Yep.. a lot of dear folk on OLO seem to regard awareness raising about 'Islam' as some kind of Paranoia and misguided racist zeal.

THE EVIDENCE from a place I also call 'HOME'.
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/001815.html

Aziz, of the UMNO (United Malays National Organisation) party made headlines in June last year, when he shouted "Racist!" 28 times in Parliament, and later refused requests from the Democratic Action Party (DAP) to apologise.

The Law Minister said that anyone who criticised Islam would be tried under the Sedition Act, a legacy of British colonial rule, which existed in Malaysia before its independence in 1957.

Aziz said that the states of Sarawak, Sabah, Federal Territory and Penang had not yet adopted the legislation, saying: "There is no reason for these states to delay adopting the law."

He added: "Why (do we have) to interpret (the constitution) when it is clearly said that (non-Muslims) are not allowed to spread religions other than Islam to the Muslims?"

Racial/Religious Aparthied. We were all ranting about it in Sth Africa. I didn't hear much about it in Malaysia. Perhaps because there are no 'Whites' in Malaysia to beat down on?

The ONE single point being stated here, is about 'Islamic Political Power' will without even a second thought, enact legistlation to protect and promote ONE single Faith,...i.e. Islam.

He is in effect saying "If we have the numbers and the guns, we don't care how you feel or think"

When people like Hilali, Hamas, Hezbollah, Azziz and the Taliban begin offering freedom to persuade Muslims to become Christians, I'll have nothing much to say.

Until that day, I will criticize the growth of Islam in Australia, and the practice of it in other countries.

MEET BOAZ and throw a few verbal rocks at him :)

Friday 1st June at 55 King Street Melbourne, 10.00am VCAT.

It was suggested by certain 'cowardly' individuals who sent anonymous messages to my websites that I am hiding under some rock, and afraid to come out and be seen.

If anyone wishes to discuss issues of Islam or Christianity with me, I'm planning at this stage (business pressures allowing) to be at the above location on that date and time, in support of the 2 Dannies and the vilification case. (directions hearing)

So.. if you want a 'piece' of me, (figuratively) or to berate, bludgeon (verbally) or 'blast' me (again, with words only) that will be a chance.

I may or may not have a sign quoting Quran 9:30 on the day, but will liase first with the Dannies (and the court) to see if they feel this might hurt their case or be in contempt.

What a coincidence, I was just skimming through some of the articles here and thinking, "There is not much general interest here, nothing on us versus Islam at all", when I came on Boaz' aricle.
Have we all been so brow beaten by political correctness we dare not broach the subject that is near to our interests in national safety and our civic well being?
Or is all sweetness and light in our beloved land?

WHY ARE SOUTHERN ITALIANS 'DARKER' THAN THE NORTHERN ONES?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sicily

I cannot be 100% sure on this, but if history teaches anything, it does hint at the history of Italy and Sicily being invaded by Arabs as one of the strongly possible reasons.

Not that skin color makes a scrap of difference to a persons humanity, but sometimes it 'tells an unspoken story' about days gone by.

THE CRUSADES WERE "INEVITABLE" and did not happen in a vacuum. Its not like suddenly there was a flash of spiritual light occurring in the head of Pope Urban the first.. "aah.. I have a good idea, lets go and invade those distand Arabs/Muslims and teach them a lesson"
Not at all.

ISLAMIC PILLAGING. as early as 652 Arab/Muslims were invading Sicily and pillaging.

831 After resistance at Siracusa, the Muslims gained a foothold in Mazara del Vallo. Palermo fell after a long siege in 831, but Siracusa held out until 878. From 842 to 859 the Arabs captured Messina, Modica, Ragusa and Enna. In 902 Taormina, the last Byzantine stronghold also fell to the Arabs and by 965 all of Sicily was under Arab control and Palermo became one of the largest cities in the world.

Muslim rule in Sicily slowly came to an end following an invitation (?) by the Emirs of Catania and Siracusa for a Norman invasion. The Normans, under Count Roger de Hauteville (Altavilla) attacked Sicily in 1061.... COMMENT "strange, but apparently true"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Islam_in_southern_Italy
A second expedition occurred in 669. This time the strong, ravaging force consisted of 200 ships from Alexandria. They sacked Syracuse and returned to Egypt after a month of pillaging. After the Umayyad conquest of Africa (complete around 700), attacks from Muslim fleets repeated in 703, 728, 729, 730, 731, 733 and 734, the last two times meeting with a substantial Byzantine resistance.

As I said.. INEVITABLE.

Oh come on Boaz, you really don't think anyone actually wants to talk to you IRL do you? Get over yourself. I hope you do go along to that court hearing and make a complete ass of yourself, that'll show those sex-fruit terrorists!

However, if you are interested in Anthropological genetics, you may also be interested to know that much of the red haired genes that you see in Scotland and Ireland comes from Vikings! Thats right, gingernuts have genes in them from godless Norse Pagans! In fact, there is some speculation that the red-hair gene may in fact have come from Neanderthals! Shock horror, our genes can come from other species even? Who knew?
I reckon that gingers have been hiding among us, just waiting to reestablish their godless Pagan ways again when we aren't looking.

Boaz, may I suggest a deal here.

How about you confine all your anti-Islam comments, accusations, innuendo and pure hate-speech to this thread, and leave the rest alone?

It would be a massive act of generosity to your fellow-man, you know.

We would all be exceptionally grateful.

In fact, I suspect I go for the rest of the Forum when I say that if you agree to confine your rabble-rousing to this one thread, we will stop beating up on you, exposing your flawed logic, remarking upon your inability to see anything except your own narrow take upon reality, laughing up our sleeves at your fatuous naivete and cringing at your poisonous rantings.

How about it?

A great post David.
I think you've hit on a major divide.

Any one-eyed glorification that may have existed in the west for the likes of the crusades has long ago been purged from mainstream thinking. Its now become almost customary to wear sackcloth & ashes when talking of the west’s role in the crusades But we hear next to nothing about the crimes of the other side, either from western ‘academics” or from
non-western ‘academics’.Typically western academic texts will list a long litany of charges again the crusaders ( & more often than not tie it all to the woes of the modern world) but pass nary a comment on the wrongs of the other side.

This has enabled some, who trace their heritage from other than Christian roots, to take a lofty holier-than-thou stance . One gets the distinct impression when reading some of these peoples posts on OLO, that their own past was a golden age of tolerance & progressive governance.( a variation on the noble savage theme). And I’d suggest, it is also a major reason some high profile non-western ‘extremists’ are able declare with a high degree of local credibility that it is all black & white & God & justice are on their side.

If we want to break grip of extremism we have to move beyond Mickey Mouse caricatures

Keep posting David - we need to hear more from people like youself who have had experience(s) outside our nice, little,
liberal western cocoon(s).

pericles, this site is pretty useless unless you keep the entertainment value in mind.

boaz is pathetic, as a rational being, but he's amusing and from here- seems to be human, and entitled to speak his mind.

when you cut off discussion because you don't like what the speaker says, you condemn yourself to only getting good news. remember what happened to xerxes.

Dear Pericles, I can not do better than point to the posts of Horus (pro) and Demos (con)

Clearly you are out of step with things. You speak for yourself when you lay condemnation on me.

I don't mind disagreement. Onya Demos, go4it mate.

But Bugsy.. you showed a flaw in understanding there. The only reason I pointed to the darkness of souther Italians was to underline a historical reality. It has nothing to do with any value judgement on particular genes. Enuf said on that.

Thanx heaps Horus. The truth commends you :)

Pericles.. back to you. Since when did you adopt Sharia law for yourself and seek to impose it on me ? Criticism of Islam and National Socialism and Communism and the Ananda Marga etc etc etc are legitimate social exercises.

POSSIBLE PUBLIC ACTION. I'm considering the following:

A small team at Preston Mosque with a sign:

"Muslims don't believe Christ is Son of God, MAY GOD DESTROY THEM, they are deluded, away from the truth"

Naturally, Current Affair would be alerted, and the event would be video taped (by team members)

This would be a political act, with the specific aim of throwing out the 'Racial and Religious (in)Tolerance Act 2001' and is thus exempt from any infringement of Anti Terrorism hate laws.

The purpose would be to highlight the inherrent vilification and anti semitism in Islamic Scriptures against Jews and Christians, and the danger of such a value system growing in Australia.

Anyone wish to join ? Basic qualification "BALLS OF STEEL"
Naturally, there will be many suggestions of 'other' kinds of qualifications

Now don't misunderstand me here, I'm absolutely in favour of free speech, in all its many forms.

I am particularly in favour of Boaz sounding off about his pet religious theories, just as I am in favour of being able to take him to task about them. In fact, having Boaz around is an important part of taking the temperature of one-eyed anti-Islam fanatics.

While on the subject, I certainly don't believe that Boaz is the most sinister manifestation of the hate industry, merely its willing mouthpiece, presenting a naive and simplistic view of "us and them".

My point is that having one place to go to keep up with his "discussion" on Christianity vs. its nemesis, Islam, is both useful and convenient.

Useful, in that we can keep pace with the extent of its impact on the less thoughtful members of the community. My grandfather was a typical working class battler in the thirties when he came under the spell of Oswald Mosley. Grandad was a classic example of your "average man", so it is always important to keep an eye on the traction these neo-fascistic rantings are achieving with the population at large.

It is also convenient. It is very annoying to have a perfectly amiable and constructive discussion suddenly interrupted by a Boaz interjection, on the one hand quoting the Bible with gleeful approval, and on the other quoting the Qur'an with undisguised disgust.

His excitement over the Bible quotes is particularly cringemaking, almost as if he had written the words himself.

(OT: It occurs to me that the Bible could well have been written by a long succession of Boazes. Imaginatively building a universe that mirrored their own tortured loneliness and feelings of inadequacy. But that's material for a whole new thread)

So let's ask him i) to keep on writing, as much and as consistently as he has in the past - or even more so, if he wishes - but ii) to confine his offerings to the thread that he has created for himself.

I'll certainly pop in from time to time.

Pericles, your way with words is not diminished by exercise. Good.... I always learn something, but what I honestly don't understand is your reference to the 'hate' industry in connection with my anti Islam posts.

Let me see if I understand you.

1/ Islam is based on documents which specifically name Christians and Jews as "to be destroyed,deluded,at war with Allah".
2/ It does so on the grounds of their beliefs.
3/ I am highlighting this hate, this 'mein kampf'...this outright genocidal tone in Islamic writings. Recorded both in the Quran and in the Hadith, one being the 'Sent down word of Allah' and the other, the 'oral tradition of sayings of the prophet'.
4/ By highlighting the points mentioned in 1&2 above, I am 'hateful'....

Is that where you are coming from ? Perhaps the difference between us is that 'I' am a specifically mentioned target of 'mein kampf/Quran' and you think you are not. Your spiritual status places you at more risk than me in Islam.

