defer any one of them you wish, and take to yourself any you wish; and if you desire any you have set aside (no sin is chargeable to you)" (xxxiii. 51), I ('A'isha.) said: It seems to me that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire.

This tells the following:

a)Mohammad DID entertain a procession of women "offering" themselves
b)His wives became Jealous (of what?)
c)Mohammad's motivation was his sexual desire.
d)Point c above is proven by the fact that he had to invent 33:51 to justify 'deferring' his existing wives.
If he had not used them, there would be no reason for the jealousy OR the comment about his desires from Ayesha.

You might not be able to see this for yourself, but surely you can see how a person not under the power of this religion can see it as it really is? (words have meaning afterall)

The above hometruths about Islam and Mohammad are very DIFFicult to track down. The hapless enquirer would be most unlikely to find them.

Pericles: << To me, the whole episode is an absolute hoot.

And the reactions from the nutty pentecostalists - "I heard it preach the devil's tongue i burned in and saw satans face in the smoke!" - only serve to underline the ridiculousness of it all. >>

Too funny. I wonder what I'd see if I burnt one of my kid's Bratz dolls - Sarah Palin's face?

Yes, I can only imagine how tough it was, Boaz.

>>The above hometruths about Islam and Mohammad are very DIFFicult to track down. The hapless enquirer would be most unlikely to find them.<<

What does it say about you, that you dedicate so much of your life to tracking them down, unpacking them with your own brand of logic, and then publishing your findings as fact.

Does it not occur to you that these are the actions of a zealot?

>>You might not be able to see this for yourself, but surely you can see how a person not under the power of this religion can see it as it really is? (words have meaning afterall)<<

Boaz, you might not be able to see this for yourself, but surely you can see how a person not under the power of your religion can see your rabble rousing as it really is? (words have meaning, after all)

Your self-deception is evident in this small example:

FH stated "Using google it will confirm that 80-90% of every article is an anti-Islam not a pro"

You respond with

>>In all 3 of those sites, I found not the slightest bit of negativity<<

You pick three from 22.1 million entries, to contradict FH's 80-90%. Such fairness and square dealing.

There are 154 million entries against "Islam" - and right there on the front page we find the delightful Debbie Schlussel.

Here are some of the comments you find there:

"When is Fisher-Price coming out with a doll that vomits 'Kill the Infidel...Kill the Jew!! Allahu ackbar and *U*K YOU!!'...and then ignites its suicide bomb belt."

"Is it not true that islamists murder the Infidel in the name of islam and allah? And, those who don't murder the Infidel, sit in silent agreement with those who do?"

Incidentally, Boaz, you didn't respond to my pointing out the Jesus doll...

http://toys.about.com/b/2005/04/12/new-talking-jesus-doll-being-released.htm

...in the context of your observation:

>>If Christians ever stooped to the level of promoting the Gospel in this way I would be most dissappointed.<<

Would you like to comment?

Yes I thought I did Pericles.. the Jesus doll
was marketed AS a Jesus Doll. The Fisher Price
"Islam is light" one was marketed as 'a doll'.

Huge difference.

FACTS?
<<and then publishing your findings as fact.
Does it not occur to you that these are the actions of a zealot?>>

Dear Pericles, it is increasingly clear
that you know so little about Islam as
to be more dangerous than helpful.
You admit you don't know much about it..
but you stridently defend it.
That's irrational.

The more rational approach would be to
unpack my own presentation and find fault with it.
Unfortunately that approach it would involve abject denial of the meaning of language and grammar.

FACTS

1/ Surah 33:50 outlines/lists the women available to Mohammad for marriage. (Which at that time could include Nikah Muta'/temporary marriage with an age range of around 9 to maturity)

2/ The Hadith shown explains how the next verse came to be. 33:51

3/ The verse thus explained justifies Mohammad's behavior.

4/ MOhammad's behavior is contrary to the behavior he previously laid down in the Quran for Muslims. (equal treatment, no more than 4 wives)

Now...they are the facts.. there is no interpretation whatsover in those 4 points.
Do what you wish with them...but they are still 'facts'.

You could always go down the path of total
irratinality and simply deny that they
say what they say...or.. perhaps just attack
the Bible.. that's usually a good tactic
(unless it's against me) or..you could always
abuse me.. "you are a zealot" yep..that makes
a lot of sense... but it seems you need to be
dragged kicking and screaming to the actual facts
of the matter which any judge worth his salt
would have no problem in assessing within 30 seconds.

I think that what is being sold to us in the West as moderate Islam is a concoction; artfully flavoured with forty-six Humanist herbs and spices, to make it more appetizing to secular clientele.

The Islamic spin doctors have picked up our buzz words/concepts.
A current favourite is -inclusiveness-it’s been popularized by the multiculturalism and equal opportunity platforms.So we now hear talk of the brotherhood of world Muslims, or the common heritage of the Abrahamic religions and the need to emphasize “our similarities”.

However, in one of my more recent readings “An Idiots Guide To Islam” I came across this little piece “’The Jew have broken up into seventy-two sects. The Christians have broken up into seventy-two sects and my community will break up into seventy-two , AND ALL OF THEM WILL BE IN HELLFIRE EXCEPT ONE’…(the author goes on to add) this prediction (from The Prophet)contains the caveat that only one Muslim sect will be correct”

Now…if all but one, of the (closely related) Sunis, Shias, Sufis and Salafis factions will be damned, and the answer may be it’s none of the above but a new group yet unseen -how inclusive can Islam be?

On the Islamic Judgment Day while the chosen few will be hand fed dew chilled grapes by buxom maidens. The rest of us will have to make do with stiff cheese.[Islams portrayal of heaven is quite materialistic –so it is not too wide of the mark see heavenly reward in those terms].

One thing I am more certain of is,if on judgment day you see a old Steptoe like character - with a brown nose- among the cheese eaters, generally misbehaving himself and calling everyone a ‘wingnut’ or Islamophobe ¬– that’ll be CJ Morgan.

Horus: << One thing I am more certain of is,if on judgment day you see a old Steptoe like character - with a brown nose- among the cheese eaters, generally misbehaving himself and calling everyone a ‘wingnut’ or Islamophobe ¬– that’ll be CJ Morgan >>

Just as well "judgment day" (of whatever persuasion) is just a fantasy, eh? Tremble on, you poor fearful thing.

Incidentally, why "old Steptoe like"? I'm actually middle-aged, slightly overweight and anything but Cockney - nothing like Steptoe at all. Most people comment that I remind them of Billy Connolly, actually. Mind you, I'm never too sure whether that's a compliment or an insult.

Porky: << You could always go down the path of total
irratinality and simply deny that they
say what they say...or.. perhaps just attack
the Bible.. that's usually a good tactic
(unless it's against me) or..you could always
abuse me.. "you are a zealot" yep..that makes
a lot of sense... but it seems you need to be
dragged kicking and screaming to the actual facts
of the matter which any judge worth his salt
would have no problem in assessing within 30 seconds. >>

You haven't been hitting the "holy spirit" have you, old chap?

Good old Steptoe :)

unable to argue about facts... resorts to mockery :)

CJ.. I've been 'drunk' on that 'Spirit' at times, and I assure you.. that even the more coloful descriptions of a 'speed' trip don't come near it.

But that intoxication is not one which impairs the senses, rather it enhances and enables them, and best of all there is no crash afterwards.

For you...the cost of that beautiful annointing will be a new birth.
Even then, you will have to reach the end of yourself before you can even know what it means.

Just think... transformed from having only a grave (and after that the J) to to look forward to.. into a meeting with Him who said "I am the resurrection and the life"

Of one thing we may all be certain.. if you go to your grave outside of Christ it will not be through lack of information or encouragement to give your life to Him.

Irrational, moi?

>>Dear Pericles, it is increasingly clear that you know so little about Islam as to be more dangerous than helpful. You admit you don't know much about it.. but you stridently defend it. That's irrational.<<

Boaz, I know as much as I need to about Islam, and about Christianity, to recognize the difference between intellectual argument and tub-thumping rabble-rousing.

You wilfully misinterpret my antipathy towards your whack-a-mozzie antics as "defending Islam", so that you don't need to justify your own actions, merely attack mine.

You wilfully misinterpret my rejection of your justification for such actions - the blind belief you have in certain selected parts of ancient texts - as "knocking Christianity". This allows you to convince yourself that you are somehow defending your religion, when the issue is the use to which it is put.

You then provide a classic example of Boaz-speak:

>>The more rational approach would be to unpack my own presentation and find fault with it. Unfortunately that approach it would involve abject denial of the meaning of language and grammar.<<

Leaving aside your shoot-myself-in-the-foot observations on "language and grammar", this is a classic example of your self-delusion.

"Unpacking" your presentation would require an acceptance of your groundrules. That your choice of excerpt from this or that religious text somehow has independent value. That your assessment of the motives of others is somehow more insightful than other people's. To argue against your position without questioning its premise would require an admission that it has some basis, some foundation, apart from its own self-importance.

It doesn't.

Until you are able to see that your accusations have no foundation in common sense, we are bound to continue to disagree:

>>You could always... simply deny that they say what they say.<<

I don't.

>>perhaps just attack the Bible.<<

My only concern is the reliance you place upon it.

>>you could always abuse me.. "you are a zealot"<<

The cap seems to fit.

>>it seems you need to be dragged kicking and screaming to the actual facts<<

"Facts" aren't at issue here, Boaz, simply your interpretation of them.

Part 1 of 2

aaah.. the sweet smell of roasting Pericles :)

Sometimes it takes a considerable effort but when you finally, absent mindedly swing that gun down and accidently pull the trigger and blow half your foot off(with your double barrelled 12 guage)... welllll.. my ethics prevent me from rejoicing over your pain BUT.... we might at least be able to make some progress.

Barrel 1
"Until you are able to see that your accusations have no foundation in common sense, we are bound to continue to disagree:"

Barrel 2

"Facts" aren't at issue here, Boaz, simply your interpretation of them.

Oh my.. you have no idea how juicy that 2nd barrel is.

Now....let's just focus on barrel 2 "your intepretation of them"

Which of course leads us back to the basics of language and grammar.

I've outlined a set of facts, and even the dimmest of dimwits can see what is going on here, but they seem to elude you.

Let's recap the FACTS.

1/ Mohammad outlines all the categories of women HE may marry in 33:50

2/ In that verse, he contradicts his previous limitations on how many women a Muslim can marry, by claiming that Allah allows him and only him, to marry all those outlined PLUS "a believing woman who offers herself"

3/ One of his wives testifies that he made good use of this 'plus' provision by using the plural "women" in her hadith.

4/ She then says that He received 'revelation' to justify that which was illegal for all other Muslims to do. (treating wives unfairly)

5/ His response then becomes the 51st verse of the 33rd chapter of the Quran, tailor made to suit his 'desires' which Allah rushes to fulfill.

Now.. as I said before, even you.. with all your stubborn "whack-a-critic of Islam"-itus can see what is going on here.

...continued next post

ROAST PERICLES part 2 of 2

INTERPRETATION.

I'm not sure what goes on in your head at this point, but I think at a guess it's something like "I don't care how true or accurate Polycarp or Paul L or Kactuz might be, if it is critical of Islam, I'll attack them"

But if you were even a bit honest about this issue, you, like even Muslim commentators would recognize there is a serious problem here.

