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.