Hi David,

Your first post was a bit fundamentalist orientated :-( What difference does it make what religious belief Saddam held ?

Before you call any other religion you should delve deeply into the history of christianity - you may be very surprised to learn that christians have been the worst of the worse in regards to murder, rape, torture, stealing, taking over others lands etc.,

Dear Freethinker
I totally welcome your comments, and wish to respond.

Firstly, in principle, you are totally correct. I would never dispute the evidence from history of goings on in Christendom which make the jaw drop and the eyes bulge concerning their cruelty and brutality. Some of the worst brutality has been between Christian factions. Catholic/Protestant, Hugeno's etc, Cromwell, Ireland, Inquisition, Some aspects of the Crusades.

All are to be freely admitted.

But, there is always a but.

The most important 'but' is the connection between such behavior and the teaching of Christ. As a general statement, we can say as follows:

-Christ (and the apostles)neither acted nor taught anything other than the power of the Word to expand the kingdom of God.

-Mohammed and his companions were warlike in word,doctrine and deed from the inception of Mohammed supposedly as a prophet.

So, this leaves us the task of understanding the relationship between Christendom and War/brutality.

I can accept 'War' by Christian States, but I cannot accept 'Brutality'. The only kind of war which has any moral virtue is that which is to defend freedom, and promote justice. Such was World War II.

Wars which are aimed at extending territory, or forcing the conversion of the populace are immoral and evil and certainly not "Christian" in any manner.

I'm grappling with this at the moment, and will try to put a piece together asap about this for a new thread.
I hope you will give your valued comments there also.

Hi David,

"-Christ (and the apostles)neither acted nor taught anything other than the power of the Word to expand the kingdom of God.

-Mohammed and his companions were warlike in word,doctrine and deed from the inception of Mohammed supposedly as a prophet"

This would appear to be correct 1) assuming that history has given us correct information regarding Mohammed and 2) I remember in the bible that JC had a tendency to throw swine off mountain tops and kill fig trees, he also said something about not bringing peace but a sword. Anyway, the assumption that Jesus lived at all is one open to debate. However, I would agree that overall the teachings of JC were aimed primarily at peace. I would also state that if JC were to walk into a church today and teach the same principles that he supposedly taught 2,000 years ago, he would get kicked out.

"I can accept 'War' by Christian States, but I cannot accept 'Brutality'. The only kind of war which has any moral virtue is that which is to defend freedom, and promote justice. Such was World War II"

The burning times are probably my favourite in regards to christian brutally. The slaying of the Cathars might be another one to look into. World War II is probably the only justifiable was in the last 200 years.

"I'm grappling with this at the moment, and will try to put a piece together asap about this for a new thread. I hope you will give your valued comments there also"

I'll look for the thread :-)

If Sadaams last words became law. (but I reverse them and apply them to Muslims here)

RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE IN AUSTRLIA.
Again, due to Sadaams last words promoting Islam, it might be advantageous for us to consider what life would be like for Muslims in Australia, if we applied their laws for us, back on them.

TAXATION. All Muslims will be taxed at 50% of their gross income, and the land will be forfeit to the state. (precedent, Mohammeds law for the Jews at Khaybar)

PRACTICE RELIGION. Muslims will be free to practice their faith with the exception of proseletising/converting. No one is allowed by law to convert to Islam.

FOOD LAWS. No special provision is to be made for Muslim food habits. They are to avail themselves of normal food provided for sale.

MOSQUES They cannot extend any mosque or build new mosques. All repairs to existing mosques must be approved by the State. (Charter of Omar)

SOCIAL POSITION. Muslims are to wear distinct clothing, and must always provide free accomodation to non Muslim Australians as they need it.

WORSHIP. Their worship must be quiet, not audible to outsiders. They must never demonstrate or be in any way active politically. They cannot vote. (precedent. Charter of Omar for dhimmis')

If anyone takes issue with these proposed rules, please yell loud and forcefully, but in doing so, yell that they came from Islam and Mohammed, directed against Christians and Jews. It was worse for unbelievers. Judge the words above, and you judge Mohammed, but I don't mind.

If readers desire to avoid such policies, the best thing is to realize that they come from the last words of Sadaam and vote accordingly.

Freethinker. I've done the thread. Make sure you look at the important links though please. Just on the points you mentioned about Jesus saying he came to bring a sword. Read it in context mate and its the same 'cultural' way of talking. Pigs..it was the demons who drove them. Tree.. yes, curious :)

Boazy: "If readers desire to avoid such policies, the best thing is to realize that they come from the last words of Sadaam and vote accordingly."

Got it - I definitely won't vote for the Baath Party at the next election. And aren't they secular anyway?

Saddam Hussein's reported last words are the Muslim version of anyone facing death who suddenly finds God. He was hardly a devout Muslim before that moment, and Iraq certainly wasn't run according to the learned Boaz's rendition of Sharia law.

More "codswallop" from our resident Islamic scholar.

C.J. -points duly_noted. But Sadaam apparently drew_comfort from the Quran for a considerable time during his incarceration, not just at the last minute.

I'm using his words as a hook, because he is iconic, and thus, his words are also iconic. Sure glad you won't be voting for the Baathists next election :) But you might like to consider also not voting for their Green and Lefty sympathizers who are not so far away from them, should they ever gain power.

In currently in debate with the principle of an Islamic girls school in Sydney, and I'm quite astonished at how she describes factual accounts of Mohammeds lifestyle as 'insults'.

The particular point I will increasingly make is that Mohammed allowed and practiced Temporary Marraige. (Nikah Muta') This practice was forbidden by Caliph Omar, but in his forbidding, he actually states that the prophet did practice it. Given that theologically, Mohammed must always take precedence over those who suceeded him, I find this prohibition by Omar to be out of order. This is why Shia males in Sydney are still trying to lure Sunni girls into one nite stands in the name of temporary marriage, and using the history and example of Mohammed in their persuasion.

The further I go into the 'fine print' of Islamic practice, the more convinced I am that it is simply a thin veil for male lust driven social and political agenda's.

When I criticize Mohammed on such grounds, I'm told I'm insulting the 'best of mankind' but.. well.. I then turn my attention to this:

Hadith_Bukhari http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/005.sbt.html

Volume 1, Book 5, Number 268:
Narrated Qatada:

Anas bin Malik said, "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, "Had the Prophet the strength for it?" Anas replied, "We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men)." And Sa'id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven).

P.S. have a browse of this mate
http://muslim-canada.org/muslimstats.html