Maududi, on the issue of Mohammad's marriage to the divorced wife of his adopted son (an act which was abhorrent even to pagan Arab culture) says the following:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau33.html

"As soon as the marriage was contracted, there arose a storm of propaganda against the Holy Prophet."

He goes on.....

<<The other problem was that before marrying Hadrat Zainab, he had four wives already in the houses: .... Hadrat Zainab was his fifth wife. At this the opponents raised the objection, and the Muslims also started entertaining doubts, that as for others it had been forbidden to keep more than four wives at a time, but how the Holy Prophet himself had taken a fifth wife also.>>

Now.. make no mistake, Maududi is a very loyal and passionate Muslim.
He sees the problems.. but dear roasting Pericles in 2008 ...does not! :)

Maududi simply accepts Mohammad's solution "Allah said it's all ok"

Pericles says of critics of the above "a classic example of self delusion" (at this I take a deeeeep breath)

Dear Pericles.. the delusion is yours I'm afraid.

The Quran says it
The Hadith supports it.
Maududi/Muslim commentators recognize it..

It gets worse. He even claims 'no fault' if he takes a women:
a)WithOUT dowery
b)WithOUT Guardians permission.

(Both being requirements for all other Muslims)

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1839&Itemid=89
<<a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) the believers.) no woman has the right to offer herself to any man without a Wali or a dowery, EXCEPT..... to the Prophet>> . (Ibn Kathir)

Pericles doesn't get it.

For the zillionth time Boaz, I have absolutely no interest in, nor do I share your enthusiasm for, random excerpts from an ancient text.

You can regurgitate as much of their content as you like, it does not represent evidence to me.

It doesn't matter whether that particular ancient text originated with a cabal of like-minded zealots, dedicated to the creation of a religion from the mythology that grew up around a charismatic soothsayer, or the writings of a single individual bent upon an identical enterprise.

To me, they may as well be in Aramaic, for all the value they hold in discussing twentyfirst century issues, in a country that didn't even exist when those books were written, and in a language that wasn't around then either.

These stories have no resonance in a society that has learned to think for itself. I know that you believe that no-one is able to do this without turning into a paid-up member of NAMBLA, but strangely, they do exist. They live normal, healthy, responsible and honest lives, without having to listen to you banging on about worshipping some random deity.

>>I've outlined a set of facts, and even the dimmest of dimwits can see what is going on here, but they seem to elude you.<<

Unfortunately, you once again choose to fight your battles on premises that you, alone, can subscribe to. This is akin to Obama saying to McCain, I'm willing to debate your policies, so long as we do so in Swahili.

Why you still insist on quoting verses at me, providing your own commentary to those verses, then berating me for not agreeing to their logic, frankly astounds me. It should be obvious to the meanest intelligence that communication can only begin when there is a shared foundation.

Usually, of course, using English is a fruitful starting point.

But even that is of no value when your thought processes diverge so far from the norm as to make a shared language superfluous.

Do you also speak in tongues? Maybe we'll have better luck with those.

BINGO :)

*You can regurgitate as much of their content as you like, it does not represent evidence to me.*

Dear Pericles...that rather says it all :)

It represented evidence to Justice Higgins... he paid very close attention to it... but for you ? nah :)

Oh my.. ..oh my oh my.... are you this far gone or just this stubborn?

I think part of the trouble between us is... that when I write on Islam in a critical way, I am writing to expose something about Islam to

a) Those who currently adhere to it.(misguided)
b) Those who might be contemplating it.
c) Those who seek a better understanding of it in order to engage with Muslims about faith issues.

Now..if you don't fit into any of those categories..why in the world do you bother to rip into me? (along with Paul L and Kaztuz)

You seem to have this trigger mechanism which always rises to defend Islam or.. in your mind it's expose bigotry and narrow mindedness....
and all the while you claim to not have the slightest bit of interest in either Islam or Christianity. You claim to be an atheist..then you attack Paul L who is one of your mob.

At least if you are going to attack peoples position.. you should be informed about it. Otherwise you end up just attacking the person.

Maybe u feel threatened...that if one cannot find fault with Christ or his teaching.. but one can find fault with Islam and it's prophet.. perhaps Christ IS....'The Way' and this scares u?

Frazier is on now and I find his comedy more alluring than debating with you :) so.. tata.

Boaz,

The point I am making (which surprisingly every one seem to get but yourself):

- If you are a true believer in your faith then just celebrate it without jumping on others. I don’t see followers of the Islamic faith caring about whats in and what out of your scripture. Seems all you read is the Quran and the hadith which I find odd.

- Your arguments against the prophet’s wives are understood only if it comes from an atheist. But you claim to believe your scripture which talks about god’s prophets marrying 3, 9 and 700 wives. You also believe that some of them drank and slept with their own daughters. I can understand that your belief system contains some unexplained and ethically challenging material but thats not an excuse to tarnish others. Just try to come to terms with your faith or find something else.

Finally Boaz look around: all religions ae still around since the dawn of time and they will eventually come to an 'eco' system.
There is no precedent for anything succeeding to stop a religious conviction from growing. In fact, such as the case with christianity during the roman empire, the more resistence the more it grew.

Peace,

Dear FH.... your theory would be nice if all your mob followed it.

I don't write just to put you or your own understanding of that faith down. (though from your perspective it might seem that way in OLO)

No dear friend.. let me give you an example of what is happening this very day.

http://rmitis.org.au/

If you look at the poster at the lower section of the page you will see a classic contemporary example of an attempt to "Islamize" one of our major Universities.

I say 'Islamize' because that mob are seeking to have a permanent structure on STATE land, (a mosque) which is ONLY for Muslims. The particular part of the Uni they want is at the CORE of RMIT and it's history.

If they were granted this demand...it would radically alter the whole ethos of the place and tilt it in an 'Islamic' direction.
This group is very active at RMIT having regular da'wa days and reaching out to non Muslims seeking to spread the message.

Now.. why do I have a problem with this? Simple. Pure Islam as taught and practiced by Mohammad is this (in relation to Polytheists/Mushriks)

CHOICES.

1/ Embrace Islam.
2/ Pay Jizya
3/ Fight
4/ (don't fight but)Be killed. (if they remain in the land)

You would know that this pattern was laid down in surah 9

Now.. IS THIS happening today?
YES..it absolutely is...but not in Melbourne.. rather in Mosul.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.violence/index.html

<<A week ago, leaflets were distributed in several predominantly Christian neighborhoods, threatening families to "either convert to Islam or pay the jizyah or leave the city or face death," said the Interior Ministry official.>>

Now..I'm not prepared to EVER allow the Muslim community to gain such a foothold in Australia that what many would call 'radical' elements can take surah 33:21 to heart as the RMIT-IS seems to

"Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have an excellent example to follow for whoever hopes in Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much."

Mosul? they are just following his (mohammad's) example mate.. there is no escaping it.

Porkie

I must say in this case I agree with CJ- Porkies perfect.

You say your a man of God but God doesnt want his people spreading hatred.

You KEEP going on about problems overseas but RUFUSE to enlighten us at all about any experience you have what so ever - or Muslims you have met in Australia!

You also LIED when you said you did not get the details you requested forwared to your email address.

Yes you did and you know it. In those emails that YOU requested for your own nformation regarding Pauline there was a invatation to actually meet with some Muslim People to discuss your concerns.

So its clear you are just stiring up trouble where you can.

Why? Well imop because you have been bible bashed through life and its probably one of the few topics you follow.

Sure there are some Muslims I would give two bob for- Just like Christians.

Of course we shouldnt sit back and see Australia turned into a Muslim country.

However your certainly going the wrong way about thngs and brining shame on all Christians.

Again I will remind you David out of three thousand letter to Churches In Australia asking for some leadership towards Gods creatures from Churches we got only one repy= From Muslim Leaders.

We are following Gods will by trying to look after his creatures.
All you are doing is preading your vile harted towards Muslims.

Why OLO allow this to contiune I will never know.

SHAME On Church Leaders for turning their backs on Gods most innocent- Australias Animals.

Get off your laxy Bums and take some leadsership of what is CLEARLY your job!

God is watching
From a distance

People like Polycarp actually having me wishing that there is a judgmental, vengeful god out there. Because, Polly, while I am aware that everyone has their faults, you actually seem to revel in your denigration of others. You never admit to making mistakes and judge everyone according to your own narrow definition of christianity.

If your god is real he will be judging those who bully, judge and belittle. Or do you believe a simple confession will absolve you from all the hatred you foment?

Do you consider yourself to be meek, mild, loving and accepting of all others on this world?

Another day, another whack-a-mozzie diatribe.

Ho hum.

>>If you look at the poster at the lower section of the page you will see a classic contemporary example of an attempt to "Islamize" one of our major Universities.<<

Boaz, if you look at the bottom of the poster, you will see listed against "Campaign supported by", both the RMIT Christian Union and the RMIT Jewish Union Society.

Or had this small point escaped your notice?

Does it not occur to you that there are some people who take the freedom to worship seriously? That this might be a protest against the RMIT's actions contrary to this freedom?

After all, the campaign is not to provide something new, but to reinstate a facility that had previously existed.

How is it that you did not notice this? The only possible conclusion is willful blindness, simply to allow you to make cheap anti-Muslim points.

Of similar slant is the example you provide of anti-Christian activity in Iraq.

"At least 900 Christian families have fled Mosul in the past week, terrified by a series of killings and threats by Muslim extremists ordering them to convert to Islam or face possible death, officials said Saturday."

That article goes on to quote the governor of Nineveh, who states clearly:

"Of course, al Qaeda elements are behind this campaign against Christians"

In case it had escaped your notice, Boaz, al Qaeda is a terrorist organization, not particularly dedicated to conversion, but very interested in murder, mayhem and disruption.

To deliberately parallel the acts of terrorists with the peaceful and democratic stance adopted by the RMIT Islamic Society is classic rabble-rousing hate-mongering.

How is it that you cannot see this?

I love it when you resort to hollow triumphalism, Boaz...

>>BINGO :) *You can regurgitate as much of their content as you like, it does not represent evidence to me.* Dear Pericles...that rather says it all :)<<

It inevitably means that you have so lost the plot, that you are forced to pretend "victory" in order to disguise the fact.

>>It represented evidence to Justice Higgins... he paid very close attention to it... but for you ? nah :)<<

Now the really intriguing aspect of this is that you refer to Justice Higgins, but you fail to provide a context or a quote. This automatically leads me to believe that you are bluffing, in the hope that no-one is going to check up on you.

But you know, Boaz, that I always do.

Justice Higgins' ruling was overturned in the Court of Appeal.

The grounds for this latter ruling were that Justice Higgins "had wrongly interpreted Section 8 of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act". Substantial to this ruling was his tendency "to fault Pastor Scot on his selection of quotes from the Koran, Hadith and the writings of Muslim scholars generally"

So what do we have here, after all that?

You contrast my refusal to accept your "selection of quotes from the Koran, Hadith and the writings of Muslim scholars generally" with that of Higgins, who apparently relied upon such a process.

But Boaz, guess what? Justice Higgins was shown to be wrong in his reliance upon such excerpts, by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

So by definition, the Supreme Court agrees with me: you cannot go around selectively piecing together extracts from someone else's scriptures, use them to come to a judgment on their meaning, and hope to get away with it.

So, I'm with Justices Nettle, Ashley and Neave on this one.