So... let me re-iterate so it is unmistakably clear.

1/ I and all my kind are hated (Literally) by Islam.
2/ Documentary evidence and practical example abound to support this assertion.
3/ Mentioning this as a social and political danger means.. "I am hateful"...

Now..have I accurately captured your position?

Your position is the opposite conclusion from what a rational person would reach based on the facts as they stand.

To demonstrate exactly how silly, irrational and untenable your apparent position is, I can simply change it from "Islam" to National Socialism, and call myself a Jew, and you would look at my 'anti Nazi' commentaries as 'hateful against Nazis'.

You should re-think what you say, because people are reading this stuff, and I don't think you want to come across as an irrational, muddle headed dill who uses lots of big words but lacks basic powers of reason and deduction.

If I was ranting against Nazism would you hold the same view of me?

Would I be a "Luminary of social responsibility" or.. "a hateful bigot"?

This has been the main reason why I keep responding to you Boaz, despite the fact that I find myself saying the same things over and over.

>>what I honestly don't understand is your reference to the 'hate' industry in connection with my anti Islam posts<<

I can well believe that you don't understand it. You have shown absolutely no glimmer of understanding, ever since we started these "conversations".

In fact, I doubt very much whether you ever will understand it.

It is disturbing to speculate why, but if I were to hazard an unprofessional guess, it would be directly related to your attitude towards Christianity.

From the evidence gained from your posts, it appears that you have little tolerance for others who profess to be Christians. You lump them all - Crusaders, Popes, tele-evangelists, even recently the entire Roman Catholic faith, I notice - into a basket that says "nice try, but you fall short of my criteria"

You have even less tolerance for faiths that are not your own. Scratch that. You have less than zero tolerance, you have active antipathy. And the evidence you present for this antipathy is only comprehensible to fellow-travellers, not to the world at large.

So you must accept (I realize that understanding is beyond your capacity) that to a non-Christian such as myself, your invocation of various selected translations of various selected ancient texts to support your antipathy is not logical, merely provocative.

And when your provocation appears to be out of hand, I occasionally point out to you the impact of what you are saying.

Because to me, this is what counts towards the "incitement to hatred" index, and why I keep invoking the shade of my long-departed grandfather.

You may believe you have the purest of motives for your invective against Islam. But the end-result is stirring up hatred in other people, less able than yourself to see the deeply Christian nature of your position.

Quoting religious texts is the medium. The message is "hate these people".

Boaz, I know you weren't commenting necessarily on genes, but it's pretty absurd to try and explain why the Crusades happened in the context of Islamic raids etc.

I mean, the British Empire invaded their way around the world, the Catholic Church was right there performing conversions to the faith under the sword alongside the Spanish when they conquered many parts of the globe.

Before the "Muslims" (not a racial group by the way), there were the Phoenicians, the Persians, the Greeks (big on colonies, Greeks), The Celts, the Angles and Saxons, Huns, and Mongols. What you don't see is many people complaining these days about the Angles invasion of the British Isles, nor about Viking raids in many areas of western and northern Europe. It's history, old and interesting for sure, unlike yourself. It also occurs to me that this particular history lesson doesn't have much of a point to it, unless it's just a vehicle for another rant, oh, wait, it is. Doh!

Bugsy-: " The Muslims are not a racial group by the way."

Any peoples who have lived together and interbred for a few generations (they share a bloodline) are indeed a racial group.

While not all muslims worldwide belong to the same racial group because you have African muslims, Asian Muslims, Middle East Muslims they are indeed racial groups or tribes.

And whilst you dont see the lesson to be learnt from ancient history and you think its old hat. The lesson to be learnt is that this tribal warfare is still raging across the planet in many places today and it is not something that only happened back in olden times it is a very real everpresent threat.

The tribal warfare between the Jews and Arabs and the tribal warfare between the Shiites and the Sunnis are just two examples.

The Arabs never acknowledge their tribal agression throughout history of which there were many instances but they are big on pointing out the tribal agression of the West and the Jews. David is just trying to point out that the Arabs are no innocent party and have been just as agressive.

Pericles.... "my" understanding ? Trust me..its not simply 'my' take on it.
Protestant/reformed (with reservation)/evangelical/conservative better describes my position.

You throw a small bucket of slurry on me about my mention of Roman Catholicism.... which was really just in passing, Let Bugsy do my work in response there.

Quote: "the Catholic Church was right there performing conversions to the faith under the sword alongside the Spanish when they conquered many parts of the globe."

Now..this doesn't happen today, as far as I know. But that, along with pointing out a clear departure such as 'selling forgiveness'(or to them the 'Sacrement of Indulgences') from the very foundation on which the Church is based, is not exactly out of order you know.

My major concern though is your choice of 'emotion' which you attach to my posts. You choose to link 'hate' to them. Do you feel that my mention of some issues with the Catholic Church are 'rabble rousing and hate inspiring'? I hope not, because I'm quite happy to work with Catholics and Atheists against the growth of Islam. I don't agree with Atheism, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, but while on the one hand I might point out issues of divergence/disagreement it won't stop me working along side them.

You see Pericles, Hinduism is 'all embracing' theologically. "God 'is' and is 'in' everything...including Christians"
Buddhism is about personal enlightenment and victory over the pain and suffering in the world. Ok.. to me they are clearly in error, but they don't constitute a physical or political threat.

Islam is about political/social/spiritual submission "fight them....until they feel themselves humiliated and pay the jizya" that my friend is the political/theological position of true Islam.
(9:29)

Quran 9:14 is interesting

"Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands" (note who's hands Allah uses to punish?)
Please have a careful read of this (2928) for the 'mentality' of Islam. Note the 'conversion method' and threat of violence.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/019.sat.html

I'd be interested in your comment/feedback on that.

PS. I refer to 'ancient texts' because they shape the modern Quranic Muslim mind.

Sorry Boaz, you can't deflect an argument that way. It is one of your favourite tactics, but it doesn't work.

>>"my" understanding ? Trust me..its not simply 'my' take on it.
Protestant/reformed (with reservation)/evangelical/conservative better describes my position<<

Apart from the fact that this is pure mumbo-jumbo, the "understanding" I referred to was your ability, or in fact lack of ability, to understand the impact of your words on others.

>>My major concern though is your choice of 'emotion' which you attach to my posts. You choose to link 'hate' to them<<

Let us assume for the moment that you do not "hate" Islam. You have already stated that you do not hate Muslims, and I can readily accept that.

Unfortunately, what you are doing is providing others with an excuse to hate. That is what I mean by the term "rabble-rousing".

The "rabble" in this instance is the group that takes its lead from someone who stirs an emotion in themselves for which they previously had little or no justification. Just a vague sense of injustice, or fear, or hurt, or disadvantage - the rabble-rouser turns it into hate by focussing on a single target, and painting a picture that "they" are the enemy that has caused all the pain.

This is precisely what you do.

You may not intend to do so, which is my opinion in my more charitable moments. But you do it so consistently, and so thoughtlessly, that the danger is inescapable.

This is why such careless, off-the-cuff, throwaway lines like "The virginia Uni massacre.. done by a Muslim? 'Ismail X'" are non-trivial.

There was absolutely no reason for you to make this comment, unless you wanted to create anti-Islam sentiment in those who read it. Even the fact that it turned out to be utter nonsense isn't the point - the fact is, your intention was to draw attention to an evil act that you believed was perpetrated by a Muslim, and by analogy, bolster your position that every Muslim is dangerous.

Am I getting through yet?

I doubt it, but I'll keep trying.

Sharkfin, you probably don't realise it, but you made my point. A group of races is not a racial group, a subtle but important distinction of the English language. Would you consider Christianity to be a racial group? I don't think so.

And it's a seriously tortured argument when you connect events separated by more than 300 years and say that the latter was "inevitable" because of the former. Thats like saying that the invasion of Iraq was "inevitable" because the Ottoman Empire fought in World War I (and those events are only separated by less than 100 years!).

History is history, we can learn from it certainly, but to try and use ancient and medieval history to justify some sort of vilification against a religious group is not generally considered a "Christian" thing to do (I use the "christian" here as to denote the ideal, not the actual way that Christians behave).

As Boaz said, "this doesn't happen today, as far as I know.....but its not exactly out of order you know" when referring to conversions under the sword by Christians. Now, which one is Boaz, pot or kettle?

Boaz,

I find it interesting that many reasonable posters like Pericles are coming to the same conclusion about your actions and their impact.

I don'tjudge you your concerns might be genuine but to be aprt of the solution you need to support the moderates. Right now going around spreading fear and hate is harmful to the society.

Please think of more constructive ways to help your cause.
Peace

Perilous... do you consider that most OLO posters are 'rabble' ?

I think you have a fair point about providing an excuse for the 'rabble' to 'hate'.... but in any serious discussion this is inevitable. There will always be the fringe elements who don't see the deeper issue, just the surface one..

"Boaz condemns Islam.. Muslims are all bad, LET'S GET EM" That kind of thing? Fortunately we have laws and a police force here to protect the yet to be enlightened Muslim community from such rabble.

You also seem to be ignoring the 'other' rabble.. those who have taken 'religion' to a MUCH more serious extent, even to the point of allegedly seeking to blow us up.. they are currently on trial.

I know of no other 'rabble' who is anti Muslim currently on trial...do you?

In fact.. looking at this more analytically.

Muslim population approx 1.5% or 330,000
Muslims on trial for alledged terrorism 24 (Melb 13 Sydney 11)
24/330,000= .00008%

If Aussie 'rabble' were of a similar proportion there should be 1760 Aussie muslim haters on trial at the moment. Do you see them?

So, clearly the problem lies not with the "Aussie Rabble" but in the Muslim community.

F.H. I would rather you explain to me how what was 'sent down' by Allah is no longer applicable...then we have a starting point for discussion. When you are prepared to declare.

Surah 9 (the lastest to be revealed) is to be rejected for today (not re-interpreted) but REJECTED...
and when you are prepared to condemn surah 23:5-6 as 'outmoded, wrong, evil and definitely not from God'
and
33:50 as a shameful 'licence for virtually unlimited sex' and when you can "condemn political murders (ka'ab) in defense of Islam" then.. we will make progress. When you can show from the Sunnah, that the Fatwa on Salman Rushdie was not in any way possible.....

Until then, we have much discussion to go.
How about you goto Lakemba mosque..stand outside with signs to the above effect...I'll be your security :)

Not sure where you are going with this Boaz, but I'll play along.

>>...do you consider that most OLO posters are 'rabble'?<<

No. But unfortunately you treat them as if they are.

>>but in any serious discussion [providing an excuse for the 'rabble' to 'hate'] is inevitable. There will always be the fringe elements who don't see the deeper issue, just the surface one<<

Listen to yourself, why don't you?

A "serious discussion" does not consist of a never-ending stream of quotations from the Qur'an, accompanied by an explanation that they all mean i) that all non-Muslims will be killed in their beds and ii) it is all the fault of that evil prophet.

