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.