"You can regurgitate as much of their content as you like, it does not represent evidence to me"

>>BINGO :)<<

Part 1 of 2
Good grief... you blessed folks are all over the place grabbing at this or that straw and straw man.

PALE.. I wish you were less like a dog with a bone about this email thing.. let me put the record straight.

I did receive an email from you.. and I did make use of it, I did write to Pauline and did receive a reply.

Now.. the CHRONOLOGY of those realities might not seem important to you but it is. If... when I responded to your question I had not checked my mail OR it had gone into my spam box OR any one of a number of other reasons.. it would cause me to say "I've not received" by in any case..I cannot for the life of me see why you are so clinging to this..it's a non issue. No..I didn't 'lie' as you put it. One of these days a few people will give you the same as you give others and you might not like it.

PERICLES. You are totally oblivious to a simple fact.
Whether Al Qaeda is the group doing the threatening is irrelevant, the core point is....those threats reflect exactly how Mohammad the founder of Islam acted and spoke regarding "Mushriks". Notice they could stay IF they paid the Jizya.. exactly as MOhammad dictated.
So..they are the true Muslims and the rest are following their own version.
Justice higgins took issue with the Dannies claim that "Islam is cruel" and he rebuked Pastor Scott for quoting Surah 5:38 and 40 without mentioning verse 39.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2004/2510.html
Goto para 276 the following is in 2nd paragraph following that point.

"Secondly, the way in which he dealt with the Qur'an verse 38 to 40 gave me great concern with regard to his ability to put forward an honest and fair representation of Islam. I am of the view that he deliberately omitted verse 39 so as to give an anti-Islamic interpretation of a Qur'anic verse." (Higgins)

PART 2 of 2

Higgins Error.(cont)

38 "cut off the thief's hand"

39. But if the thief repents after his crime, and amends his conduct, Allah turneth to him in forgiveness; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Now Higgins conclusion is in error, because he fails to link the understanding to a PREVIOUS verse which unlocks the true meaning.

i.e. v 34 "Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."

Now.. to fully understand THAT you have to read v 33 which speaks about cutting off hands etc.

THE IMPORTANT bit in all that is.. "repent BEFORE they fall into your power" ie.. if they are busted/caught as thieves they WILL have their hands cut off there is NO chance to repent once caught.

SUMMARY The meaning of Surah 5 as it stands is “Islam is a religious code which stipulates the mutilation of human beings for crimes or for opposing Islam (Mohammad) and the only way to avoid this mutilation being carried out is to repent BEFORE falling into the hands of the Muslims”

Thus, a full consideration of the overall context of Surah 5 would have revealed to Justice Higgins that the claims made by the 2 Dannies were absolutely correct.

Pericles..There you have it..chapter, verse, paragraph by numbers links to the judgement etc etc..

So my claim is utterly validated “Justice Higgins did take the use of verses into serious consideration” and you also might learn both from his approach and also by his mistake about how to interpret documents.

Sometimes dealing with your logical meanderings, Boaz, is like having something rather unpleasant on your shoe. No matter how much you scrape it on the grass, there's still that smell that hangs around.

>>So my claim is utterly validated “Justice Higgins did take the use of verses into serious consideration”<<

Your claim is entirely validated, Boaz.

There is no doubt about it, Justice Higgins did indeed "take the use of verses into serious consideration."

But does it not occur to you place this next to the fact that his approach was rejected by the Supreme Court?

So your claim is validated. But it is wrong.

Let's take a simple example.

Adam Goodes is reported for striking Matt Thomas. He gets to the tribunal and is cleared.

You would report this as "Goodes is a villain, he struck Thomas".

In evidence, you could produce the reporting umpires written testimony... "at the senter bouns the said player did wack the Port bloke, I sor im do it"... as vindication of your position.

But history will record it as a non-event.

In the same way, I'm afraid you cannot use a non-event to support your position.

To put it all back into context, my position remains that:

"I have absolutely no interest in, nor do I share your enthusiasm for, random excerpts from an ancient text. You can regurgitate as much of their content as you like, it does not represent evidence to me."

Higgins tried to use random excerpts from ancient text to build a judgment against the Dannys, i.e. to use them as evidence.

He failed to make this stick. The Supreme Court threw out his decision.

Which part of this is not clear to you?

Random excerpts from an ancient text are not evidence, Boaz.

It doesn't matter how many different interpretations you find.

They are all invalid.

Instead of entering into the pissing competition that is "I can cherry pick better than you".

I asked Polly an simple straightforward question as a direct result of his cherry picking of the quran to justify his (Polly's) opinion of Islam. I do believe that Islam is a religion that needs to move into the 21st Century, but so does Christianity, therefore the pot and kettle game is entirely moot.

As Poly rarely (ever?) exhibits the qualities that a follower of Christianity is expected to espouse, I made the following observation and subsequent question:

"People like Polycarp actually having me wishing that there is a judgmental, vengeful god out there. Because, Polly, while I am aware that everyone has their faults, you actually seem to revel in your denigration of others. You never admit to making mistakes and judge everyone according to your own narrow definition of christianity.

If your god is real he will be judging those who bully, judge and belittle. Do you believe a simple confession will absolve you from all the hatred and hurt you foment?

Do you consider yourself to be meek, mild, loving and accepting of all others on this world?"

OK, I admit I won't be holding my breath on achieving an answer - let alone an honest answer, but occasionally I like to demonstrate Polly's inability for self-reflection. And (sorry Pericles) the posts are very boring. I like to play...intelligently...but play nonetheless.

Dear Fractelle... humble apologies for not answering your question.

I'll try to do that now. (I was so immersed in that 'stuff on the shoe' experience (i.e. dealing with Pericles errors) that I failed to observe your final line.

QUESTION: Do you consider yourself to be meek, mild, loving and accepting of all others on this world?

"meek" Dictionary: 1. Showing patience and humility; gentle.
"Mild" Dictionary: 1. Moderate in type, degree, effect, or force:

You can judge :) Yesterday I had an encounter with a socialist activist. We discussed a particular issue. Our engagement was vigorous but polite, but when I sought to refer to actual evidence to decide the issue, he began a predictable rant.
"whoooo the F@#K do you think you are?" "You are F*@Khead" Well.. I COULD have responded with "Take your pick.. lose the language or lose some teeth" :) but I decided to just endure it and respond with "I'm a member of a democracy.. an Australian citizen etc etc..without any particular anger on my face"
You can call it as you see it.

"Loving"? hmmm yep.. I do have a love for others, including enemies, but that does not mean if a person has a difference of view I won't engage with them and seek to resolve it with evidence. But what you see here is not the complete 'me'. You might ask this 'How many rude or insulting names do I call people here? I have mentioned to you that I felt your 'argument/position' was fractured.. which is a synonym for 'unreasonable/without foundation' I don't consider that an insult to you. Hey..I'll give you a hug anytime :) (this is where you say eeeeuuuuwwwwwarrgggghcough etc:)

"Accepting of all Others" There are various levels of acceptance.
Social acceptance and friendliness is different from accepting someone into fellowship at Church. I will be just like anyone else on the social level but if a bloke said "I'm a Christian gay and God loves me doing what I love"...I'm afraid it just would not work.
I won't accept a Satanist on any level.

Boaz,

You keep contradicting yourself regarding your intent. On one hand you say that people search and examine the truth before they convert. On the other you acknowledge that many people convert to Islam even though for every pro-Islamic website there is a 100 Islamophobic sites.

Then again you complain that the few pro-Islam sites don’t criticise Islam.

I don't believe your intent otherwise you would not be publishing 5000+ comments in over 3 years of 350 words on a secular site such as OLO. Its like authoring a dictionary. Similar to peicles and other rational posters, I believe you are hear to incite fear. If we don't learn from history we can commit the same errors. Remember the brainwashed Michael Dennis Rohan story?

The part of your belief system that incites fear, hate and inevitably violence against a minority is illegal in Australia. I believe if anyone is convicted of violence and was ever found talking to a boaz david, Polycarp or one of his brethren, you should all be joined in the court room as accomplices.

Peace,

PERICLES ERROR

1/Higgins tried to use random excerpts from ancient text to build a judgment against the Dannys, i.e. to use them as evidence.
2/He failed to make this stick. The Supreme Court threw out his decision.

3/Which part of this is not clear to you?

4/Random excerpts from an ancient text are not evidence, Boaz.

5/It doesn't matter how many different interpretations you find.

6/They are all invalid.

Ok.. time to sort your your woolly thinking and replace it with the clear, reasoned and evidence based variety.

1/ NO... Higgins did NOT try to use random excerpts he CRITICIZED the use of them by the Dannies and tried to correct them by highlighting that they deliberately left out what seemed to him to be a decisive verse. In so doing he himself neglected a more important one in the bigger context which actually DID decide the issue.

2/ He did not fail to make 'that' stick... he failed on other grounds. i.e..that Section 8 of the RRT2001 (NOT the verses from the Quran) was wrongly intepreted by justice Higgins...

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2006/284.html

3/ Which part of that is not clear to you?

4/ There is a difference between RANDOM texts and carefully selected texts which validly support or negate a position. Given that a particular faith is BASED on the text in question, it thus requires us to correctly understand and apply that text appropriately to the real world. If the behavior of Australian institutions is subject to our constitution, then we are obliged to UNDERSTAND that constitution. You don't have to be an Australian Citizen to understand it!

When Muslims (RMIT Islamic Society) quote Quran 33:21 “"Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have an excellent EXAMPLE to follow.."
http://rmitis.org.au/articles.php?id=3

Then... only a dimwit of the first order in total denial would reject the idea that close scrutiny and criticism of ANYthing pertaining to Mohammad's life, actions, teaching etc is entirely valid.
Not just the sugarcoated snippits on that page.

He ordered THIS for Ka'ab Bin Al Ashraf. Buyeri just followed his example.
http://fullmetalcynic.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/theo_van_gogh_murdered_by_religion_of_peace.jpg

I have to agree, Fractelle.

>>occasionally I like to demonstrate Polly's inability for self-reflection. And (sorry Pericles) the posts are very boring.<<

I am constitutionally unable to resist taking Boaz to task for his whack-a-mozzie antics, and such is his method of argument, we quite frequently find ourselves in this pointless chain of him saying "look, see?" and me saying "you're kidding, right?"

But it is fun to see him give free rein to his second vice, that of self-aggrandizement. If this part of his ego isn't fed, he tends to start threads himself, to describe how he accosts people in the street with his evangelist hat on, or is attacked by rabid dogs in the park.

But you raise an interesting point.

Does this "demonstrate Polly's inability for self-reflection"? Or does it merely highlight his intense self-interest?

The two are by no means mutually exclusive, of course. It is simply a decision which of them is demonstrated most fully in his posts.

The response you got to your question here is particularly illuminating. Well done.

Typically, he fails even to attempt an answer, but takes you off on a fanciful journey through a ("you be the judge") encounter with a horrid "socialist activist", to an imaginary conversation with a Christian gay, whom he apparently considers a Satanist.

But only once does he get close to answering your question "Do you consider yourself to be... etc."

Most people would say "well, yes, actually I do" or "not really, I'm a bit of a tyrant"

But not our Boaz.

The closest he gets is to describe himself as loving, although he appears a little confused as to how this integrates with insulting people. He has no view on whether he is meek 'n mild (I get a hint, though, that he might like to be considered butch and tough), and clearly does not understand the concept of tolerance and acceptance of others.