That is not a discussion, Boaz, that is invective. Aggressive, biased, purposeful, inflammatory invective.

There are no "deeper issues" here. Just the surface, and it is extremely ugly.

>>Muslims on trial for alledged terrorism 24 (Melb 13 Sydney 11)
24/330,000= .00008%. If Aussie 'rabble' were of a similar proportion there should be 1760 Aussie muslim haters on trial at the moment. Do you see them?<<

I could use precisely the same statistic to prove that the police are targetting Muslims, and turning a blind eye to Muslim-haters.

Let's say that the police last year prevented 1000 kilos of heroin reaching the market. This year the figure is 10 kilos. Does this mean i) the police have rid our streets of the drug problem, ii) have been asleep on the job for the past twelve months or iii) have diverted the smack and started dealing themselves?

The comparison is meaningless, isn't it?

>>So, clearly the problem lies not with the "Aussie Rabble" but in the Muslim community<<

That's exactly what I am talking about. You take a random isolated statistic involving a couple of dozen malcontents and turn it into an anti-Islam polemic.

I could take precisely the same statistic and use it as damning evidence that the police are conducting some form of religious vendetta.

Incidentally, your maths are almost as faulty as your logic.

Boaz,

You quote:
If Aussie 'rabble' were of a similar proportion there should be 1760 Aussie muslim haters on trial at the moment. Do you see them?

Actually the number will be 10 folds considering the number of complaints \i hear from Australian Muslim women. A key reason is Australian Muslims are far less likely to sue for discrimination or racism than, say American Muslims but when they will overcome that and understand their legal rights, there will be a lot more than your 1,760.

Park your missionary mumbo jumbo and lets talk sense:
Your claim of about the Quran makes no sense: if it was an Islamic rule, why did Muslims ignored it for the last 14 centuries? why did they maintain and protected christian and Jewish minorities when their counterparts didn't replicate? Why did 20 % of the arabs in many Islamic countries kept their faith, churches and synagogues?

Stop the 'mullah' approach of quotations and start thinking..

Bugsy -: "You wouldn't condsider christians to be a racial group would you"

Well actually if you had seen some of my earlier posts you would know that I do.

The IRA is one prime example of a christian racial group. They were the original Irish inhabitants before the British protestants another christian tribal group marched in an set up colonies in Ireland in the 1600's. The tribal warfare for control of Ireland waged by the Irish catholic tribe is rather well known.

The Catholics in early England who tried to wipe out the heretics were also a christian tribe. Catholics were very strict back then about Catholics only marrying Catholics this creates a bloodline or race. The uprising by the Catholics involved the planned assasination of the heretic Queen Elizabeth with the Aim of putting a catholic Queen on the throne and thus wresting control of England from the heretics who by and large werent of their bloodline. In other words the conflict was racial.

F.H. you are forgetting I have lived and worked in one of the most moderate Muslim controlled countries in the world... Malaysia, and I have seen and felt the 'mullah' approach on a daily basis.
Ask me who 'Haji Brahim' is/was ? He is the bloke I saw every day (slicing up buffalo's)who's job it was during the Brunei rebellion, to murder/slaughter ALL missionaries including children where I served.

In Malaysia there are 2 major forces to contend with.
a) Nominally Muslim, but more interested in power and wealth UMNO
b) PAS the Islamic party.
There is constant struggle by PAS to increase power and influence and they are the mob which wants to segregate all male and female this and that, including checkout registers at supermarkets.

I've been mistreated personally, threatened, used and abused.

The bottom line is, I fully understand how political Islam works and while it is difficult to quantify on small managable/understandable bits, I do know the danger signs. I see them here in Australia.
The Catch the Fire case is one such example.

You also seem to be forgetting that the Muslim mindset (maybe not urs) is based on the Quran, Hadith/Sunnah. What else can it be based on? Christians are based on the Bible. Some take it more seriously than others, but the DIFFERENCE is... taking the Bible seriously as a Christian, (and rightly understanding it) leads to
-Proclamation.
-Dialogue.
-love.

Now...you might say "Whoah BD..where is the 'love' in your posts?"

Well, its as real as that of a surgeon who says "I'm sorry, you have cancer and you are going to die within 3 months unless we remove the tumor"

I'll give you another opportunity to refute my claim.

1/ Surah 9 is the latest(or close to it) thus the most authoritative.
2/ The absense of Muslims carrying out 'genocide' does not mean they have not committed it 'culturally'. (They have done both, I speak from experience of the cultural version and 'close' to the physical)
3/ Surah 9...does..or does not, curse Christians (forever) based on their core belief about Christ?

F.H... "Moderate Muslims in Power"....

read and learn mate :) I judge on reality, not the sanitized version promoted by 'Islam is peace' Omar Merhi at the recent Leftoid Hicks meeting in Sydney

[Omar Mehri an ETU union delegate and brother of a Sydney man detained during the Melbourne/Sydney terror raids spoke next. We heard the usual platitudes “Islam is a religion of peace and harmony”, his brother “is a fine young man who would not consider terrorist acts” and he just said a “few silly things”.] (report).

Hindu Temples being destroyed in Malaysia... (but don't hope you will read about it in the Malaysian media)

http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002227.html

Here is the Law Minister Malaysian link again.
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003402.html

"The 13 states of Malaysia have mostly adopted the Control and Restriction Bill, which gives a fine of 10,000 ringit ($2,653) or imprisonment for up to one year for "persuading, influencing a Muslim to leave Islam for another religion." On August 23, a week before independence, Mohamed Nazri Aziz, the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, ordered that the "constitutional law" which forbids others to spread religions other than Islam to the Muslims must be streamlined nationwide."

Muslims in malaysia are 50.8% -are you tweaking to it yet mate ?

The pen....is indeed mightier than the sword... and I have the pen in my hand.

God loves you...and seeks to reconcile you to Himself through Christ Jesus.

Boaz, the links you provide have the same credibility to me as a KKK site.

You have this naive belief that if i) something is published on the internet and ii) you agree with it, then it automatically should be viewed as "truth".

Conversely, you have this belief that if i) something is published on the internet and ii) you disagree with it, then it automatically should be viewed as "untruth".

Perhaps not remarkably, this precisely echoes your religious beliefs.

If something was written in the Bible, and it shows Christianity in a good light, then it must be true.

If something was written in the Bible, and it shows Christianity in a bad light, then it must be a metaphor, and misunderstood.

If something was written in the Qur'an, and it shows Islam in a bad light, then it must be true.

If something was written in the Qur'an, and it shows Islam in a good light, then it must be irrelevant, since the bad bits inevitably take precedence in your eyes.

It is therefore unfortunately not possible to take your Chicken Little moments seriously. The sky is not falling.

We are simply going through a phase where two fanatical religious factions are snarling at each other. On one side we have a small number of extremist Muslims, on the other we have a noisy band of self-righteous Christians, both sides fanning the flames in order to increase their perceived self-importance.

It will pass. There are simply too many ordinary people of ordinary goodwill, who will weather the random acts of cowardice and concentrate on building bridges between people with different backgrounds and upbringings. Just as we always have.

Progress towards peace in Northern Ireland was not accomplished by either religion "winning", but the people simply getting tired of the hatred and the killing.

Your mission, on the other hand, will ultimately be crushed under the weight of your own fears, which will be very sad.

What will you do then?

Boaz,

1. “I've been mistreated personally, threatened, used and abused”

Flawed argument. Many Aussie mossies are abused everyday it’s a fact of life. A new convert to Islam 5th generation aussie girl was spat on in Rockdale last week. To any rational person that is a single incident by a coward. To use an incident to paint a society, a country, a faith is totally irrational. Rwanda with 96% Christian population slaughtered 800,000 non-christian infidels 15 years ago. Does that mean I use it to criticise your faith?
On the humour, you don’t come across as Mr Tactful :) if you go to someone’s country and attack their faith in the manner you dispaly on OLO you should not expect open arms and hot chocolate :-)

2. “taking the Bible seriously as a Christian, (and rightly understanding it) leads to: -Proclamation, -Dialogue, - love”

Again that’s your personal view. Nigerian Christians carry machine guns in the streets and Russian orthodox stone gays in the streets.
Many infallible popes had a Hitler-like views on christianity.
The love and dialogue have nothing to do with religious dogmas as it exists in bhuddism, secular societies and Sufi Muslims amongst others. Its good you managed to re-invent ur faith as tolerant and loving but don't believe too much your own marketing material :-)

3. “The pen....is indeed mightier than the sword... and I have the pen in my hand”
That my friend is the wisdom I live by, the pen and the www is the only way to interact and dialogue.
www.affinity.org.au are doing good community efforts, please help us support and being part of our community. Enjoy your faith and let us enjoy ours.

Peace,

Hi F.H.... again :)

I did a bit of interaction on IRC and came up with this character.
I mentioned the hadith Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386: and basically this bloke agrees that my understanding of 'invasive' Jihad is quite true and legit. Then.. see how he gives the 'Muslim in minority' spin a bit further down "But we must live in peace with all" :) what rubbish.. On the one hand

"Invasion to establish the rule of Allah" is fine...
then
"But we must live in peace" :)

<Rafeeq> 29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
<Rafeeq> The Noble Quran - Dr.Khan & Dr.Hilali Surah:9.At-Taubah.
<Rafeeq> until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
<MuayThai2> So..let me be clear.. you believe that offensive JIhad is ok to establish the rule of Allah ?
<Rafeeq> if we kill all jews and christians... then who will pay jizya?
<Rafeeq> yes [THIS is in answer to my question about offensive jihad]
<Rafeeq> or we can have peace treaty
<MuayThai2> So.. invasion of non Muslim lands is lawful jihad.. ?
<Rafeeq> you dont fight me and I wont attack you.. but dont stop Islam and muslims
<Rafeeq> That is the true Jihad
<Rafeeq> truest

All I'm showing here, is that your understanding is not that shared by all Muslims.

Only by recognizing this, can we make progress. For me... progress has many aspects.
-"Political"...protecting our state from invasion without and within.
-"Polemical" ...proclaiming the Biblical Christ as the final truth.
-"Pastoral"... when people have found Christ, to nurture them into disciples.

Don't look 'just' at the one and seek to define me by it :)

Answering your article title question: yes, You're paranoid! Only in your case its self inflicted.

I guess I can dig out Crusaders material written in the same time as your references and live in self inflicted fear that all western countries are just crusaders in disguise... You know, you got a lot in common with the jihadists:-)

Whatever, have a happy life if you chose to..

Pericles,

Your analysis impressed me. :)

Peace my friend,

BD, still on your never-ending personal crusade to warn us all about the evils of Islam.

If it is controversial religious texts that you are offended or confronted by then I wonder how would you would react to a religion whose holy text includes saying that Non-Believers are –

1. Sub-human animals who may be freely exterminated, lied to, cheated and stolen from.
2. Do not have to be paid wages for their work and are outside the protection of the Law.
3. Prone to acts of bestiality and will never go to heaven.

