Not relevant, Yabby.

>>I was not aware that Sinn Fein had a holy book, which they believe are literally the words of God<<

I was simply asking whether your doctrine of "to understand it at its core, you have to go back to its origins" applied only to religion, or was widely applicable to other belief systems.

Your answer demonstrates that you consider the "core" philosophy applies only to religious beliefs. Fair enough. I do wonder why you choose to limit it in this way, but it's your worldview, not mine.

It is interesting though that you then proceed to discard the idea, and instead focus on a completely different aspect - the treatment of the various religious tracts by their followers.

>>... they all tell me that those arn't the literal words of God. Not so with Muslims, when I ask about the Koran<<

It is reassuring that you go so far as to accept that there exist different flavours of Christian. Could you not make the next logical step, and accept that there are different flavours of Muslim too? Just from my own limited circle, I know several who put the "word of God" stuff into context, without any outward signs of discomfort.

But can we simply accept for the moment that the "core... its origins, why it was founded and how" track that you initiated earlier is a red herring?

Thank you. That is some progress, at least.

One step forward, two steps back. Sigh.

>>There is a huge difference between people with a penchant for violence and people being violent and divisive because their religion promotes it and encourages it.<<

And which religion might that be, Yabby?

C'mon. If you have something to say, say it. Be specific. It's the same game that Boaz used to play here. It didn't work then, and it won't work now.

*Your answer demonstrates that you consider the "core" philosophy applies only to religious beliefs.*

Pericles, that really depends on what that belief system is all about.
Yes, philosophies can change, if you can invent it as you go along.
When I push Xtians on this, they quickly discard the Old Testament
and focus on the new Testament and the Jesus story. That is far far
more difficult to do with Islam, because of the importance of the
Koran to the core belief of Muslims. It is central to their belief,
not just a side issue.

*Just from my own limited circle, I know several who put the "word of God" stuff into context, without any outward signs of discomfort.*

Yeah, but you can only rationalise away things so far. If the core
text which you worship is violent, it becomes increasingly difficult
to do that and increasingly easy to convince others of its violent
context.

That is why it was so easy for Ayatolah Kohmeini, Sayd Qutb and
others, to convince followers that Islam is a violent religion.
Dashti actually goes into the history part to explain the Koran
and how it emerged. For the first years, the verses that Mohammed
dictated were in fact quite placid and friendly, but they changed
as he formed his army and began his conquests. So its very simple
to interpret that violence for what it is and be believed by those
whom you are trying to influence. The various calls for Islamic
States etc, which we see so often, go right back to these days,
to the core of Islam, which AFAIK remains the Koran.

You still don't accept the parallels, Yabby, despite the fact that you quite obviously see them.

>>When I push Xtians on this, they quickly discard the Old Testament and focus on the new Testament and the Jesus story.<<

>>For the first years, the verses that Mohammed dictated were in fact quite placid and friendly, but they changed as he formed his army and began his conquests<<

And what about these?

>>The various calls for Islamic States etc, which we see so often<<

Are those "calls" increasing, descreasing, or staying about the same...?

I think the size and scope of the "problem" is largely defined by our reactions as individuals. Yes, sure, we are seeing terrorism conducted by small groups under the banner of Islam. Just as in previous decades we have seen terrorism conducted by small groups, but under different banners.

Our reaction to it is what turns it from being terrorism-conducted-by-a-small-group, into an existential crisis.

I read a neat article only this weekend that discussed the process of "remembering" 9/11 - I'll see if I can dig it out. It pointed out that in the last few months of 2001 it was not particularly noteworthy to see a t-shirt with the words "All I need to know about Islam I learned on September 11th 2001" Today, those sentiments seem a little outdated. In another ten years they will be extremist.

It is very easy to read into these incidents whatever it is that you fear most. I for one refuse to believe that we are in some kind of holy war against Islam, and that there will only be one "victor". The world changes too quickly for that to be more than a t-shirt slogan.

It won't be long before we worry about something entirely different.

There will have been no "solution". Just as there has been, and will be, no "solution" to the Irish troubles. Or the GFC. Or Global warming/Climate change/AGW etc. But we would do ourselves a service by simply accepting their symptoms as another aspect of our extremely interesting lives, and adapt our behaviours accordingly.

*You still don't accept the parallels, Yabby, despite the fact that you quite obviously see them.*

I see the parallels and the differences, Pericles. I stand by my
right to observe and critique any religion with at least the attempt
of being somewhat objective. That does not make me an Islamophobe,
as you would like to imply. IMHO to deny the reality of any religion
is downright foolish. There are reasons why the world has unfolded
as it has and understanding them makes perfect sense to me.

*I for one refuse to believe that we are in some kind of holy war against Islam, and that there will only be one "victor".*

Well on that I agree with you. For IMHO in any society, only a small
% of the population will turn out to be fanatically religious.

The rise in fanatical Islam seems to be tied in with the substantial
petrodollars that have been thrown at it by the Sauds, as part of
their agreement with the Wahabs in Saudi Arabia. IIRC is was even
the Economist which noted that Saudi schoolchildren being taught
in their textbooks to hate the Jews, infidels etc, was hardly leading
to a more tolerant and peaceful world.

But I also understand why Muslims might have a more difficult time
with intergrating in another society, given the information which they
have been indoctrinated with as children.

So my point remains that Buddhist migrants should overall find
it far easier to intergrate into Australian society then Muslims,
based on their respective religious beliefs.

Read what Ali Dashti wrote for yourself, he was a smart fellow.
It will give you a deeper understanding of what the religion is
all about. Personally I am less interested in Xtian or Muslim
apologists trying to make their case, I'm far more interested when
a little objectivity is thrown into the debate.