So your mission is accomplished: he clearly is totally incapable of self-reflection.

I'll try to be less boring in future. Thanks for the rap over the knuckles.

Pericles - thanks, I do understand your reflex to "whacka-mozzie" I have similar gut reactions to other topics...

I am very pleased with Poly's answer, except not for the reasons he would like to think. Yes, there is a massive ego element and yes, his religious belief is highly qualified and conditional.

Poly if you were capable of introspection you would've given a very different answer. A shame you lack the insight needed for such illumination.

The truly worrying fact is that it is people with Poly's frame of reference who conduct such campaigns as "Islam Watch". If you look for fault, that is exactly what you will find, I just wish these people would start with themselves first. I do believe that Jesus said something similar about throwing stones.

Personally, I find Porky's equation of gay Christians with Satanists astounding, even from him.

Poly

I am glad you got a reply from Pauline. Thats more than we got from you.
David I know you received our invatation to work with Australian Muslims on this progect. You can deny it until the cows come home.

If 'you' David ' continue 'to 'divide' Muslims from ordinaray Australians the results should be very clear.

If you really ``were`` a Christian you would CHEER a programe working together WITH Muslims in Australia to improve Animal Welfare while forming strong business ties and friendships.

Its time for Church Leaders to speak out about Animal Cruelty.

Its WELL past time

Are Muslims the only ones prepaired to do something to slaughter in Australia to stop Gods creatures being subject to tweleve weeks on death ships with temperatures over 50 degrees!?

Oh, and so often David we hear- "Those cruel Muslims driving live animal exports.

No David
How about the TRUTH= The cruel Christians sending them- all the while church leaders keep their mouth shut tight afraid to loose there scraps of Government hand outs.

God must be furious with the Church Leaders of Australia. (As they say for 30 bits of shillings a man becomes a rat!)

Doesnt show much faith does it.? After all the good Lord COULD if he wished turn that 30 shillings into 30 billion along with the fish and wine.

It us ourselves that are trying to do Gods work David by speaking up for his creatures and trying hard to form bonds of understanding and strong friendships.

It is YOU who wants to keep posting Anti Muslim Threads.

Search your heart and be honest just for once.

What is driving you David is total fear.

Goodness can be found in all men and women along with evil.

Think about it.

Dear Pale.. my turn :) I replied with a 'thanx' to your email..and I suggest that your inablity to find it is evidence of a tech error at ur end, or.. maybe ur looking for specific support for your cause. I tend to avoid moving too far in that direction as I have my own very time consuming causes. But I wish you well in yours.

FRACCY.. you asked me a question and I tried to answer it with real world experiences. What in the world do you expect in this 'written' type forum? grrrrr... "Oh yes..I'm an egotistical, megalomaniac who only lives to incite fear, hatred and loathing of non me" :)

The truth is.. you mob allllways confuse the following:

CONFIDENCE= arrogance & EGO.
DISAGREEMENT= incite fear, hate and loathing.
INFORMATION= selected word bytes designed to produce maximum social carnage and dislocation.

We will continue to disagree on those issues... no biggy, after all it provides a platform for a lot of rather smart remarks :) (generally of a negative nature and directed at yours truly)

What price entertainment eh?

FH has now characterized me as a mad bomber :) (fertile imagination there old son) Pericles has me as a 'wannabe Mosely' and CJ welllll.. he has many names for me.
My 'hsyteria detection' meter is crashing on the full scale deflection stop.

The Marxist moron I encountered yesterday was a few sandwiches short of a picnic... as soon as one points to evidence, it was 'rant' time... how predictable.

PERICLES ERROR.. yep..I'm repeating this because he has been shown to be a dill by my response, and he chose to have a 'whack-a-me' rant instead. "Oh.. you cannot reflect ner ner" kind of thing.
Doesn't change the fact that he asserted "no context/sounds like a bluff" and I showed him his error with documentation. Oh wait.. that sounds like 'arrogance' :) *Hangs head in shame*

You're like a dog with a bone, Boaz.

>>PERICLES ERROR.. yep..I'm repeating this because he has been shown to be a dill by my response, and he chose to have a 'whack-a-me' rant instead. "Oh.. you cannot reflect ner ner" kind of thing. Doesn't change the fact that he asserted "no context/sounds like a bluff" and I showed him his error with documentation<<

It's time to bury this one.

I'm pretty sure your observations refer to this little exchange:

Me: "For the zillionth time Boaz, I have absolutely no interest in, nor do I share your enthusiasm for, random excerpts from an ancient text. You can regurgitate as much of their content as you like, it does not represent evidence to me."

You: "BINGO :) *You can regurgitate as much of their content as you like, it does not represent evidence to me.* Dear Pericles...that rather says it all :) It represented evidence to Justice Higgins... he paid very close attention to it... but for you ? nah :)"

I agreed with you that [random excerpts from an ancient text] represented evidence to Justice Higgins, but gently pointed out that he was overruled by the Supreme Court.

By your logic, that makes a dill out of both me and the Supreme Court of Victoria.

I'm quite happy to be in their company, rather than yours and Justice Higgins'.

But I may be wrong, and you are referring to some completely different issue.

Was it perhaps your attempt to smear the RMIT Islamic Society's campaign for a prayer room? The one that is supported by both the RMIT Christian Union and the RMIT Jewish Union Society? Or the one where you equated their activity to Al Qaeda atrocities in Iraq?

No, couldn't be, I didn't get a response to my observations on those.

>>Pericles has me as a 'wannabe Mosely'<<

We can at least agree on that.

Have a hate-free day, if you can.

Polly: "FRACCY.. you asked me a question and I tried to answer it with real world experiences. What in the world do you expect in this 'written' type forum?"

What I hoped for was that you would look within yourself for that is where the answers are. Not some stoush with the Marxist equivalent of a bible basher. Anecdotes were not what I was seeking, nor did I request that. You were asked to conduct some self contemplation, the effects of your behaviour on others who have no argument with you except that they are different; gay, female or muslim. How you would feel if you were any of the above and were told that you were evil whether or not you had done any wrong or were ever likely to? But evil nonetheless because the bible tells you so.

Dear Fractelle.. let me turn that question around a bit "How would you feel if... you were told you were evil" etc?

That dear Fraccy IS the whole issue.. it is the epicentre of it all.

It IS about "how I feel" when described as "evil, deluded, away from truth, Cursed by Allah, to be destroyed by Allah" all of which (If you care to look) you will find in the 30th vese of the 9th chapter of the Quran.. with Christians NAMED!

And that is why I point it out. Because "I" and every other Christian, including the 900 families who have fled Mosul in fear for their lives in the past few weeks after receiving the 'choices' from Muslims.

-Embrace Islam
-Pay the unbelief Tax
-Fight and die
-Leave the country.
All of which are found in the preceeding verse to 30..i.e.. 9:29

So..let's be absolutely clear and unambiguous... my response to being described as all those things... is to TELL IT LOUD AND CLEAR TO ALL WHO WILL LISTEN.

Where you and Pericles and CJ go wrong..is that you feel for some surreal reason that to SPEAK about how I and my faith are condemned by another....... (think about that) is somehow to spread fear and loathing of THAT faith!

Err NO..it is to warn people about how THAT faith declares MY faith to be..and me as a person to be..

It says
-"Your FAITH is rubbish" (See surah 19:91-92)
-"YOU are rubbish" (deluded/away from truth)
-"YOU should be destroyed" (happening right NOW in Mosul)

And if we take power.... we will make sure everyone knows this.
Doubt me? try this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXcVkBYo5SI This my 2nd home (Malaysia).. can you imagine how I feel about this? My relatives all live under.....THAT.

Back to Pericles Error.

The core difference between us is

YOUR POSITION.

"To criticize a faith is to criticize it's followers"
"To criticize thus spreads fear, hate, loathing"

MY POSITION.
"Criticizing a Faith ..is just that."
"It is especially so when my own faith limits my 'feelings' to the ideas, not the people."

You don't 'get' this because you are outside of Christ Pericles.

This very point is the issue argued at the appeal.. (so now you know) of CTFM and ICV.
You can download (have emailed to you) a copy of an academic assessment of the appeal process and relevant arguments here.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1022397
You need to take out a free membership then select the paper and they will email it to you in PDF.
I refer you to page 16

START:
(iii) Hatred of religious belief, and hatred of the believers
One of the more significant passages of argument in the oral submissions at the Court of Appeal
concerned the relationship between criticism of a religious belief and criticism of the believers. It was
common ground that

<<the Act does not protect BELIEF, but does protect BELIEVERS.>>

This is an important factor in the legislative project because, in contrast to the laws of blasphemy, it is the hatred of persons
which is the focus of religious vilification laws.
END

The ICV said: "it was impossible to distinguish between criticism of the belief and criticism of believers" (sounds like Pericles is on their staff!)

Note THIS:

<The (ICV) submission was challenged by all three Justices of Appeal>

Then

<The court’s response suggests that the decision will almost certainly reject this submission expressly.>p.17

I agree.. I don't mind 3 supreme court Judges as my 'company' :)

I'm feeling rather cheery actually.

Another classic Boaz sidestep.

When challenged and found in error, shift the groundrules, pretend you were talking about something else entirely, and claim victory.

But first of all, the outright misrepresentation of all misrepresentations:

>>YOUR POSITION.
"To criticize a faith is to criticize it's followers"
"To criticize thus spreads fear, hate, loathing"<<

No Boaz. Criticizing a faith is fine with me, so long as you conduct it it a fair-minded and rational manner.

Unfortunately, you unfailingly link the words you quote from the scriptures you select with all Muslims.

Your position is "if you do not believe these words that I quote from your own book, you cannot by definition be a Muslim". The other side of the same coin is that every Muslim must, as far as you are concerned, by definition be on a mission to kill all unbelievers.

If you are prepared to publicly repudiate your position on this, and from now on conduct any discussions on Islam in a scholarly, non-inflammatory manner, then you and I will have no issue.

Now, back to the bit where you change the groundrules.

I have absolutely no problems with the Supreme Court's assessment of Justice Higgins ruling. But this has nothing to do with the point that I made, and that you took me to task about.

Let's revisit it, hopefully for the last time, as we are boring Fractelle again.

Me: "For the zillionth time Boaz, I have absolutely no interest in, nor do I share your enthusiasm for, random excerpts from an ancient text. You can regurgitate as much of their content as you like, it does not represent evidence to me."

You: "BINGO :) *You can regurgitate as much of their content as you like, it does not represent evidence to me.* Dear Pericles...that rather says it all :) It represented evidence to Justice Higgins... he paid very close attention to it... but for you ? nah :)"

I agreed with you that [random excerpts from an ancient text] represented evidence to Justice Higgins, but gently pointed out that he was overruled by the Supreme Court.

Dear Pale.. my turn :) I replied with a 'thanx' to your email..and I suggest that your inablity to find it is evidence of a tech error at ur end, or.. maybe ur looking for specific support for your cause. I tend to avoid moving too far in that direction as I have my own very time consuming causes. But I wish you well in yours.

Posted by Polycarp, Thursday, 16 October 2008 7:07:51 AM

Polycarp

You told me you didnt get our invitation or email-

Now you say you sent a reply and it must be our (inablity to find it is evidence of a tech error)

Which one is it?

Sure we are looking for support for Gods Creatures from Christians.