It also says that the Bible should be burned and that Jesus was a sexually immoral sorcerer and a bastard whose very name is a curse and whose mother was a whore. According to this book, Jesus is now in hell, being boiled in hot excrement.

At the risk of being labelled an anti-Semite, this hateful, racist and chauvinistic book is the Babylonian Talmud, which typically outranks the Jerusalem Talmud and the Old Testament and is being followed by Orthodox and Hasidic Jews today.

Even that famous (mis)quote used in Schindler’s List about “saving the life of a single human being like saving the whole world” actually refers to saving Jewish lives only. Gentile lives are worthless.

If you find those beliefs to be offensive, you are not alone.

However I know several Jewish people and not one of them would subscribe to these beliefs.

Likewise I know both Muslims and Christians who happily ignore controversial parts of their respective holy texts because they are simply not relevant to modern life.

They are also all personally enlightened enough to have a happy fulfilling life in spite of these things.

Life is too short for these distractions.

Wobbles.. thankyou for your contribution... I would like to know your actual source for those things, because the echo the 'Protocals of Zion' almost to a T and they have long since been debunked as Marxist slander without foundation.
So.. b4 saying more, I'll await your reference or source please.

F.H. That little chat encounter demonstrated the 2 aspects of the Islamic world.

1/ Invasive Jihad is lawful.
2/ We must be happy clapping peaceful Muslims in non muslim societies.

The difficulty comes, when we try to determine
a) why there is this difference and
b) if Invasive Jihad (to establish Allah's rule) is lawful.. it can come anytime, with the possible exception of the other party having a peace treaty with the Muslims.

Thank you for your suggestion that I am in my own little self made world :) I'll remember that next I stare Abdullah Merhi or Benbrika in the face at the county court.

Remember J Edgar Hoover ? sure you do.. he is the one at the head of the FBI who repeatedly asked 'WHAT organized crime'? but we know the truth...don't we.

Pericles analysis is neither here nor there.. I've demonstrated his lack of rationality on some issues over and over.

EVIDENCE.
If we have a statement in the Quran, which is clearly corroborated by others in the Hadith from numerous witnesses then.. this is what the legal system terms a 'compelling case'.

I have only ONE major claim to support. "Islam..is aggresive not peaceful" I've proved this beyond doubt.

Surah9 (whole) Verses 29&30 in particular.

Mohammads sunnah/understanding of Surah9:29
Hadith Muslim book 1 29, 30, 31
Hadith Bhukari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386

Indisputable. If you DO dispute it, you only support it by pointing to gross contradictions in the Quran.
In addition, what is clear, is that Islamic Jihad/invasion to establish the Rule of Allah is totally 'lawful' even though the victims don't convert, but they get taxed.
You cannot support from Islamic history that they only responded to others attacking them, you can at best point to 'some instances' of that.

Oh Yeah? In your dreams, Boaz.

>>Pericles analysis is neither here nor there.. I've demonstrated his lack of rationality on some issues over and over<<

Wow, you do have a big ticket on yourself, don't you?

Demonstrated my lack of rationality? I think not. Name one occasion. Just one.

The problem you have is that your "rationality" is based upon a belief system that itself has no rational basis. Ask goodthief, he will tell you. The only requirement is to have faith. No rationality needed, nor any offered.

Any challenge you make to my rationality is founded upon your faith-based, rather than intellectually-based, belief system. Which, incidentally, is unfortunately shared by very few others. It would appear from your posts that every other religion, indeed almost every other Christian, fails to measure up to your "rationality".

Furthermore, you have backed down from every single confrontation, choosing instead to take refuge behind another swathe of quotations from your carefully selected sources.

Nor is it just me. You even backed down from an opportunity to talk to the convert-to-Islam Yvonne Ridley when she came to your town. Do you recall? You went along, but couldn't even be bothered to listen to her story, let alone challenge her views in open forum.

I suspect she might have given you some backchat if you had expressed your standard views on Islam to her... She certainly would have given you curry if you had had the courage to tell her what you told us about her from the safety and anonymity of OLO.

So, let's have no more nonsense about "I've demonstrated his lack of rationality on some issues over and over"

To the contrary, I have caught you out on inaccuracies, misattributions, half-truths and plain, simple distortions on many, many occasions.

While we are about it, how about an apology for "The virginia Uni massacre.. done by a Muslim? 'Ismail X'"?

No chance? Thought not.

Boaz,

You keep misleading yourself and believe your own fabrications. I am not responsible for your deliberate mis-interpretation of the Holy Book. Here is my argument from your comments:

• The meaning of the word Jihad: the top 5 common meanings as Muslims know it are:
1. To strive, self improve (ie resisting temptations like gambling drinking, adultery, etc..)
2. To sponsor the orphan and the widow.
3. To look after your elderly parents (hence you would rarely find a nursing home in Muslim countries).
4. To spend from your own money and time for charity (alms)
5. To defend one country when under attack which is the concept of military service.
Its all no brainer and you don’t need to be a muslim to see the common sense in above. Jihad never meant Holywar except for the likes of Taliban and the Christian fundies because they both can’t wait for Armageddon. Good riddance but don’t hold me responsible for your deliberate ignorance.

• As you know Muslims study the HolyBook with meaning interpretations and reasons of revelations. Which means we need to understand the wisdom of the meaning given the time and surrounding conditions at that period. At the time there was no UN or mutually agreed borders but rather the strong swallows the week and force his terms (religion included). There is no room for that in today’s context: countries respect each other borders and sovereignty (to a great extent) and spirituality is in an open market place where people can study, reason, compare and chose what makes sense to them.

To Pericles as Richard Dawkins - [ Religion is flawed]
You make some valid points.

To Pericles as Neville Chamberlain – [For peace in our time , all we need do is smile & talk nice]
1)On this thread, David is not so much expounding his “pet religious theories” as highlighting a little discussed – (& judging by other posts) little known side of history. Many would do well to ingest some of it.
2) In your single-mindless desire to CRUCICIZE the messenger you trample under the message :
- Many a current conflict is fueled by a key groups interpretation of Koranic texts .
- Many a draconian ruling are justified by reference to such text
- Perhaps they’re all misinterpreting the text – but it’s valid to point out the source of their inspiration & raise questions.
And its not a case of Christians do it too- or have done it worse in the past - so we should all hold our tongues .For many minority communities living in Islamic societies the issues/incidents David raises are clear & present .
3) Re “the impact of your words on others”
Sometimes people need to be woken up- we need a little more Churchill & a lot less Neville Chamberlain in the mix.

To Pericles as Buck Cluck [ Yo’ll behave on my turf]
A prolonged & very loud RHUBARB!

Bugsy ,
I agree we have to encourage the moderates – [though there are different degrees of moderation]
(The million+ people making a stand in Turkey come to mind)
But no creed or personage in our society should expect protected status

Fellow _Human,
1)Your comment that “Muslims” have ignored the ( warlike texts of the Koran ) ‘for the last 14 centuries” is misleading . It only appears that way to those NOT on the receiving end of their gratuities. The view from the receiving end, e.g. many a Christian community in Indonesia, Malaysia The Animists in Southern Sudan is different .
2)I note you very much partial to the idea that Muslims receive less than reciprocity from the west .And while not wanting to play the “we’re holier than thou” game . I suggest that this a misconception. There is a lot more flexibility re practice & preaching of religion in most western societies than in almost any Muslim society.
Abu al-Ala al-Ma arri’s work Fi al-shi’r al-jahili would have meet with no problems in any western society even had its subject been the bible, &
Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd would never have had any problems publishing Naqd al-khitab al-dini & would still be married.
3)Further aren’t you making the same mistake you accuse others of – your recent posts talk of “Muslims” as a monolithic group –aren’t you doing a bit of stereotyping there ?

Peace –without submission.

Horus,

You said:
1) "The view from the receiving end, e.g. many a Christian community in Indonesia, Malaysia The Animists in Southern Sudan is different"
Persecution of minorities can happen all I am saying is we cannot link it to religious teachings hence was the Rwanda and Nazi examples above.

2)"I note you very much partial to the idea that Muslims receive less than reciprocity from the west"

My point is to recognise positive steps on both sides and where possible each party reciprocate.
I don't play the 'holier than thou' game its againt my beliefs.

3) "There is a lot more flexibility re practice & preaching of religion in most western societies than in almost any Muslim society"
Thats a misconception I can see you are from an arab or egyptian background. A living example today in Egypt: christians have their onw TV channels and educational programs and the government bans movies like the DaVinci code because it might hurt feelings or shake their faith. Christian minority have the lowest unemployment rate and the highest average income. Their Christmas and Easter is a national full day televised public holiday.
Now which western country do you know offer that to minorities?

4) Many muslims including myself don't support what happened to Nasr Abu-zeid I believe Islam is reasonable logical faith and all issues can be resolved with dialogue without resorting to Fatwas and opression. There should be a line between those who want to debate and innovate and those who just mock and ridicule.

5) you quote"Further aren’t you making the same mistake you accuse others of – your recent posts talk of “Muslims” as a monolithic group –aren’t you doing a bit of stereotyping there ?

I never intended that and if it transpired out of frustration with Boaz rest assured its unintentional. My posts are consistent and clear: faith is between every individual and God we can only purify our intent and actions and treat each other with fairness and care without vilification.

Peace,

BD,
The statements I made were not taken from the Protocols of Zion and have been argued over for centuries - even put on trial during the 13th Century.

There are a myriad of references available.
Specific references are names like Sanhedrin, Moed Kattan, Yebamoth, Sotah, Gittin, Shabbos .. and so on.

However for contextual summaries of the "supporting" side, there is a well-known book by (right-wing activist) Elizabeth Dilling, who is represented on http://www.come-and-hear.com and, closer to home, there is http://biblebelievers.org.au/talmudx.htm - as well as countless extremist and anti-Semitic sites who are more than eager to jump onto this bandwagon.
Another controversial author pushing this line is Michael A Hoffman.

On the other side however, claims are well-refuted on sites such as http://talmud.faithweb.com - among others.

Despite the points raised on both sides, there can NEVER be a clear winner in such an argument and this has been the basis for hatred for about the last 2000 years and will remain so.

It's not so different from your own personal campaign.

When it comes to matters of Faith, people will always believe what they want to believe and - unless they directly interfere with how I choose to live my own life - that suits me just fine.

Pssst Boaz... Take it on the chin and roll with it man!
Spanky

hahaha :) spanky.. WHERE WHERE YOU last night ? :) this is hilarious.. I currently have a rather black eye..again, but this time specifically due to a rather heavy whack in the face by one un-named individual who is renowned in our gym for interpreting 'light' sparring as meaning 'full on street brawl' :) and he gave me a cut under my eyebrow which resulted in streams of red liquid rapidly flowing down my face.. but hey.. it goes with the territory and next time I have his jaw in the sights of my rather heavy right cross, I won't pull it back and the last moment and look at him with the 'Now see that..I COULD have" look....So, it was the eye, not the jaw.

