With your last reference - for which thanks, Proxy - you have managed to bring the argument full circle.

>>Britain is now considered a global hub of terrorism<<

The report you cite is indeed comprehensive.

But it deals exclusively with terrorism.

Nobody that I know supports terrorism. But your original question was whether we should be concerned - not about terrorists, but about the activities of peaceful Muslims.

>>The non-terrorists seek global Islam by non-violent means... Should we welcome Islamic organisations who ostensibly adopt the non-violent strategy?<<

In the course of the discussion here it has become clear that your intention is to conflate the two groups in people's minds, so that the "peaceful" group is firmly identified with terrorism.

Your most recent post underlines this.

>>...extremists and radicals consistently and correctly cite their religion to justify their atrocities... you see diversity where history shows internecine warfare... Coptic Christians are being persecuted in Egypt, churches being burnt in Indonesia, seven Bahai leaders being jailed for twenty years in Iran... Ahmadiyya Muslims being outlawed in Pakistan<<

And this quote, most of all.

>>You’ve met three nice Muslims therefore Islam is a religion of peace?<<

Would it be equally fair to say that you've discovered a tiny minority of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims are terrorists, therefore you assume that they all are?

Dear Proxy,

You accuse others of not being able to step
out of their "mindset," but you seem incapable
of doing it yourself, even briefly.

And, therefore all that's happening here is
we are not communicating, but merely talking
across each other, which is pointless.
As I've said, you're entitled to your opinion,
as I am to mine. You asked about non-violent
Muslims and should they be an issue for Australia.
I tried to address that question. I presumed that
you were genuinely interested in the opinions of
others, not merely in those of posters who agreed
with you. Perhaps you should have made that clear
at the start of this thread.

Anyway, I don't see the point in continuing this
discussion, as I stated earlier-for me it's run
its course.

Pericles,

<<In the course of the discussion here it has become clear that your intention is to conflate the two groups in people's minds, so that the "peaceful" group is firmly identified with terrorism.>>

No Pericles,
my intention is to
"conflate the two groups in people's minds, so that the "peaceful" group is firmly identified"
as sharing the same end-goals as the terrorists.
Then I ask,
should we as a society tolerate those who have the end-goal
of establishing the supremacy of their 7th century ideology?

I continue to be amazed at how shallow is the understanding of many commenters on this issue.

Foxy... killer cheekbones will not gain you any sympathy when you espouse weak argument.

"I take people as I find them"...of course you do Foxy as to most of us... the issue here is not about 'people'...it's about the essence of a religion, which at it's core.. permits in unmistakable terms.. unambiguously, that a man can beat his wife if he suspects her of bad conduct.

It is not a 'verse plucked out' at random.. how many video's does a person need of Imams explaining this verse ... before folk 'get' that this is an essential and central part of the religion itself ?

Pericles tries to relate this matter to 'generalized statistics'

A-gain..he is not 'getting' the faith aspect, but tries to grasp this through atheistic secular eyes.

(Pericles) "Never mind. Are we able to agree for the moment, therefore, that Muslim men are equally as likely as Christians, to beat their wives? Or do you have statistics to the contrary?"

COMMENT

PERSON A: (Non Muslim) "Will I or wont I ..whack my wife for what I consider misconduct? hmmm ok.. the law would prohibit me, she might complain to the police.. or any of a number of possibilites.

PERSON B: (Muslim in Egypt) "I suspect my wife of misconduct.. the Quran allows me to a) Isolate her, b) Refuse to sleep with her c) Beat her....so... I'll try each one and finally if she does'nt shape up..or..if my suspicions are not asuaged..I'll whack her and the police won't touch me because we live in a Muslim society, and Sharia law allows me to beat her.

Statistics Pericles ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nUI3TUdFCk

The issue really should be.. "Does Islam teach that a man may beat his wife"? plain and simple.. does it...or doesn't it?

How hard is this? Seems too hard for the.....(insert appropriate descripto's)

The more astonishing thing is.. 'who' in this world would defend it?

The only way some of you folks can rationalize this is by simple denial.... correct ?

One more for Pericles:

//In the course of the discussion here it has become clear that your intention is to conflate the two groups in people's minds, so that the "peaceful" group is firmly identified with terrorism.//

No Pericles.. Proxy is not saying that.

He IS saying that the "objective" of both groups is the same.

If I may quote the Quran here.. as it seems appropriate:

29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah[] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Now..whether you substitute 'peacefully struggle toward' or.. 'fight with weapons' for 'fight' at the beginning.. the destination is abundantly clear

"Until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued"

Anyone who knows the first thing about Islam, will know this.

The 'moderates' will emphasize "through peoples choice".. the radicals "whether you like it or not"

But if you put your thinking cap on.. who would 'choose' to be subservient to another's religion ?

That's hardly a cogent defence, Proxy.

>>my intention is to "conflate the two groups in people's minds, so that the "peaceful" group is firmly identified" as sharing the same end-goals as the terrorists.<<

How is that different from:

"your intention is to conflate the two groups in people's minds, so that the "peaceful" group is firmly identified with terrorism."

Adding a few words here and there doesn't reduce the clarity of your intent.

>>Then I ask, should we as a society tolerate those who have the end-goal of establishing the supremacy of their 7th century ideology?<<

The assumption that you make is that the majority of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims are intent on "establishing their supremacy".

You provide no more evidence of this than some excerpts from their scriptures that we know, and acknowledge, guide the terrorist factions.

By a convenient transference, you then say that "all Muslims must believe this". Which is what I meant when I pointed out your attempts to tar them all with the same brush of terrorism.

I can absolutely assure you that not a single one of the Muslims of my acquaintance has a) any interest in blowing you up, but, more importantly b) the remotest interest in establishing a Caliphate.

They are perfectly content to raise their families and remain model Australian citizens, without feeling the overwhelming urge that you ascribe to them, of converting the remaining 98.2% of us to Islam.

They present no threat to you, Proxy.

Why are you so afraid of them?