I dont always disagree with you btw when you raise some arguments about migrants etc.
I have had plenty of words with some of our Muslim mates- just like I have you and others.

Still I cant help but notice they at least have made an effort to speak out about cruelrty to Animals as Religious leaders which is more than our Church leaders have.

Anyway do you mind if I ask you-
What is your work?

Tell us what is it you are trying to achieve because tbo we see it as raising fear of Muslims in Australia.
Warning us they are here to take over.

Am I correct? Is that or isnt that your "work"

If not pls spell it out.

'What really is your work David'?

Polly

I courteously asked you a clear and straightforward question, and you, like a spoilt child, asked the same question back at me.

BTW I have been told I am evil on this very forum for the apparent 'crime' of being female and atheist.

You do not treat the players with the same respect you demand for yourself, then you whinge that "they're picking on me, mummy".

Not very christian of you, but very characteristic of a controlling, manipulative personality who must always win.

You left the "terrible twos" decades ago. Time to grow up.

Pale.. I recall receiving info from you about Paulines addy, but not about an invitation to something unless it was the same mail?

I don't respond well to pressure.. so give it a break ok... it's quite a while ago and I admit I'm a bit foggy on it all.

FRACTELLE.. when you say u were called 'evil' and a criminal atheist?.. err by me?

Umm no..I didn't ask you the same question....you asked me firstly:

Do you consider yourself to be meek, mild, loving and accepting of all others on this world?"

And I tried to answer it. It isn't a simple yes/no.

Then you said:

"others who have no argument with you except that they are different; gay, female or muslim."

Out of the 3 categories of person there, I have serious issues with:

a) The politicized Gay agenda
b) The politicized Muslim agenda.

The only place the female intersects with my political/theological/social is if they are pushing those issues. Gender matters not other than that.

Now..I went to considerable lengths to illustrate from contemporary events and theological writings (Islamic) and showed you a video of a man explaining, in my 2nd country WHY "Christians and Jews are cursed by Allah"

You had a whinge before about being called 'evil,Atheist,female'
Why don't you understand that a person feels VERY unhappy when a representative of the STATE religion gets up and explains why you are CURSED? (i.e. that Hussein Ye character)

PERICLES OTHER ERROR.
He made the classic error. Still stuck on "But Higgins was over-ruled in the supreme court"...NOOOO... and yes. He was overuled but NOT on that issue. Look at the academic paper I linked to.

<you unfailingly link the words you quote from the scriptures you select with 'All' Muslims.>

*tap tap*.. "where"? I link it to ISLAM as an ideology! The totality of the Muslim community will be all over the place relative to this ideology.

Getting coser, Boaz, but not close enough.

>>I link [scripture quotes] to ISLAM as an ideology! The totality of the Muslim community will be all over the place relative to this ideology.<<

On the face of it, it appears to be about 50% of the admission I am looking for.

I will try again.

Your position is "if you do not believe these words that I quote from your own book, you cannot by definition be a Muslim". The other side of the same coin is that every Muslim must, as far as you are concerned, by definition be on a mission to kill all unbelievers.

If you are prepared to publicly repudiate your position on this, and from now on conduct any discussions on Islam in a scholarly, non-inflammatory manner, then you and I will have no issue.

Are you prepared to do this, unequivocally? It doesn't seem too much to ask.

Let's try a form of words:

"I, Boaz, do not attribute scripturally-based motives to all Muslims, and will in future refrain from suggesting that Muslims are required to kill non-Muslims."

You can do it, I know you can.

Polly nee Boaz

After extrapolating your mish mash of dictionary definitions, suspect personal anecdotes and qualified answers: "I have serious issues with:

"a) The politicized Gay agenda
b) The politicized Muslim agenda.

The only place the female intersects with my political/theological/social is if they are pushing those issues."

The answer to my original question: "Do you consider yourself to be meek, mild, loving and accepting of all others on this world?"

Is a resounding "NO".

How do you equate your lack of love for your fellow human with being a good Christian? You can't; your very reason for existence is based on your belief that you are the most self-righteous: way above those you "have serious issues with", for you to doubt yourself would result in a break down of, well, biblical proportions.

BTW: On me complaining about being called evil, you regularly bitch about being assailed, a case of massive kettle calling little pot. Advice: If you can't take it, don't hand it out.

Over to you Pericles, I am done here.

Thanks Fractelle.

>>Over to you Pericles, I am done here.<<

But I won't be much help in moving the discussion forward.

You see I'm...

...holding my...

...breath...

...for Boaz to...

...complete his...

...repudiation of linking...

...his hatred of Islam to...

...Muslims in general.

<<gasp>>

Nah, forget it. History tells me it ain't gonna happen.

Pericles

ROFL

Life is too short

And

PollyB

is

too

long

winded.

Posted by Boaz

* Pale I don't respond well to pressure.. so give it a break ok... it's quite a while ago and I admit I'm a bit foggy on it all. *

David what pressure?
We asked you what is it that you do?

' Why is that such pressure to you .

In a few short words tell the olo posters what it is you think you do pls David.

Do you think your warning us against bringing too many Muslims to Australia for example? Its ok - You can say it if you do. Who knows we might even agree on some things you say.

Just be a man and speak honestlty.

Come on David stop running and answer the very simple question.

It is unfortunate that instead of debating Polycarp, many are indulging in Polycarp bashing, using ad hominem arguments. They are unable to rebut the proofs provided by Polycarp that the Koran advocates violence against non-Muslims especially Jews and Christians.

The common thread linking the killing of non-Muslims and raping of women in many of the Muslim-majority regions all over the world is proof of the fact that the Koran incites violence.

That this is so is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by an ex-Muslim Dr. Sami Alrabaa,

“There are more than one billion Muslims around the world, and I’m one of them. We are told that the Koran is the “word of God”. When you read the Koran, however, … you find out that it is full of passages that incite to hatred, killing, and discriminate against women.”

Dr. Alrabaa gave quoted at least 20 verses to substantiate what he claimed.

http://europenews.dk/en/node/13862

He also pointed out that Muslim school children in Arab countries and Saudi-run schools in Western cities and also some Indonesian schools are taught to hate non-Muslims, and Jews in particular. Examples are

” A Muslim who kills an apostate or someone who commits adultery is not punished.”

” If a Muslim kills an infidel or a slave, he is not punished.”

” If a Muslim man, father, or grandfather kills someone from his offspring, he is not punished.”

http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=MTU5Nzk1NjkyMw

It is about time to classify the Koran a hate-book and to protect children from committing hate crimes by allowing only those above 18 to enter a mosque.

<<continue>>

Dr. Alrabaa related his experience in a mosque.

‘…Then Gharaballi turned to another page in the Koran and read,

"… and kill them [he explained this to mean unbelievers, especially the Jews] wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you" (Surah 2, verse 191). "What are you waiting for?" he cried. "Allah Himself is telling us kill them. No peace can be made with the Jews."

After the prayers, I approached Gharaballi in the cafeteria of the mosque and asked him if he was serious about what he had preached. "Of course, I am. This is not any book. This is the word of Allah."

http://islam-watch.org/Sami/Radical-Muslims-of-Germany.htm

Dear Pericles... I have nothing to publically repudiate because you have set up a very fluffy straw man and expect me to bite on it.

<<The other side of the same coin is that every Muslim must, as far as you are concerned, by definition be on a mission to kill all unbelievers.>>

Where have I EVER said "Muslims, when obedient to their holy book must kill all unbelievers" [? x 1000]

I have often quoted Surah 9:29 which says

FIGHT (unbelievers)
UNTIL
THEY ARE SUBJUGATED. .. (under Islamic rule and pay the Jizya unless they become Muslims).

That's what the verse says..and that's what I say.

FRACCY.. notttttt so fast their girl :) now.. you aim your question at ME.. "meek mild loving" etc.. but let me ask YOU... can you lovingly, meekly and mildly accept ME and my views? :) aaaaaah....

No of course you can't, but that does not mean that you HATE me.. I hope.. just as my position on various social issues does NOT mean that I "Hate" people. There seems to be a mental disfunction in Lefty's brains which automatically ascribes "hate" to disagreement.

I've found this to be almost universally true thus far, and the trigger for it ramping up to "loud personal abuse" is anything resembling "evidence" contrary to the (generally uninformed) socialist position.

Philip Tang has provided "evidence" from an ex Muslim.

Note these words: (Question: "are you serious?")

"Of course, I am. This is not any book. This is the word of Allah."

That is amost word for word what the Saudi Muslim at the MBS festival said to me face to face.
Totally different social and geographic contexts... but the SAME answer.

Polly

I did not ask if you "hated" I asked about your acceptance and love for people who are intrinsically different to you. You gave a very qualified answer which indicated that you do not accept certain people. Another game of semantics Polly.

Drop it. You have made your feelings about gays, muslims and women very clear on innumerable posts.

Spelling & Grammar 101

THEIR signifies 'ownership' as in "The Browns loaned me THEIR car."

THERE signifies 'place' as in " Do you see the cliff over there?"

Capiche?

The most disgusting video ever brought to our attention by Ayesha Ahmed. (view it only you have the stomach for it)

An early teens Muslim girl (speaking Urdu?) using a small knife to cut off the head of a man. She was not quite successful because the knife was too small but the crowd of adults behind her egged her on shouting "Allah is great"

http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=522

What kind of "religion" is Islam?, inspiring a young child to cut off the head of a grown man?

Perhaps some Islamic apologists would want to give a spin to this event.

Boaz, life is too short to regurgitate them all.

>>Where have I EVER said "Muslims, when obedient to their holy book must kill all unbelievers" [? x 1000]<<

Do you remember this one?

>>The justification for the attack however, was said to be specifically Surah 9:29 as quoted by Al Mughira in the hadith I mentioned. Thus, based on this thinking, ANY nation or person which is considered 'a threat' by the Muslim community can jusifiably be attacked or murdered. (Theo Van Gogh is a modern Example)<<

Or this one, perhaps?

>>The Quran speaks of this Surah 33.26 "Some you killed, others you took prisoner" This specific event is further fleshed out in the Hadith. Where the following points are added: 1/ They were offered the judgement of a Cheif named "Sa'ad" who declared "Kill all the men, enslave the women and children" 2/ Mohammed rejoiced in this "Ah, this is like the judgement of God"<<

So, how about it?

>>Dear Pericles... I have nothing to publically repudiate because you have set up a very fluffy straw man and expect me to bite on it.<<

Leaving aside the rather uncomfortable metaphor - biting on a fluffy straw man is only for the brave - let's have one more try.

Are you prepared to sign up for this, unequivocally? It doesn't seem too much to ask.

"I, Boaz, do not attribute scripturally-based motives to all Muslims, and will in future refrain from suggesting that Muslims are required to kill non-Muslims."

You can do it, I know you can. Or would you like to wriggle for a little bit longer?

You can always change your pseudonym again, if facing reality is once more becoming too uncomfortable.

Boaz,

Confirming Pericles coment, I found the following the link to an audio lecture by Gary Miller on the Quran and reason of revelation:

http://www.islamicinvitationcentre.com/audio/gary_miller/Reason_and_Revelation/Reason_and_Revelation.htm

There is a number of audo lectures in simple English explaining how Muslims understand/should understand the Quran.

Peace,

Or you could of course completely ignore the issue, and pretend that you were right all along, Boaz.