WOBBLES.. I understand your points, but I simply encourage you to always go to the earliest most original sources (as I do) and if you cannot find a direct link to them, not much value in posting about em, specially when they are disputed.

F.H. for you, todays lesson is about the Al Fatah Al Islam (or whatever their name is) who have taken over the Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon.

ONE person, went there, and by his powers of persuasion gathered a 100+ fighters, and now they run the whole camp. As one of the reporters noted, "How are ordinary people going to stand against a hundred blokes with guns"?

Remember my 'mantra' ?
-"RADICALS DRIVE THE AGENDA"
-Radicals will influence moderates, not the other way around.

For me, this confirms the need to clearly identify and publicize the core religious issues which are likely to be exploited by such radicals.

Remember Sheikh Feiz ? "Grunt snort... Jews are pigs" etc.....

"Who" is Sheikh Feiz ? the man at the helm (until a while back) of the Islamic Youth thingy in Sydney.

I don't have a quarrel with you, but I DO have a quarrel with him and all like him. If he speaks in the public arena.. so will I.

WOBBLY.. abit more for you mate.

1/ I would be MOST vocal if I sensed that any group.. Jews or otherwise was promoting such ideas in Australia, if you can show me where such a group is active,..I'll sick my pitbull onto them :)
(my keyboard is my pitbull)

2/ Sikhs... I noticed yesterday on the news that in another country, some Sikhs were threatening violence against some cult where the leader dressed like a Sikh Guru.

MESSAGE TO ALL SIKHs in Australia... "If someone wishes to lampoon your religious teachers.. get over it, and too bad!"

We are a free society, and while I don't advocate the 'mocking' of any faith for mocking's sake.. if idiots decide to do it..the ONLY recourse you have is the LAW.

Christians and Priests are mocked daily. We don't like it but it happens. Freedom is more important than Oppression on issues of free speech about particular religions. If the truth of the faith cannot stand the test.. its not worth following.

Thanks for the thumbnail character sketch horus, very amusing.

But it does interest me that my ramblings here remind you of the Chamberlain of appeasement fame.

This would indicate to me that you are one of those people who decide that "if not A, then B".

If Chamberlain was determined to avoid England going to war, then he must have been an utter wuss, and deserving of our scorn. With the convenient clarity of hindsight, his trust in Hitler's promises, and consequent betrayal of the Sudetenland, look foolish. But that's history for you - a harsh and judgmental mistress.

If the current stupid stand-off between religious fanatics does lead to the Holy Wars of the 21st Century, then yes, I will look as foolish as Chamberlain. But there are some fairly major differences in the political and cultural environment.

I see no significant military build-up, no claims on territory, nor any threats of either.

What we do have, is an exercise in religious mind-games.

If I make enough growling noises, your religion will pack up its tent. Then everyone will embrace my religion and we'll all be happy.

Check Boaz' posts - his "answer" to the problem is that they all become Christians!!

Terrorism is of course very real, but the principle object of our present fear, militant Islam, is to disrupt, not conquer. Terrorism in this style, for its own sake and opportunistic, cannot be victorious in anything except engendering more terrorism. There can be no end because there is no end. But ultimately they will fizzle out and go home, like the Red Brigade and Ananda Marga.

Or more likely, become middle-aged and domesticated.

To imagine that Islam is in the process of taking over the world, and then to set out to vilify the religion at every opportunity as a means of preventing it, seem misguided and foolish, respectively.

"If not A, then B"

If I protest that Boaz' rants are more likely to fan the flames of hatred than to bring an end to the conflict, I am in your eyes somehow pro-Islam?

Sorry. Wrong.

Boaz,

I agree with Spanky and wobbles: just take it on the chin!
If you like to mix religions and Intl politics so much, suggest you move to Rwanda and join your fellowship of the ring in their fight against the non-Christian infidels (800,000 killed so far).
In my belief lies will always catch up in this life or the next.
Good for you your belief system is different :).

BD,
You either still don't get it or you're just trying to side-step the issue.
The point is that these quotes ARE in dispute - as are yours - and have been so for a very long time.

The outcome has led to the suffering and slaughter of literally millions over the centuries.

As for their age, the quotes are actually older than Islam itself and predate the New Testament.

Jesus himself argued with the Pharisees about many of the things in the Talmud and paid the price.

Yet you take an identical position against Islam and use the same sort of arguments, incite hatred, and expect a different result.

Come on, indulge yourself. All the specific references and eloquent details are here -

http://www.come-and-hear.com/dilling/dcontents.html

It'll be like looking into a mirror.

Pericles,

Not that you're any different from Chamberlain. It's just that you're unable to put yourself in Chamberlain's shoes.

You wrote: << I see no significant military build-up, no claims on territory....>>

You don't get it. It is not a military build-up and claims on territory that matter.

It is gradual POPULATION build-up and little we can do to wind it back.
No black & white war to fight and no clear boundary to defend that's the real problem.

Narrow-mindedness and savage behaviours that Islam fails to eradicate, actually get worse among such a population.

Then the entire population is an extricable problem in itself, exercising narrow-mindedness and savagery that one cannot escape from, without external intervention.

Just like that poor girl who could not escape her killing in cold blood - Yesterday SMH news: Teenager stoned to death.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/05/22/1179601410882.html

Can we expect today's Chamberlain taking actions to bring about a more civilised world?

Pericles..
One point please,.. "no territorial claims".... mate.. open thine eyes and read the Hamas charter. Look at Sudan/Dafur.. Somalia,Nigeria and umpteen places where the concept of 'Muslim Lands' (Islamic Waqf) is at play.

At least you confess that history will be your judge. I prefer though to let it be our 'prophet' for the future as well as judge of the past.

Wobbles. The passages I quote are not in dispute, but their meanings may be. To me its pretty simple.

-Islam believes in aggressive violent Jihad (war) to install the rule of Allah. This does not neccessarily mean forced conversions as we understand that term, but with taxation, 2nd class citizen status and various other pressures, people tend to conform over time.
Quran..not in dispute.
Hadith.. not in dispute by those who count (the schools of Islamic jurisprudence) 'Sahih' means 'authentic'.

Here is the heading..from that Islamic source.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/001.smt.html
Chapter 9: COMMAND FOR FIGHTING AGAINST THE PEOPLE SO LONG AS THEY DO NOT PROFESS THAT THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH AND MUHAMMAD IS HIS MESSENGER

Number 30 It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah,

COMMENT: now.. that is the original (translation of) and its pretty clear to me. If you feel this does NOT support violent jihad and war against unbelievers.. then please show how it does not.
Have a read of numbers 29,30,31,32 .. all different chains of transmitters. thus.. extra strong/reliable.

-Abu Huraira
-Jabir
-Abdullah bin Omar
Then Bukhari Vol-4 Book53 number386

Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute);

-you can look up each of these under the wiki heading 'companions of the prophet' or.. do searches under each name.

They all say the same thing, and provide Mohammad's understanding of Quran 9:30

F.H. is in denial about this:)

Boaz,
There is a science for hadith interpretation. Muslims understand the example you quoted as follows:

1. The Quran superceeds Hadith. “Fight those who fight you and shall not transgress”is clear : a) there have to be an immediate and clear danger or invasion b) fight only to stop the aggression.
2. ‘No compulsion in religion’ is a clear Quranic text and was used by early muslims to regulate the rights of non-believers and the people of the book. Non-Muslims have equal rights to be safe in their property, land, money, homes, places of worship, etc..
3. The time factor: the hadiths was in a time of war. You know that Islam had been fought since its dawn because of its message. It wasn’t exactly a nice cruise for muslims. The fighting of the time was a situation forced upon muslims in the overwhelming majority of cases.

I guess I can challenge you to point anywhere in the Quran where Muslims are encouraged to transgress. Or maybe I should quote the OT on how to treat gentiles (in circulation in today’s bible in Australia) after all Yahweh is Jesus right?

But then, usual Boaz master in deception and PHD is Islam mis-interpretation, will run away quietly and disappear. Until he resurfaces on a new thread.
Back to the title: yes you are paranoid, but for me at least there is a new defintion: you are boring.

It's good to see we all understand the basic issues here.

Horus writes:

>>It is not a military build-up and claims on territory that matter<<

Boaz disagrees:

>>"no territorial claims".... mate.. open thine eyes and read the Hamas charter. Look at Sudan/Dafur.. Somalia,Nigeria and umpteen places where the concept of 'Muslim Lands' (Islamic Waqf) is at play<<

I know you love conspiracy theory, Boaz, but "spot the Waqf" is not being entirely accurate, is it? Let's take Sudan first:

According to the BBC, "the conflict began in the arid and impoverished region early in 2003 after a rebel group began attacking government targets, saying the region was being neglected by Khartoum. The rebels say the government is oppressing black Africans in favour of Arabs. "http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3496731.stm

"The Janjaweed militias, Muslim like the African groups they attack, have destroyed mosques, killed Muslim religious leaders, and desecrated Qorans belonging to their enemies" http://hrw.org/reports/2004/sudan0504/2.htm#_Toc71531687

Next: Somalia

"Since 1991 Somalia has been engulfed in anarchy. Years of peace negotiations between the various factions were fruitless, and warlords and militias ruled over individual swaths of land" http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107979.html

"The fledgling administration... authority was further compromised in 2006 by the rise of Islamists who gained control of much of the south, including the capital, after their militias kicked out the warlords who had ruled the roost for 15 years. With the backing of Ethiopian troops, forces loyal to the interim administration defeated the Islamists at the end of 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/country_profiles/1072592.stm

There is no "Waqf" in play here, Boaz, just normal internecine strife.

Your contribution is just another "The virginia Uni massacre.. done by a Muslim? 'Ismail X'"?, isn't it?

If you keep stirring the pot the way you are, it might just lead to exactly the kind of conflict that you are imagining.

Just as our old friend Oswald Mosley, if left unchecked, might have roused his rabble sufficiently to set in motion England's own version of Kristallnacht.

Fortunately, more sober heads prevailed. As they will here. Until then, you would do everyone a favour if you simply stopped your knee-jerk whack-a-mozzie rants.

Pericles,

Get it right, will you? It's GZ (not Horus): >>It is not a military build-up and claims on territory that matter<<

Of course military build-up and claims on territory by force are problems, but they are NOTHING compared to gradual take-over through normal civil means (e.g. high Muslims birth-rate and migration).

I'd rather have enemy military build-ups and campaigns. That way I know where the army can confront them.

It's subtle means of conquer that have many naive people confounded. So they either sit on the fence not knowing what's right & wrong, or unknowingly abetting the unthinkables.

