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.