>>Where have I EVER said "Muslims, when obedient to their holy book must kill all unbelievers" [? x 1000]<<

Would you like some more examples? It only took five minutes to track down the last two, so it wouldn't be too much bother.

What really puzzles me though, is that you have the perfect opportunity to make your position crystal clear, yet you refuse.

You'd feel so much better afterwards, once you had clarified your position.

"I, Boaz, do not attribute scripturally-based motives to all Muslims, and will in future refrain from suggesting that Muslims are required to kill non-Muslims."

Of course, if you disagree with the way I have phrased it, by all means change it. Either way, we'll all be unable to misinterpret you in the future - you can simply point to your repudiation and say, "that's what I meant.There's not a whack-a-mozzie bone in my body".

Think you can do that?

Dear Pericles :) you probably don't realize why I break out in a smile when you think you have me.

The simple truth is.. you just want to have it that way so bad you resort to very shallow argumentation.

Your 2 examples are hopeless.

In the first one... the key word is "ALL"

Then a couple more important words

"considered a threat"

"Any or all"

But the bit that seems to have been totally lost on you, is this.

MOHAMMAD DID it..... His companions FOLLOWED his example..and even without resorting to speculative commentary on the passages cited, it is like the proverbial large trout from MIRC which slaps your brain and tries.. (oh how it tries) to slap some connection between 'Mohammad' and his teachings and his followers into that very stubborn brain of yours.

You saw it all..but did not perceive anything.

The Quran does NOT "command Muslims to kill all unbelievers" and I've never said it does.
Mohammad did not "command all unbelievers to be killed" and I've never said he did.

I've said as I did in the posts you quoted. Why not actually read them?

ANY (or all) persons.. CONSIDERED a 'threat' can JUSTIFIABLY (based on Mohammads example and the Quran's teaching) be killed or murdered.

FH.. I've heard Gary Miller.. and he is another misguided former so called Christian, very strong on the 'so called'... his understanding is unbalanced, very way off and lacks legitimate connection to facts.(in my view)

FRACCY :) *wave* mate.. how in this wide world can you know how I interact with people on a personal level from 'here'? There are only 2 people who know that.. FH is one, and Col Rouge is the other.

FORUM "one thing-issues"
REAL LIFE "another thing-people"

Discussing issues has a view to forming policy. We don't all like those we live under.. but I hardly think we attribute HATE to those who form them do we?

Ok..Pericles, you are such a repetitive 'scoundrel' at times, but just to make you happy and enable you to enjoy that cuppa when you get home.

POSITION STATEMENT.

MUSLIMS and UNBELIEVERS.

1/ The Quran contains many commands and statements pertaining to violence against various categories of unbelievers.

2/ The choice about whether to act on those verses will normally reside in the mind of the Caliph, the head of the Muslim Umma. (should there ever be one) but this is an opinion not shared by all Muslims. Some regard such commands/permissions to be valid for all Muslims everywhere.

3/ Muslims are NOT commanded to universally kill ALL non believers for ALL time in the Quran. (though in some circumstances they may feel justified in doing so)

Time limits applied (warning) 9:2-5 Notice that Mohammad BROKE existing treaties (9:1) and declared 'no obligation'.

4/ The categories of unbeliever the Quran authorizes the fighting against and possibly killing of are:

-Those who invade Muslim lands. (many references this is not disputed by an Muslim)

-Those who do not believe in Allah or the last day (9:29)

-Those who have been warned to embrace Islam. (surah 5 surah 9) (Mohammad's letters to Emperors, various Quranic references)

SUMMARY
So..in summary it is clear that the statement "All Muslims are commanded to kill all unbelievers" is quite false.

(I've not argued that it is true. if you look CLOSEly at what I write:)

You might like to refer to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_war_in_Islam

but if you quote it, bear in mind I will utterly tear it to fine shreds from the Hadith itself. Then you will see how absolutely contradictory and 'Chameleon' like is Islam.

You see.. if it says 'based on' something.. we can legitimately look at that 'something' for any hint of divergence.

EXAMPLE 'Abu Bakar's 10 rules of war' include 'cannot mutliate dead bodies' but Mohammad himself mutilated LIVING bodies.. see? 'Chameleon'.

Specifics, please Boaz.

Did you or did you not write:

>>Thus, based on this thinking, ANY nation or person which is considered 'a threat' by the Muslim community can jusifiably be attacked or murdered. (Theo Van Gogh is a modern Example)<<

And now you tell me:

>>..in summary it is clear that the statement "All Muslims are commanded to kill all unbelievers" is quite false.(I've not argued that it is true. if you look CLOSEly at what I write:)<<

On the contrary, Boaz, this is exactly what you do write. Note particularly that you used the term "Muslim community", which directly contradicts your pious asssertions that your target is Islam, not Muslims.

Your attempt to obfuscate does you no credit I'm afraid, nor does it cut any ice. You are an inveterate and persistent rabble-rouser, and there's the end of it. The fact that you choose to believe otherwise is an exercise in self-deception that no amount of fuzzy quotations can disguise.

But if this partial, heavily qualified position statement of yours indicates the beginnings of a rehabilitation into the ranks of the rational and fair-minded, then my attempts to pin down your fear-and-loathing tactics have not been in vain.

Have a great day.

Boaz,

“FH.. I've heard Gary Miller and he is a misguided Christian”

Ok, so anyone believing that Islam is a good faith to follow is misguided.

So here is a simple question: Suppose I am not a Muslim and I hear about the founder of Islam from Muslims and non Muslims like the link below which includes famous historians, authors and philosophers:
http://www.islamicinvitationcentre.com/articles/Introduction/muhammad/NonMuslims_Say.htm.

Please tell me why should I believe you and not the above (please read quotes from Rev. Bosword Smith from the church of London, Bernard Shaw, Ghandi, etc.)?

Please don’t use the irrational argument that you keep using : ‘believe me cause I said so and others believe what I said so it must be true’.

Now over to you Boaz,

Peace,

Hi Pericles....

“specifics” you asked for.

In your quote of my words, you will find “based on this thinking”

What thinking?

The mindset which uses Mohammad's direct command (9:29) as a basis for invading another country. THAT thinking. It was clearly evident in Al Mughira's words... as you can plainly see.
(if you read the whole hadith in it's natural meaning and historical context -it should be more than clear)

Then...if we extend it further to the assassination of political opponents such as Ka'b bin Al Ashraf..murdered in his home at night..hacked to death by a hit squad delegated by Mohammad personally? Well.. THAT thinking.

I fail to see how you apparently see a difference between a critic of Islam in mohammads day being hacked to death on Mohammad's orders, and a Theo Van Gogh being stuck like a pig in our day, following Mohammad's example.

Do you see a difference? Do you?

Was Buyeri NOT following Mohammad's example ? Well....was he ? You can read just like I can.
If Buyeri was NOT following Mohammad's example.. who's was he following?
Did he MIS understand Mohammad's actions re Ka'b ? Did he wrongly interpret his own holy documents? I'd love to know the SPECIFIC answers to each of these questions.

F.H. I really like you as a bloke, and don't want to hurt ur feelings, but those quotes are totally lost on me. Honestly.. I know the stuff well enough to see through all of them.
I could take each assertion and rip it to shreds... I'll take but one.

Bosworth Smith:

<<He cared not for the dressings of power. The simplicity of his private life was in keeping with his public life." >>

Power..Sex.. they go_together. “This is ONLY FOR YOU oh prophet”.... There is simply no escaping such things. He used his power for sexual privilege OVER and above his followers. 33:50/51
AND his own previously made “Laws of Allah”

http://muslimhadith.blogspot.com/2008/05/mohammad-had-sexual-strength-of-30-men.html

“we used to say he had the sexual strength of 30 men” -go figure mate.

Boaz,
“F.H. I really like you as a bloke, and don't want to hurt ur feelings”

Would like to draw your attention that you have been bagging Islam and Muslims for over 3 years x 365 days x 5 posts x 350 words. If I wasn’t “hurt” until now I will probably never will. You can be funny at times Boazy : -)

Another logical reason is that I can't relate to the version of Islam you are preaching. I consider you as nutty as Abu Bakar Basheer (no offence intended:-)) Don't you agree for a Muslim I am a tad more tolerant and loving that you claim to be? :-)

Anyway, my point wasn’t about religions at all actually its more about how you deploy your energy.
Taking the simple calculation above amounts to 1.9 million words which is about 6-7,000 pages. At the end of the day you could have benefited more if you put that same effort on interfaith dialogue and/ or cultural integration?
Here is an example of a moderate guy I met during my travel has initiated in the UK to combat radicalism and also to help a better understanding:
http://www.arrahman.org.uk/WEBUI/WebPages/ShowFAQs.aspx

At the end of the day all people want a better world, so why don’t you put your energy in something constructive? Don’t you find it frustrating that you waste that much energy with little or no positive outcome?

Peace as always,

I frequently wonder if you ever read anything you write, Boaz.

>>I fail to see how you apparently see a difference between a critic of Islam in mohammads day being hacked to death on Mohammad's orders, and a Theo Van Gogh being stuck like a pig in our day, following Mohammad's example.<<

This is exactly the point I was making.

You, Boaz, can see no difference. No difference at all.

You equate, as often as you are given the opportunity, the "critic of Islam in mohammads day being hacked to death on Mohammad's orders" and "a Theo Van Gogh being stuck like a pig in our day".

The surprise is, of course, that you cannot see how you explicitly contradict yourself.

>>Where have I EVER said "Muslims, when obedient to their holy book must kill all unbelievers" [? x 1000]<<

Errrr... right here, right now.

>>Was Buyeri NOT following Mohammad's example ? Well....was he ? You can read just like I can. If Buyeri was NOT following Mohammad's example.. who's was he following? Did he MIS understand Mohammad's actions re Ka'b ? Did he wrongly interpret his own holy documents? I'd love to know the SPECIFIC answers to each of these questions.<<

These are the classic arguments of a rabble-rouser - you can almost hear the creak of the soap-box as you sway agitatedly back and forth in time with your self-righteous indignation.

You state, quite explicitly. that as Muslim, Buyeri was simply following the requirements of his religion.

Yet you persist with the fantasy that this, somehow, doesn't mean what it says.

FH...glad ur robust :) but ur also a bit naughty.. clearly you don't read all that I write or you would not have contributed to the myth thath all I write about is 'attack Islam'... naughty boy.. you are hereby consigned to a boringly colored room withOUT a computer for hmm... ok.. a week :)

I understand that your version of Islam is quite.. 'unique' or is limited to a small proportion of the overall Muslim community. (Sufi)
So..because of this you know I'm not really attacking 'you' or your own faith. If you said you believe in following Mohammad's COMPLETE example.. I'd be more concerned.

PERICLES.. and you used the classic polemic you always use.

-Don't address the question,
-Accuse the opponent of rabble rousing.

Now.. I will persist on this question until you do answer it.

Was Buyeri following Mohammad's example or NOT? if not.. how not?

You see.. as I point out in the 'Beliefs and Behavior' thread.. if Jesus had actually murdered people, or ordered them murdered in the name of God... surely.. surely even stubborn ol you could see that Christians would be more pre-disposed to follow his example concerning our 'enemies'?

On Buyeri, I can actually answer the question myself.

He DID follow what he observed about Mohammad.
-Mohammad arranged the murder of some of his adversaries.
-Buyeri simply followed that exmaple.