Just look at Israel. It's worst enemies are not even on the other side of the border. They are actually inside Israel itself, calling themselves Israeli's but covertly subverting the nationhood of Israel.

Is it ever possible for someone to grasp what's beyond his wisdom? No wonder Chamberlain sought peace with Hitler !!

"Just look at Israel. It's worst enemies are not even on the other side of the border. They are actually inside Israel itself, calling themselves Israeli's but covertly subverting the nationhood of Israel"

Arabs always lived in Palestine pre and post 1948. Post 1948 after the Jewish state was formed they were given an Israeli arab nationality or status. Noone asked their permission or consent.

Apologies GZ, but you and horus do sound remarkably similar.

Especially when you make such patronizing and arrogant comments as:

>>Is it ever possible for someone to grasp what's beyond his wisdom? No wonder Chamberlain sought peace with Hitler!!<<

to go alongside horus'

>>For peace in our time , all we need do is smile & talk nice<<

These two snide remarks show how little history you understand.

Appeasement was the formal policy of both the British and French governments between the two world wars. Its objective was to avoid the repetition of the senseless slaughter that had wrecked Europe between 1914 and 1918.

Chamberlain had been Director of National Service in 1916, a position that would have been mentally devastating for any person with a vestige of humanity.

Try to imagine yourself in the position of organizing seemingly endless lines of cannon-fodder to send to the front. Would you not spend the rest of your life trying to find ways to avoid anyone having to do it again?

It is also a gross calumny to suggest that it was "beyond his wisdom" that seeking peace with Hitler was the wrong thing to do, or that he negotiated by "smiling and talking nice".

It might seem self-evident in hindsight, like Ponting's decision to put England in to bat at Edgbaston, but it's so much easier to criticize once you know the result, isn't it?

Neville Chamberlain was a highly intelligent, extremely accomplished and caring person. The proof, if it were needed, is in the long list of reforms he made during his political career - the Factory Act, Housing Act, Holidays with Pay Act etc.

Check it out sometime, when you have overcome your attraction to lazy soundbites as a substitute for rational discussion.

Scaremongering is such a satisfying game, isn't it?

You don't actually have to do anything more than round up a few bogeymen, extrapolate their power and influence to the nth degree with speculation and hyperbole, then slag off anyone who disagrees with you as being either naive or cowardly.

What fun you must have.

Perilous.. anywhere Islamists are in military conflict, you will find (if you dig) that down there somewhere is the concept of 'Islamic Lands' (Waqf) I wont argue that further, but I commend you on your research. You conclusion is just spurious.

F.H. I'm still here.. haven't ignored you or run away.

Your statement is classic "Muslims understand".... huh ? I showed you clearly in other posts that some muslims disagree with your understanding. You cannot presume to speak for all muslims.

You have selected a verse which supports your 'spin' "but do not transgress" then you deflect the clear meaning of bukhari's and muslim hadith with a bit of a con job "There is a science of hadith" without going any further, providing sources, or references.

How about you actually support that claim by showing how the 5 major schools of Islamic Sharia understand these hadiths? Now that would be a verrrrry good start.

There must be a rich discussion on the meaning of both Quran 9:29/30 and Bukhari Vol4 book 53 number 386 which is so UNambigious and totally clear that no science I know of can change the plain meaning of words.

Mughira is responding to people who asked him why Omar/Arabs are invading them. He justifies the invasion by referring to the command to "fight those etc" The context has ZERO to do with fighting BACK, because I've read up on the background, which in any case is clearly stated in the hadith "Omar was considering which countries to INVADE" -I'm sorry mate but this is 'un-spinnable'

OMar apparently regarded the world as a bit of a supermarket.. "Hmmm which product will I choose today"? (for invasion that is.)
Subsequent history verifies that this was the understanding of "Muslims" and the Barbary wars also support this traditional understanding.

The most I will concede to you is this:

"Some moderate muslims in minority status in Western countries, prefer to choose less confrontational understandings of Islam for the sake of their social well being"

You, my friend are one of those. But the facts remain.

Boaz,

“I showed you clearly in other posts that some muslims disagree with your understanding. You cannot presume to speak for all muslims”

I am saying that my understanding of Islam is: a) How I understood it, b) how it is taught c) the way it should be taught. When I see a discrepancy that’s when you and I have a common interest is to correct the youth.

2 “You have selected a verse which supports your 'spin' "but do not transgress".
There is no spin, the Quran for us is the rules of God and the prophet hadith are interpreting the rules. If God says ‘shall not transgress’ then the hadith is the one we need to examine. But then you knew that :-)

3 “How about you actually support that claim by showing how the 5 major schools of Islamic Sharia understand these hadiths?”
You can answer your own question here: each one of these imams in the opening statement of their books they clearly state they are fallible and could have got take on hadith right or wrong given the time. Further more, many of the modern day scholars like Ghazali corrected understanding of hadith in the 1980s. Google science of the hadith.

4. “The most I will concede to you is this”
"Some moderate muslims in minority status in Western countries, prefer to choose less confrontational understandings of Islam for the sake of their social well being"

Sorry but that’s not good enough. This statement implies that Islam in essence have 2 version an aggressive one and a peaceful one. That’s not correct and here is my challenge to you through actions and history:

- Why in history’s most confrontantional wars, with Islam, Christians, Jews, Sabeans still existed (until today) with their churches, synagogues untouched. If islam is at war with Christianity and Judaism, then the early muslims (including Saladdin time) should have wiped them all out.
- You would agree that the most peaceful religious sect on earth is Islamic Sufism. How can that many millions interpret Islam in this sense unless it’s the rule?

Boaz, it is annoying when you simply run away like that.

>>anywhere Islamists are in military conflict, you will find (if you dig) that down there somewhere is the concept of 'Islamic Lands' (Waqf) I wont argue that further, but I commend you on your research. You conclusion is just spurious.<<

At the very least, I expected you to quote back at me some sources, at least as authoritative as those I posted, to explain why you believe that my conclusion is spurious.

It is not up to me to look for this material, because I did not make the claim in the first place. It is important that you understand this, because it may help you come to the realization that you cannot simply fire off any old accusation, and expect those who ask "say what?" to go away and do your research for you.

Your claim was:

>>Look at Sudan/Dafur.. Somalia,Nigeria and umpteen places where the concept of 'Muslim Lands' (Islamic Waqf) is at play<<

All I had to do was look at the situation in the first two that you mentioned to discover that we are talking about internal strife between factions and warlords.

If there is any substance at all to your claims, I expect you to back them up with facts, and credible references that don't come from the hate-sites that you clearly frequent, and that provide you with your propaganda.

At the very least, you should be able to see by now why you sound increasingly like a 1930's rabble-rouser whose name we both know. His game was to stir up the mob against Jews, yours appears to be to stir up the blogosphere against Islam.

You both use the same tricks. Telling stories that are readily accepted by the hoi polloi as being factual, when in fact they are nothing more than innuendo, wrapped in a paranoia born of fear.

As I suspected, we are still in "The virginia Uni massacre.. done by a Muslim? 'Ismail X'" territory, aren't we.

Aren't we?

Pericles,

Patronizing and arrogant, yes. However I suggest what's important is not sentiment, but facts and logic.

You have some facts but poor on logic.

For Pete's sake, Chamberlain was a leader of Great Britain, a position that requires wisdom, leadership and courage.

Wisdom - To correctly read Hitler's intentions, know how to respond.
Leadership - For a start, successfully dissuade Britain from a policy of appeasement.
Courage - Not avoiding war (at all costs) DESPITE past war experience.

I have no doubt Chamberlain was a fine gentleman, precisely why he was a wrong leader at the wrong (or even best of) time.

It was his kind of leadership failings that highlighted Churchill's quality wisdom, leadership and courage.

Draw up countless pages of Chamberlain's virtues and good deeds if you'd like. They are irrelevant to the crux of the matter - Win or Loss.

Try to imagine myself in same position as Chamberlain?
Whether I succeed or fail in an operational sense, my judgement calls would be quite different from yours for a start. But I can tell, you would indeed repeat his failings.

Likewise, when Islamic lunatics rule the streets one day, similar questions will be asked of some people & leaders, belatedly :

Notwithstanding all virtues and good deeds, have you ever demonstrated qualities that really matter? Qualities of wisdom, leadership and courage; qualities that would have saved this place from it's predicament?

GZ, you're a tough taskmaster.

>>Wisdom - To correctly read Hitler's intentions, know how to respond<<

Take a look at some documentation on Chamberlain's meetings with Hitler, and see what he was up against.

It is so easy to judge from this distance.

http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/snapshots/snapshot31/snapshot31.htm

Don't forget also that many intelligent people saw Hitler first and foremost as a charismatic and effective leader of his people.

A decade and a half earlier, German workers had to collect their wages three times a day, and spend it before they got home, otherwise it would be worthless - the German Wholesale Price index went from 100 in 1914, to 7.26 billion in 1923.

Hitler's Third Reich was frequently referred to as a model of economic and organizational genius. Only hindsight tells us that it was also a fermenting hotbed of evil.

>>Courage - Not avoiding war (at all costs) DESPITE past war experience.<<

Chips Channon (MP) wrote in his diary on 14th September 1938:

"...world stirring news, that Neville (Chamberlain), on his own initiative, seeing war coming closer and closer, had telegraphed to Hitler that he wanted to see him, and asked him to name an immediate rendezvous. The German Government surprised and flattered, had instantly accepted and so Neville, at the age of 69, for the first time in his life, gets into an aeroplane tomorrow morning and flies to Berchtesgarten! It is one of the finest, most inspiring acts of all history"

The man did not lack courage.

>>Leadership - For a start, successfully dissuade Britain from a policy of appeasement.<<

Herbert Morrison, contemporary politician:

"The coldness of his character encompassed him like an aura. If he had little heart he certainly had a brain. He was a first-class administrator, probably one of the most capable Ministers of Health of this century. When he became prime minister his personal tragedy was that he was genuinely aghast at the possibility of war and he adopted the role of a man of peace because he was convinced that he had the political acumen to achieve it"

Leadership. Taking a path you believe in.

Pericles,

(1) Wisdom

Like Chamberlain, many intelligent people (esp. Germans themselves) were fooled by Hitler.
But intelligence is not the same as wisdom. There is a subtle yet important difference. Out of 10 intelligentias, perhaps only 2 or 3 wise ones.
Churchill was wise, Chamberlain not.

(2) Courage

Getting inside an aeroplane (for the first time in his life) does not mean courage, for heaven sake !
He probably didn't have a choice, did he ?

For a start, Chamberlain would never dared to invite Hitler to meet him in Britain. Hitler would have spurned (thereby humiliated) him. Hitler must had regarded him as a fool that can be manipulated.

So what happened soon after Chamberlain's meetings?
"...On October 1st... Hitler had got what he wanted without firing a shot."

In the name of peace, Chamberlain betrayed another country and foolishly sold out to Hitler. That's short-sighted, selfish, betrayal, cowardice. Not courage !

