DreamOn,
<<However, once you have combed out the politics, control mechanisms, history, culture and doctrinal distortions,
you end up with avenues for the expression of peace and Good Will in abundance.>>
The trouble is, those who have attempted to comb out all the above have ended up brushing with death.
Not that I agree with you on the doctrinal distortions and the expression of peace and Good Will in abundance bit.
Islamic fundamentalism is a return to pure Islam;
a combing out of the doctrinal distortions.
That is the problem.
"Moderate" Muslims have no doctrinal basis for their "moderation".
Good neighbour Muslims are good neighbours because they are not good Muslims.
ie they are not adhering to the Islamic doctrine,
as it is clearly spelled out in the Koran and Hadith:
* Infidels are your sworn enemies (Sura 4:101).
* Be ruthless to the infidels (Sura 48:29).
* Make war on the infidels who dwell around you (Sura 9:123, 66:9).
* Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day (Sura 9:29).
* Strike off the heads of infidels in battle (Sura 47:4).
* If someone stops believing in Allah, kill him (al-Bukhari 9:84:57).
* Take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends (Sura 5:51, 60:13).
* Never be a helper to the disbelievers (Sura 28:86).
* Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them (Sura 2:191).
* No Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel (al-Bukhari 1:3:111).
* The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land (Sura 5:33).
The above are not "doctrinal distortions"; they ARE the doctrine.
Al Qaeda et al. are the true followers of Islam.

*waves at Dreamy* "Anun Bala"? .. do? hope so :)

I know you won't get that.. ok..I'll relent- "apa kabar"? baik? haraplah.

On the Muslims of Indonesia.. err most as you describe are

Animists with a thin layer of Islam on the outside. You know it.I know it.. now every1 knows it :)

salam bahagia

Dear AG,

Two things:

1) kesatuan dalam keragaman.

And -

2) hidup dan membiarkan hidup.

Foxy wrote:

1) kesatuan dalam keragaman.

And -

2) hidup dan membiarkan hidup.

These are fine sentiments Foxy. I wonder how many Muslim majority countries apply them.

I wonder how many Australian MOSQUE-GOING Muslims would sign on for them if they were not themselves in a minority here.

See:

http://muslimvillage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=58508&mode=linearplus

See especially posts #51, #59 & #67.

From #67

QUOTE

that is my personal wish to see what happens to a person who insults the prophet, anywhere in the world where i know islamic law is not applied - in kafir lands. it is my wish to see them get involved in such accidents and i am proud of wishing such accidents on these cartoonists and anyone who supports them. if they were in an islamic state, they would be executed and cremated dishonourably. they could be crucified upside down and burned, as the masud website article points out and numerous other islamic texts.

END QUOTE

I'd like to say this guy has a few mental health issues. But then I'd have to say it about quite a few Muslim posters on Muslim Village Forums who appear to agree, or at least not disagree, with him.

The major critique is:

"I think you need to seriously reconsider how you behave in public."

Note: IN PUBLIC.

Well_done_Foxy :) do you know the lingo or just go a translation online ?

Unity_in_diversity is something most Protestant_Denominations have..and (in the light of a wonderful recent_experience at a mall,) -Charismatic Catholics)
High Anglican and Roman Catholic don't often share those attributes with the rest of we sub humans :)

But the point is, a Baptist ('Believers Baptism' emphasis) and a Presbyterian (Infant Baptism) are not at odds very seriously. Neither would like the other to try to change the way they do things, which is entirely understandable, but on basics they are identical.

1/ -Christ died for our sins and was raised from the dead according to the Scriptures.
2/ -He will return.
3/ -The One God is eternally existent in three persons. (always a difficult one..specially for Muslims)

But the very very important thing about this unity we share in the pan denominational faith.. is that we could not and would not have it if one group utterly cursed the other. Let's use our favorite warm hearted pastor Fred Phelps as an example. I don't sense any unity whatsoever with his mob and I'm sure it is mutual.

Harmonious diversity should (or can only) be based on non mutually exclusive elements.

I know that trying to persuade you of this is futile..so I won't try :) all I can do is state it for the record.

Just out of idle_curiosity.. what do you make of what Steven posted ?

Here is a good one..

http://www.islaam.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=211:shirk-polytheism-the-ultimate-crime&catid=46:polytheism-association-with-allah&Itemid=194

//Murder, rape, child molesting and genocide. These are all some of the appalling crimes which occur in our world today. Many would think that these are the worst possible offences which could be committed. But there is something which outweighs all of these crimes put together: It is the crime of shirk (associating partners with the sole Lord and Creator)// (fundamentalist site)

COMMENT
For info on what 'associating_partners_with_Allah' is..please see point 3 in the three point list above.."that" is shirk.

Let me repeat..I'm not trying to persuade you.. just providing information you can factor in to the mix.
No offense meant.

Dear AG and Steven,

I appreciate your points of view -
even though I look at things from
a different perspective.

My father was raised by Jesuits.
He spoke Latin, and was a classics scholar.
He taught me to try to form
my own independent opinion on the
basis of my own reason and experience;
not to allow myself to be led blindly
by others. To question everything.

I therefore have a problem with sweeping
statements, generalizations, and tarring all
people of any given religion with the same brush.
I find that
you can only evaluate things from your
own experience.

I appreciate your points of view.
I don't mean to be contentious and
I really prefer not to indulge in confrontation
because I feel (like Richard Dawkins) that an
adversarial format is not well designed to get
at the truth. However, as we all know when the
right buttons are pushed, we all react.
However, I genuinely believe that there's enough
hatred in the world, and I really don't care to
add to it. We're going to have to agree to disagree
on this topic.