BUT.. Buyeri was not under instructions from the Caliph, which Mohammad did not need because he WAS the 'Caliph' or head of the Muslim umma.
So..if one takes a strict Islamic view, it can be said that while Buyeri acted in complete accordance with Mohammad's example he did NOT act in compliance with Islamic law.(though some (many) Muslims would disagree on that score)

None of which changes the absolute fact that the 'Caliph' (which Hizb ut Tahrir is seeking to establish) WOULD have the freedom to arrange for the murders of whoever he disliked.

Polycarp.
Pericles loves to degrade all Christians no matter their character because they are a local target. Whereas he has a sympathy for all Muslim including extremists and believes FH best represents all Muslims. We both know that FH has little influence in determining majority Muslim faith and practse.

You and I can both condemn Christian extremists following OT Jewish laws and practise because we note Jesus condemned such attitudes also. We can both condemn evil things done in the name of any religion. We can both denounce religious agression on all grounds including defense, done in the name of any god, because Jesus submitted himself to hostile agression done in the name of religion.

Does FH uphold a westernised democratic view of Islam against the majority Koranic view that all the world must bow to Allah. If so in this debate about majority Muslim belief and practise both FH and P are irrelavent to the facts practised by the majority Muslim comminities.

However it is interesting to note FH does not vehemently denounce that brand of Islam is not of God. Which indicates he also has some sympathy for extremists and sees himself as part of the same religious ideology.

What nonsense, Philo.

>>Pericles loves to degrade all Christians no matter their character because they are a local target.<<

(I think you mean denigrate, but I get the gist)

Even Boaz doesn't believe that.

My concerns are not with his religion, your religion, FH's religion or indeed anyone's religion. Merely that I do not care for one religion being used to incite hatred against another.

From my perspective as a non-believer, it is both nonsensical and totally reprehensible to stir up animosity against others, using a particular version of a personal belief, simply because you regard it as superior to someone else's personal belief.

This forum is filled with a one-way traffic of anti-Muslim sentiment, mainly from contributors who describe themselves as Christians. You may have noticed that the only time we see anti-Christian sentiment is when it is - guess what? - brought into the argument by Christians as some form of stalking-horse.

I can quite understand that some people's brains are wired to religion, in the same way as to chocolate or homosexuality. The result is a complete lack of communication between believers and non-believers, making it impossible for each to see the other's point of view on the existence of divine beings.

But that understanding does not cover the constant rabble-rousing conducted by Boaz on a daily basis, and no amount of your trying to deflect the argument into pro-Muslim and anti-Christian labels will change that.

And Boaz, take a break.

>>PERICLES.. and you used the classic polemic you always use. -Don't address the question, -Accuse the opponent of rabble rousing. Now.. I will persist on this question until you do answer it. Was Buyeri following Mohammad's example or NOT? if not.. how not?<<

There is no answer to that, as you are well aware. Who am I to guess the motives of a terrorist?

But the only reason you introduced this spurious question was to divert attention from the fact that it is yet another example of your tarring all Muslims with the brush of terrorism, hence the adversion to rabble-rousing and hate-mongering.

Boaz,

“I understand that your version of Islam is 'unique' or limited(Sufi)"

Actually that’s propaganda. Sufi Muslims are estimated to be 25% of Muslims and the fastest growing way of practicing Islam. It’s also the practice most believing in the good qualities of the prophet Mohamed. Aren’t you contradicting yourself yet again Boaz?

“you don't read all that I write or you would not have contributed to the myth thath all I write about is 'attack Islam'”

Its not a myth Boaz if you look and sound like a duck you can't be a squirrel. Here is a summary of 3.5 years of observing your approach and technique:

- Pick a story with multiple interpretations.
- Repeat it to non-Muslims on olo hoping to scare them off.
- If get caught by an analytical Aussie or a Muslim you duck and re-appear with the same story on another thread or a different one.
- Avoid 1: 1 discussion or debate with any Muslim.
- Repeat above steps all over again in few days.

For me your agenda is as clear as daylight. Recently, many regular posters took notice of your agenda.
You need a behavioral change not a name change Mr Polycarp.

Philo,

“Boaz, Pericles loves to degrade all Christians no matter their character because they are a local target”

Actually Boaz’s version of his faith and mine are alien to me. I know so many followers of his faith and they are as beautiful and loving as humans can be. Pericles like most of us is addressing Boaz’ behavior.

“FH does not vehemently denounce that brand of Islam is not of God”

How does everyone practice their faith is a personal matter and I don’t believe in religious symbols, reunions, titles, etc.. What can become my problem or worth me denouncing is their behavior not what faith or sect they follow. So, I denounce those who impose their views on others, create fear and hate and / or break the law. Their belief or ethnicity got nothing to do with it.
Hope I answered your question,

Peace,

AAah_Pericles.. stubborn_as_ever.

"But the only reason you introduced this spurious question was to divert attention from ....woffle woffle."

Regarding Bouyeri's motive ? good grief.. he spelt it out:

"in the fight of the believers against the infidels violence is approved by the prophet Muhammad". (wiki article)

Which is exactly what I've been saying. Because Surah 9 and many others verses also say it.

So.. his 'motive' was to silence an annoying, insulting unbeliever exactly as Mohammad had done, and bouyeri simply followed Mohammad's example.

Had Bouyeri's belief system been Christ centred rather than Mohammad centred, it would be psychologically and logically impossible for him to arrive at this same mode of behavior. Even if he used the most gratuitous and literalist understanding of the most physical part of our Lords life, the worst he might have done would be to "chase some bankers out of a Church" or something.

You see Pericles..without Mohammad's example..Bouyeris do not exist.

This is where you and FH miss the mark every time.

FH says:

How does everyone practice their faith is a personal matter and I don’t believe in religious symbols, reunions, titles, etc.. What can become my problem or worth me denouncing is their BEHAVIOR.

I wonder if FH can denounce the murder of Ka'b ? :) hardly.
We discussed this and he has a very Islam/Mohammad friendly view of it.

To me.. murder is murder. Self defense is when a man is attacking you..right now. Not when he is sleeping in his bedroom.
So the murder of Ka'b was MURDER not 'self defense'. Thus... using that example.. if a leader of the Muslim community simply suspected that a Jew in his country was 'talking to the enemy' he would despatch a hit squad to murder him...rather than examining the evidence and having a trial.

When the various British royal/noble families killed each other when competing for position..it was MURDER plain and simple.

If Jesus had arranged the MURDER of the high priest.. I would not be a Christ-ian.

Boaz, you and I both know that you are practising the poster's equivalent of a small child with hands over ears saying "I can't hear you I can't hear you I can't hear you"

You introduced a red herring, to divert attention from the main game, and are now pursuing that red herring as if it has anything at all to do with the original point at issue. Which it doesn't.

I refuse to get into pointless discussions about random acts of terrorism, whether religiously motivated or not.

You claimed

>>Where have I EVER said "Muslims, when obedient to their holy book must kill all unbelievers" [? x 1000]<<

I showed you examples.

You recognized that you had been found out, and proceeded to introduce said red herring.

You really are a bit of a scoundrel,you know.

Boaz,

So do I understand that you conceded to the above point now that you are jumping on another topic?

Anyway, a Muslim understanding of Kaab story is really simple. At that time wars were waged against Muslims and Kaab was one of Muslims leaders who wanted to convert immediately and move to the enemy camps during the time of war. He was punished as a spy because at this time of war Islam was an identity not only a religion. Its like an Aussie military leader wanting to move to Japanese camps in the heat of world war 2.

While we are at it, I don't see you or Philo denouncing the OT for example. In your belief system, the creator instructs certain prophets to burn and kill. Jesus pbuh according to your story confirms the actions of the OT. Do you denounce these actions?

Peace,

Hi Pericles.... err sorry..no, you did not 'have even a hint of success in your 'main game' of claiming I say "All Muslims" should kill their enemies. You sprayed a few words on the page and then 'declared' they mean that, then, you announce (based on that flawed statement) that I've been "found out".. utter rubbish. That you would think that way is simply because you don't know enough about Islam to know what words spoken about them mean in the bigger context.
By your own confession "I refuse to get into a discussion about random acts of terrorism" :) which I consider complete vindication of my major point.. that Mohammad WAS in fact a terrorist.

F.H. I can condemn MANY things in the Old Testament.

EXAMPLE 1 "David caused Uriah's death by ordering a withdrawal during heavy fighting, leaving him alone to face the enemy"(Murder)

EXAMPLE 2 Solomon with his many wives.. absolutely AGAINST the clear instruction in Deuteronomy "The king shall not accumulate for himself many wives"

What I cannot and will not condemn is any example of where GOD commands specific people to be exterminated.(Judgement)

I can also say one thing very clearly, the Lord did NOT make any 'generalized' command (such as Quran 9:29) which by any stretch of the imagination can be applied to now or today.
I can adamantly affirm that the Lord Jesus showed the final, complete and true meaning of the Law and how we should conduct ourselves in relation to others.

On Ka'b ? :) clearly we have a huge difference of opinion on that one. Besides.. the major problem is not that he was killed, but that he was killed BY Mohammad's order thus providing an example for Bouyeri and countless others to deal similarly with opponents/critics of Islam.

You see, your insurmountable problem is that Surah 33:21 tells us that Mohammad is the example to follow..and that means warts and all.

Jesus had no warts :) Which is why so much is written against Mohammad and so little against Jesus.(that is credible)

Still blustering, I see.

>>You sprayed a few words on the page...<<

Boaz, they were YOUR words.

Let's take (yet) another look.

>>Where have I EVER said "Muslims, when obedient to their holy book must kill all unbelievers" [? x 1000]<<

Here:

>>The justification for the attack however, was said to be specifically Surah 9:29 as quoted by Al Mughira in the hadith I mentioned. Thus, based on this thinking, ANY nation or person which is considered 'a threat' by the Muslim community can jusifiably be attacked or murdered. (Theo Van Gogh is a modern Example)<<

This is a complete, end-to-end example of your whack-a-mozzie tactics.

First, refer to a favourite Surah verse.

Next, generalize that this gives Muslims licence to kill, and I quote, "ANY nation or person which is considered a threat".

Then just to make sure we get the message, give an example of where a Muslim has done exactly as you foreshadowed.

All I have done is join the dots.

We can now all play "which red herring will Boaz choose to introduce this time?".

And have a good chuckle at the warped ingenuity with which you continue to defend the indefensible.

Boaz,

“What I cannot and will not condemn is any example of where GOD commands specific people to be exterminated”
Thanks for making my point, another proof of your double standards.

“On Ka'b :) Clearly we have a huge difference of opinion on that one”
You repeated above story many times and I just explained to you and OLO audience how a Muslim makes sense of it.
We do differ on a lot of things Boaz but thats healthy as long as we respect each other. Stop talking about Jesus as if you are following his teachings, I am sure being disrespectful of other beliefs is not one of his teachings.

Peace,

Fellow_Human,
I am sure Boaz would be pleased that you express that he follows Jesus teachings, including warnings about following false representations of God. Which Jesus addressed as Satan of the Jewish Zealots wanting to murder Romans in Matthew 4. Jesus taught to love your enemy and sacrifice one's life out of love for him but not to follow his lies and deceit. Can we take it then you do not follow Mohamet?