(3) Leadership.

Leadership is to TAKE OTHERS on a path you believe in.

Chamberlain was no leader. He was baited to take the path that Hitler believed in. That was how Hitler got what he wanted without firing a shot. Hitler led, Chamberlain followed.

I read: "Chamberlain struggled on as Prime Minister until May 1940 when he resigned..."

Just think... Do you honestly believe Chamberlain was even capable of leading Britain through the war with Hitler ?

I really don't want to dwell further on Chamberlain. But thanks to him, today we have a classic real-life history case-study.

But despite history lessons, obviously history repeats itself in people.

Interesting slant GZ.

>>I really don't want to dwell further on Chamberlain. But thanks to him, today we have a classic real-life history case-study<<

My point on Islam is that there is no Hitler, no mobilization, no border threats to our nation, or to any of our major allies.

Your suggestions are that

a) this is irrelevant, Islam making enough aggressive noise for us to be worried,

b) anyone who doesn't see this must have their head in the sand and

c) anyone who doesn't see this must have no wisdom, courage or leadership qualities.

I do agree with you on one point, and that is that Chamberlain would have seen absolutely no reason for us to get involved in a world war, or evangelical crusade, or whatever hostile activities that you might be contemplating.

And I would also have to agree that I would be right there with him. There are some ultra-religious factions taking pugnacious stances around the place, but they will not last.

It is clear that your overreaction to Islam is motivated by fear, which is a very powerful and persuasive emotion. But you should not let that fear convince you that we are facing a situation that is somehow parallel to that of Chamberlain in 1938, nor that a policy of appeasement is equivalent to cowardice.

The use of Chamberlain as "a classic real-life history case-study" is therefore highly inappropriate.

Incidentally, your contempt for Chamberlain is puzzling. What does it matter to you anyway? I suspect that it is merely an attempt to bolster your use of "appeasement" as a metaphor for my position on Islam.

If so, it is a very cheap shot against a statesman whose boots you are unfit to lick.

At least, I suspect you would be unfit. Of course I really have no idea who you are, all I really have to go on is that you take a simple pleasure out of libelling dead people to score debating points on a discussion forum.

And I very much doubt whether Churchill would agree with you either, by the way.

Pericles....I'm sitting here wondering if I actually read you right.. and good grief..I DID.. and this is what you said:

"My point on Islam is that there is no Hitler, no mobilization, no border threats to our nation, or to any of our major allies."

Are you serious ? Where were you on 9/11 ? Is the USA not a 'major ally' ?

Did you turn off the Tely when London was bombed ? Spain ? Bali ?

Mate.. you're a worry.. "Look a train is coming and we are stuck on the crossing" says your passenger... "No.. its not a train, its a mirage" you claim.

Silly ? yep.... about as much as your words I quoted.

Its like you suddenly dropped in from outer space and know nothing of what's been happening here.

No Hitler? Ahmadinajad, Bin Ladin ?

cripes.. and stone the crows for luck.. fair dinkum...ur a worry.

Attention all..you MUST see this.

Discussion on wife beating in Katar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nUI3TUdFCk&mode=related&search=

F.H. this is the real deal mate.. these are not bin ladins in outer east Waziristan... they are moderates ? look at the women..no hijab even.. Qatar....

Notice the comments by the men.....

One of the women reports.

"Weapon of choice for Egyptian men to beat their wives 'Electic cord'"

"LIGHT" beatings? you can cause a LOT of pain without causing bruises or killing or breaking bones.

This is 'majority status' Muslims speaking 'to muslims' IN Islamic countries, does anyone notice a slight discrepancy between what these Muslims are saying and the way FH portrays this faith in OLO ?

BD, I watched the clip (complete with dramatic music in the background).
I'll assume that the translations are honest and accurate.

The speaker seemed to make it clear that the Koran does not establish wife beating as a rule, that extreme force is forbidden. He did suggest that Allah thought men are more reasonable than women - not the only religious male I've heard spouting that line. He did suggest that women were made from a rib bone - again not the only religious type I've heard say that. He did suggest that the Koran makes concessions for wife beaters provided that they don't get too extreme. Another book you might be familiar with makes concessions regarding dealing with your slaves - wife beater or slave owner, which does your god condone?

The women on the panel appeared to disagree with his views.

I saw a cultural practice being discussed in a religious context. A cultural practice that I disagree with.

I saw a sexist male taking a religious book a bit more seriously than is wise. I saw a sexist male thinking he should be the head of the house because he is male. Now where have I seen that before?

R0bert

Boaz,

We all read you 'loud and clear' : when you got stuck on a challenge or run out of steam, you resort to the famous copy and paste dodgy articles.
Just answer the challenge above Boazy.
btw, u still owe pericles an explanation re the "VT massacre"
Come on, challenge back, concede or be a sport and take it on the chin!

Robert,

Good to read from you. not sure if you are Melbourne based, I will be in Melbourne next week. If u r, email me on viewsexchange@gmail.com and we can have a coffee.

Peace,

F.H. I don't owe Pericles anything. I responded to that issue in previous posts. I said "did you see the question mark".... for your comfort I'll agree that I could have looked more closely at that specific issue, and I don't feel my question in that specific instance was based on adequate research. Happy ? :)

Now..to Perilous.

You said: "Telling stories that are readily accepted by the hoi polloi as being factual, when in fact they are nothing more than innuendo, wrapped in a paranoia born of fear."

1/ My 'hate sites' are the Islamic hadith and Quran.
2/ I refer to history, where I offer sources liberally.
3/ They are not 'innuendo'.
4/ Paranoia is based on un-reality. I am focused on reality.
5/ Fear... you better believe it.. yes I grant you that one.

ROB
The 'Moslem' male said women were made from a CROOKED rib and can reason better than women. (This is Quranic/Hadithic and yes, it is sexist)

-He said the man can BEAT his wife if she is watching TV and fails to jump up and make him food when he came home.

As to the issue 'taking a religious text further than is wise'.. I remind you he emphasised not "man said", but "ALLAH... said"

I wish to take this opportunity to contrast the New Testament Teaching on Husbands wives.

CHRISTIAN
"Husbands love your wives as CHRIST loved the Church and gave himself up for her" Eph 5:25

ISLAMIC "if she does not obey you after admonishment and separation, BEAT her" Quran 4:24 (paraphrase)

Irespective of the Old Testament accounts of slaves, if you cannot see an 'east is from the west' gulf between Islamic teaching and Christian here, then... I'll add you to the list of recipients of medication I'm prescribing for Perilous.

You need to learn to separate 'getting me' from 'truth'.

Boaz,

You ran out of steam on my challenge above.
You ignored Pericles comment re the VT massacre because you don't have the steam to explain the impact of the Biblical story of Ishmael. I guess that is also expected from you.

But why do you insist on challenging non-Muslims on Islam and the Quran? is this part of the fair and honest intellect you are :)
PS: the Quran have a full chapter (177 verses titled: Women) on women rights to inherit, keep their maiden name, right to divorce, etc..
Can you list a quote of women rights in the Bible? Start with Eve's rights in Gen.

Be a sport and take it on the chin.

For the record, Boaz, that question mark does not excuse you.

If anything, it makes the remark even more pernicious, since it was an indication that you hadn't checked your facts, so were making the allegation purely out of mischief. That is the behaviour that I believe needs the apology.

>>Are you serious? Where were you on 9/11? Is the USA not a 'major ally'? Did you turn off the Tely when London was bombed? Spain? Bali?<<

Boaz, these were the acts of terrorists.

They were isolated incidents. Even if - even if - they were the acts of the same organization, they are hardly in the same league as the annexation of the Sudetenland, or the invasion of Poland.

Terrorist acts are designed not only to damage the targets against which they are perpetrated, but to instill fear into their perceived enemies. From your reaction, they have certainly achieved that objective.

And having done so, they rely heavily on that fear giving rise to a range of reactions and overreactions.

The reaction, as we have seen, is for the targetted communities to suspend their own freedoms, and consider every one of their own citizens a suspect until proven otherwise.

Have you travelled to the US recently? The paranoia has penetrated every corner of their civilization, and has turned their people into a bunch of security-obsessed wowsers.

The overreaction, as you amply demonstrate, has been the creation of a small, but highly vocal, group of knee-jerk scaredy-cats who jump at the slightest breath of wind, and spend their time vilifying those whom they firmly believe are the cause of, and reason for their fear.

The terrorists could hardly have hoped for a more satisfying state of affairs. A bunch of noisy, unthinking people whose sole objective is to transmit the fear that they feel, into their fellow-citizens.

Can you not see how you are being manipulated?

Not by Islam, but by a small bunch of terrorists, who can pull your strings to perform their bidding with the absolute minimum of effort on their part.

Pericles. I don't feel manipulated at all..I feel exilerated and alive.

Just for an insight on the 'foe'.. have a read of this.

http://www.discoverislam.com/ Look at the picture.. the wholesome sweet nature of the girls.. then look down below.. the bottom.. where there are a couple of children.. probably around 9 yrs old.....

Hold that thought, then .. read this discussion by a Muslim Convert (German physicist)

http://www.averroes-foundation.org/articles/sex_slavery.html

and here is one of his conclusions about the outcome of 'traditional' Islam taking control of a country.. please take the time to read his report of 'Islam class' and see 2 things.

1) His interaction with the 'shaikh' and'
2) The views of other students he encountered on the teaching of the shaikh.

Part of his conclusion:

"And if in ten or twenty years international law disappears and there is a Caliph who fights a just war and takes war captives, then there could be slave markets again, and then Muslim men would go and buy slave girls and have sex with them without marrying them, whether these girls like it or not."

MY CONCLUSION. Is that irrespective of anything like 9/11 there is a real enemy out there, and its name is 'traditional Islam'. And anywhere it raises its dark ugly head..I'll try to verbally swat it down, or expose its true colors.
The issue of 'traditional' verses 'progressive' as raised by this man, and his reference to the schools of Islam confirmed beyond any possible doubt that my 'rants' are not only justified but essential.

I worry about you Boaz, I really do.

>>I don't feel manipulated at all..I feel exilerated and alive<<

Well of course you don't feel manipulated. But you are. And you would be of little use to the terrorists if you were not enthusiastically alive.

Every time you find a quotation, or a translation, or an observation that plays upon your fear, you rush out and tell everyone who will listen.

You are an essential weapon in the terrorists armoury. A fanatic who can be relied upon to stir up hatred and propagate fear at every opportunity.

Boaz, without people like you, it would be horrendously difficult for Al Qaeda or any other cell to recruit converts to the terrorist cause in Australia. But by stirring up hatred between religions as you do, you perform the valuable task of recruitment agent.

If you turned away from rabble-rousing they would have less material to work with.