Philo,

Actually I was saying the opposite: that Boaz isnt practising what he is preaching. Using OLO as an example, all I have seen is that group A (claiming to be tolerant and loving) have been wacking and stoning group B until group B admits that A is more tolerant!

Its 4 years in a row and group A has been doing it to everyone who does not follow their faith who disagrees with their opinion.

Maybe its only me but there is something very wrong with the fellowship of the ring in here.

Peace,

Fellow_Human,
If you understood the old Aussie psyche, you would understand that Christianity has deeply influenced it to mean you will vehemently protest others opinion but you will protect their life when it is threatened. Atheists, religious zealot, war lord and pacifist have learned to cooperate for the protection of each other but strongly defend their own opinion and their right to hold that opinion. They all believe in democracy, though they believe their own opinion is the only correct one.

You yourself hold an opinion you believe to be right about Mohamet but the majority of Immams in the faith would dissagree with you. I hold opinions about the Christian faith I believe to be correct but the majority disagree with me. In a World society we can only defend what we believe is correct in the hope of changing minds. The majority of Muslims follow the life and behaviours of the prophet, while Boaz and myself believe most Christians live by natural reactions and respond accordingly; whereas Jesus teachings deal with spiritual responses which are not our natural reactions, i.e. "Love your enemy".

Dear FH :) mate.. I don't claim to be 'TOLERANT AND LOVING' when it comes to falsehood. I claim to be tolerant of those who might hold such beliefs in the hope and prayer that they will see the truth and light and follow it.

I treat you differently than say a rampaging Saudi missionary who tells me to my face that it is absolutely ALLAH's word which curses and condemns me... TODAY.. for my belief in the Sonship of Christ.

Although in his case, I did not have the opportunity to really get stuck into that idea, and I graciously departed due to responsiblities.
But trust me, given the right conditions, I will lay it absolutely on the line, that such a belief (that curses the Sonship of Christ) is utterly from the pit of Hell. There is no issue of respect here..it is WAR and I mean spiritual war of course. The precious Son of God, who gave Himself for humanity, and who calls humanity to believe in that Sonship...yet all of that is declared 'ALLAH'S CURSE BE ON THEM, THEY ARE DELUDED, AWAY FROM TRUTH'(9:30)

Now.. this is where you go off the rails. You say I should respect others beliefs ? NOT a chance.. I'll respect, befriend, love, care for 'you' as a person, but not that belief.
You see...your holy book itself does not respect our belief.. so how can a Muslim have respect for the belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God? He can, if he chooses, be friendly to a Christian, but he cannot be honest and respect our belief.

Pericles.. ur pretty desperate there, but let me encourage you to consider these words:
"BASED on 'that' thinking..."
Now..all you have to do, is determine whether 'that' thinking is correct from an Islamic perspective. You'd need to determine that from the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence.
Hanifi_Shafi_Maliki_Hanbali.

But ultimately it is simple.
Did mohammad do it? Yes/no
If he did, then does 33:21 mean others can? (Follow his example)

PERICLES in my position statement (which you should be referring to for an official statement of my position rather than trying to 'read into'complex sentences the idea you wish to find there)

I clearly stated that the goal of Jihad (9:29)(words to this effect) is not to force conversions, but to establish the RULE of Islam. In this case, the command of 9:29 means to fight until rule is established! Fighting means killing, but not universal killing.

You are failing to distinguish between Mohammad as 'example' in the whole of Surah 9 and the specifics of verse 29.

Based on his example in this surah, it is entirely conceivable that a Caliph or a Muslim ruler could give a warning to all non Muslims in his land, "Leave or die" (just as Mohammad did) and then, carry out that threat to 100% of extermination, with the only exception of those who expressed a desire to hear about Islam, who would then be told, and escorted safely to 'their place' (where of course they can then be killed)

Now..according to the highly venerated and respected Islamic scholar and historian Ibn Kathir on 9:5

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20750

"Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations."

By his understanding.. surah 9 is about imposing Islam by force. (9.5 at least)

Do some reading and then you won't keep on shooting yourself in the foot :)
cheers.

I'm a little disappointed that you don't have the energy to introduce anything new to the discussion, Boaz. I was looking forward to a good chuckle.

Instead, you simply retreat behind the same old pointless verbiage - "Mohammad as 'example' in the whole of Surah 9"... "according to the highly venerated and respected Islamic scholar and historian Ibn Kathir on 9:5"... "surah 9 is about imposing Islam by force. (9.5 at least)".

...followed by the inevitable "Do some reading" instruction, as if I am suddenly going to start playing your game of hide-and-seek with reality.

There is only one point at issue here, Boaz, and it has nothing to do with what anyone else says.

It is about what you say. Here. Today. On this Forum.

Let's take (yet) another look.

>>Where have I EVER said "Muslims, when obedient to their holy book must kill all unbelievers" [? x 1000]<<

Here:

>>The justification for the attack however, was said to be specifically Surah 9:29 as quoted by Al Mughira in the hadith I mentioned. Thus, based on this thinking, ANY nation or person which is considered 'a threat' by the Muslim community can jusifiably be attacked or murdered. (Theo Van Gogh is a modern Example)<<

Which condenses neatly into "any nation or person can justifiably be murdered".

Convicted on the evidence of your own words.

Not those of al Mughira, whoever he or she may be.

Or Ibn Kathir, or Abu Bakr As-Siddiq, or Uncle Tom Cobbley.

It appears to be your life's work, to see the world in terms of "us and them", and to generate as much hatred for "them" as you can, on every possible occasion.

You have done so too many times, on this forum alone, to escape the charge.

The remedy is in your own hands. Stop rabble-rousing. Stop stirring up fear and loathing.

A good start would be for you to admit that you do not know everything, and that sometimes, others may actually be right.

I understand this might be difficult for you, but please try to get your head around the concept.

Mohammad was sincere but deluded to begin with. He thought that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures had foretold about him being a prophet.

“And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, foretold then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers. (Surah 10:94)

When told that the Scriptures did not support his claim, Mohammad became angry and accused the Christians and Jews of corrupting the Scriptures.

“O People of the Scripture! Now hath Our messenger come unto you, expounding unto you much of that which ye used to hide in the Scripture, and forgiving much. now hath come unto you light from Allah and plain Scripture”(5:15)

Mohammad decreed that Christians and Jews are enemies and, their hatred by all true Muslims is enshrined in the Koran.

“Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. Allah does not guide the wrong-doers.” (5:51)

Soon many Jews, and non-Muslims were killed and by Mohammad and his fellow cultists.
‘The great “holy” Ali, the son-in-law of Muhammad and the fourth rightly guided Caliph of Islam, found a Muslim called Mustawrid al-Ijili who had converted to Christianity and taken to wearing cross around his neck. Leaving Islam for another religion, a grievous sin in Islam, Ali quizzed him twice on his having become a Christian and twice the man replied that he had. Ali then exclaimed ‘Allah hu Akbar’ to which Mustawrid replied ‘The Messiah (al-Masih) is greatest.’ Then Ali held him by the fold of his dress and threw him down on his face, and said, ‘O servants of God, trample upon [him]’, and the people trampled upon him until he died.’[The Pillars of Islam Vol. 2]

Islam inspires Muslims to kill Buddhists, Christians in Thailand, Philippines and Indonesia. Indonesia executed 3 Christians for defending their village against Muslims but is reluctant to execute the 3 Muslims for killing over 200

Boaz,

“I don't claim to be 'TOLERANT AND LOVING' when it comes to falsehood”
Although I don’t see things in true or false format, you are as false to a bhuddist or an atheist. Yet I don’t see a Muslim, a Buddhist or an atheist jumping on your belief system. I only see you and your brethren doing that. Seeing you as an example, I now understand why Bhuddism is the fastest growing religion in Australia (79% increase in the last decade according to the ABS).

“I claim to be tolerant of those who might hold such beliefs in the hope and prayer that they will see the truth and light and follow it”
Above statement would read to me that you are only loving and tolerant to those who follow your belief or can potentially follow your belief. Please clarify.

Peace,

FH with his blinkers on :) said:

"Yet I don’t see a Muslim, a Buddhist or an atheist jumping on your belief system"

Now.. mate..that's as close as it comes to "assault with intent to do serious injury" :) I mean.. again..I almost choked reading that.

You have a short memory... grrr.. Bronwyn, Alchemist, Gym Fish Pericles, CJ Morgan Yabby, Spikey and the list goes on and on and on, all of whom bring intense criticism of our beliefs to this forum.
Not to mention Faustino who is buddhist. David F who is Jewish.

Contrary also to your 'wild assertion' that all my posts are anti Islam... please visit the "Lords Prayer and Parliament" thread.

"Open thine eyes" :)

By the way, "this" thread was begun by someone else, and I think the point has been established that Ramadan is not something which would prevent a Muslim group from fighting, based on Mohammad's example.

Irfy says "In the name of who's Islam"
Mohammad (by example) says "In the name of MY Islam, because I pillaged a caravan during ramadan and engaged in battle (Badr) during that month also"

So.. limiting our discussion to the topic.. it is clear that Irfy and maybe you, have a different view of Islam than your founder.

Of course..what would we know :) ummm.. ah..only that history is history.

It is clear, Boaz, that you firmly believe that the best way to maintain a falsehood is to keep repeating it, however many times it is contested and refuted.

>>Bronwyn, Alchemist, Gym Fish Pericles, CJ Morgan Yabby, Spikey and the list goes on and on and on, all of whom bring intense criticism of our beliefs to this forum.<<

I will only speak for myself, of course. But since I am on the list, I cannot let that statement stand.

I do not bring intense criticism of your beliefs to this forum.

I have said on occasions too many to count that I fully respect your right to hold your beliefs, however I might feel about them myself.

What I do object to, and will continue to object to so long as you continue to do so, is your incessant denigration of religions other than your own, as if you have some kind of exclusive access to the truth.

You don't.

Your opinions are your own, and are respected for what they are.

But when you hare off into theological intricacies that mean nothing to anyone but yourself, or when you make claims for the "rightness' of your religious views that are based on nothing but your faith, you should expect to be questioned.

None of which constitutes an attack on your religion, or your right to hold the views that you do.

If only, if only, if only... you gave others the same courtesy.

Luckily, it reflects only on you personally, and not on the religion you profess, that you don't.

Boaz,

“Mohamed engaged in battle (Badr) during Ramadan”

Historical facts about the Battle of Badr:

- Early followers of Islam (mainly slaves, elderly and women) were persecuted and tortured by their masters to abandon Islam. Total people of 313 Muslims at the time.
- Their opponent from different Arab tribes seiged them at Badr with over a 1000 armed horsemen (outnumbered 4:1 not to mention Muslims were on foot).
- Choices were: defend their lives, being killed or torture to convert away from Islam. They chose to fight back and they won.

“Bronwyn, Alchemist, Gym Fish Pericles, CJ Morgan Yabby, Spikey and the list goes on and on and on, all of whom bring intense criticism of our beliefs to this forum”

Actually all above posters criticised your behavior as alien to Australian culture of respecting ech other beliefs. Nobody attacked or scrutinised your faith as you claimed. They stood up as good Aussie samaritans and they never initiated aggression or been disrespectul of your opinions.

Back to my question: only you and your brethren are jumping on everyone else, do you still want anybody to believe you are tolerant and loving?

Will still buy you a coffee and lunch when I am in Melbourne next time, as you know I belong to a non tolerant faith : -)

Peace,