Your examples, by the way, get more and more puzzling. What am I supposed to learn from "Oliver A Ruebenacker... a convert from Germany who lives with his wife in Cambridge, Massachuetts"

Is he typical? Is he typical of converts? Is "the Shafi'i school, one of the four orthodox Sunni schools of fiqh" representative of all Islamic schools?

Because I can find equally obscure - and contentious - arguments about Christianity. Here's one I found with no difficulty at all:

"Our children's minds are being attacked daily in all spheres of their innocent life by anti-White and anti-Christian propaganda. By the time they reach adult hood they are an obedient slave to the ideas of race mixing, globalism, homosexuality, abortion, and dozens of Marxist based, liberal schemes meant to artificially lift non-whites to a higher level of civilization - a civilization they condemn on one hand and then beg to be a part of the next - all of this at the expense and destruction of White Christians"

If I built a vicious anti-Christian campaign based upon this sort of stuff, I would expect you to be angry.

In fact, I'd rely on it.

BD, "You need to learn to separate 'getting me' from 'truth'. "

or better still

"You need to learn to separate 'getting at the competition' from 'truth'."

You take the weakest examples and tout them as proof that Islam is somehow a massive danger to our nation (and your religion is not).

You insist that your faiths be judged by their core documents and then insist that you be the arbitrator of how they are interpreted and which bits are suitable to use for that purpose.

When the similarities between your own faith an Islam are demonstrated you dismiss the sections of your faith as either not real christainity or passed or just dismiss it "Irespective of the Old Testament accounts of slaves,".

You refuse to apologise for blatent slanders on Muslims even when clearly shown to be wrong and then hide behind pathetic excuses such as a question mark. To proud to say "I was wrong and I have sinned by bearing false witness"

Your use of two sets of scales, your lack of personal accountability for your actions and your determination to cause disent where none need exist are matters you should be deeply ashamed of.

Time to take a good hard look at your own behaviour on this issue and the kind of values supposedly espoused by your faith. If your faith was a sport it would be time for the administration to charge you with bringing the faith into disrepute.

You consistantly attack "Make it up as you go" ethics and morals and then demonstrate the weakness of your own foundation by your actions.

I do take some effort to show the weakness and double standards of your position, I have the faintest hope that you may feel some shame for your actions and the stronger hope that others will be more likely to look beyond your weak and contrived claims and see what a house of cards you build upon.

R0bert

Pericles,

To say you lack wisdom, yes I would definitely agree. By your own admission, you would be right there with Chamberlain.

I did mentioned you would repeat his failings. So I have read you correctly afterall.

By the way, I won't trust a leadership lacking in wisdom. Chances are "courage" of such leadership is often misguided and misdirected, leading to a much higher death toll or even a total defeat. So much for your wisdom, courage and leadership....

You, by re-iterating the point: >>...there is no Hitler, no mobilization....<< is showing that you are once again missing my earlier arguments, as follows:

>> "...military build-up and claims on territory by force...are NOTHING compared to gradual take-over through normal civil means (e.g. high Muslims birth-rate and migration)."<<

And you're also wrong to assume my overreaction to Islam is motivated by fear.

My reaction to Islam is motivated by FACTS:
(1). Islam is proven to be anti-freedom, anti-democracy.
(2). In Islam is a one-way street
(3). The tragedy of having so much of the world threatened by so little (mere hoax of Muhammad).

You are even into tit-for-tat, threatening to expose contentious arguments about Christianity, to build a vicious anti-Christian campaign.

Actually I wonder: Why do you assume Christians would be angry ?

So give this threat your best shots. We shall see if you will even be remotely successful to cast Christianity in the same light as Islam.
If you are successful, I may even tone down on Islam. (This perhaps is an incentive for you.)

Just a reminder - Do not forget to get your facts and logic right each time.

GZ, your opinion as to my absence of wisdom is as predictable and as convincing as all your other arguments.

>>And you're also wrong to assume my overreaction to Islam is motivated by fear<<

I'm not so sure about that.

It is a positive sign that at least you accept the fact that yours is an overreaction.

But what usually motivates overreaction apart from fear? You offer:

>>(1). Islam is proven to be anti-freedom, anti-democracy.
(2). In Islam is a one-way street
(3). The tragedy of having so much of the world threatened by so little (mere hoax of Muhammad)<<

As far as (1) is concerned, there are many anti-freedom, anti-democracy regimes around the world. Why don't you overreact to Zimbabwe? Rwanda?

As for (2), that can only be described as a fear, can't it? "I'm afraid of Islam because it is a one-way street".

(3) is almost an admission in its own right. The threat that you see to "so much of the world" is a classic example of building an image out of all proportion to the reality - a typical fear response.

Our imagination has of course always been the biggest contributor to our being afraid, ever since we were kids.

This "threat" is simply the manifestation of one of your childhood nightmares - you probably know the one I mean - but that is no excuse to present it as anything more important than an extension of your own paranoia.

>>You are even into tit-for-tat, threatening to expose contentious arguments about Christianity, to build a vicious anti-Christian campaign<<

Where is your evidence for this?

I have no interest in presenting an anti-Christian position on anything. I do have a problem, and I will continue to have a problem, with people who develop hate campaigns of any kind.

The dish of the day here turns out to be hate Islam, whack-a-mozzie, so I will continue to speak out against it. Particularly when the justification for it lacks sense, logic and humanity.

Have a great day.

Pericles,

You do have difficulty viewing a big picture of an issue.

Look, if Zimbabwe/Rwanda is a brain-washing anti-freedom ideology that is actively self-propagating throughout the world and cannot be eradicated, then perhaps yes, I would speak against them.

It seems you tend to consider issues in isolation. Inability to see a wholesome big picture is a serious weakness, you know.

It's unlikely Islam will ever impact me materially in my life-time here in Australia. So Islam one-way street does not raise a fear any more than a street gang may move next door.

You over-played FEAR to link Islam opposition with irrationality. Such a reasoning is deeply frauded because despite my stated points, you failed to refuted them.

Rather than being presumptuous about fear, you could have taken a position (which you did not), like so:

(1)...Islam is NOT anti-freedom & anti-democracy.
(2)...In Islam is NOT a one-way street
(3)...Islam is a world's blessing of truth coming from Muhammad.

Your failure to refute, CLEARLY shows your tendency to "play the man", but not the issue.

It's always weird when someone (who only plays the man) to thump his chest against others just because, in his "wisdom" he perceives some people developing a "campaign".

I mean - other than insisting you don't like some views, what is your solid points ??

A failure to read the big picture and to address issues sometimes lead to a tit-for-tat threat. Like, (in a post to Boaz) you quoted: "Our children's minds are being attacked...by anti-White and anti-Christian propaganda....all of this at the expense and destruction of White Christians"

Also you wrote: <<If I built a vicious anti-Christian campaign...expect you to be angry....I'd rely on it.>>

Can we agree those amount to childish tit-for-tat ??

Also, you put words in others (my) mouth yet again.
I merely refuted statement and words that you used, in "...my OVERREACTION to Islam...".
"overreaction" is the word you suggested. I only used the word "reaction".
Then your childish point-scoring: "...a positive sign...yours is an overreaction." which reflects your inability to proper reason.

GZ, you can't change history.

>>"overreaction" is the word you suggested. I only used the word "reaction"<<

I grant that it might have been a Freudian slip, but you did write "you're also wrong to assume my overreaction to Islam is motivated by fear".

Go back and check if you don't believe me.

But to the main thrust of your latest protest.

>>You over-played FEAR to link Islam opposition with irrationality. Such a reasoning is deeply frauded because despite my stated points, you failed to refuted them<<

Let's have another look at those "stated points".

>>(1). Islam is proven to be anti-freedom, anti-democracy.
(2). In Islam is a one-way street
(3). The tragedy of having so much of the world threatened by so little (mere hoax of Muhammad)<<

The issue here is that even if all these are true, why are you reacting so violently to them? They simply aren't important enough to cross the road for - they literally do not pass the "so what?" test.

So what if they are anti-freedom and anti-democracy? We've dealt with people like that before, and will do it again without the panic that you exhibit.

So what if it is a one-way street? No-one's forcing you to go down it.

So what if they are perpetuating a "hoax" - you can see through it, can't you?

They are too trivial to need refuting.

>>I mean - other than insisting you don't like some views, what is your solid points ??<<

It's not so much that I "don't like" some views, it is what people do with those views that I object to. I strongly object, for example, to the insistence of Boaz and his fellow-travellers that Islam is to be hounded out of our country. He takes every opportunity to find insults to throw at them, using only his own religious bigotry as justification.

There is no national emergency here, whatever he says, and however hard he tries to fan the flames of hatred.

So in the absence of reasoned argument, I can only attribute his, and your, overreaction, to fear.

Pericles.. for a bloke who picks up on the slightest spelling mistake, you also astound me at times.

I drew a contrast between the 'wholesome' poster available though Avveroes web site... with the actual issue Ruebenacker was struggling with to his traditionalist teacher. "child sexual use".....

Here is the 'sugar coating' of the religion, presented on a 'wholesome' looking poster with sweet girls on it.. and even sweet chidren... but the teacher of this bloke is telling one and all that those sweet children could be available as their lawful sex slaves... and Reubenacker is taking issue with this.

He is basically going against the major schools of Islamic thought and if you wonder of the Shafi school is typical.. do a wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhhab

So, I don't believe I'm paranoid to demonstrate the not far beneath the surfce coating of sugar (which apparently attracted Reubenacher) there is a bitter pill to swallow.
cheers.

ROBERT..... *ouch* u sound a bit angry mate? Raising a 'question' is a way of clarifying an issue.. have you ever thought about that?
I've already mentioned that I could have researched that point a bit more, so.. thats the extent of my concession there. Before you get too excited, please consider that there is so much material out there about Islam (I refer you to the Avveroes website link) that the last thing I need to rely on to show its true colors is that incident. Lets move on. You seem in a 'God is bad, and I'm sticking to that story no matter what' rut. I am always here for when you reconsider.
Please avoid the "you're a bad Christian" emotional blackmail- you can do better.

Your other points about 'me' being the arbiter of interpretation. I reject that. I am simply reflecting sound principles of interpretation which are used daily on any document on any subject.
"Who, When, Where, Why,How, Culture, language" etc.

GZ way2go mate :)

Boaz, you do not help your cause with the references you use.

Wikipedia is a community project, where members of the public provide material for others to reference. The moderators struggle to maintain some quality standards, and have developed some notices to warn people when the material is suspect.

Here's the one attached to your last reference:

"This article or section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)[sic]
Any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time. This article has been tagged since March 2007."

As for Reubenacher, I tend to skim over pieces that are written by i) a religious convert, who has just swapped one set of religious rules for another and then ii) starts to question the religion he has landed upon. His motivation - and therefore his judgement - can fairly be regarded as suspect.

Even worse, when the results of these musings are splashed over the Internet, I start to think that maybe - just maybe - that the writer is not what you might call your typical Muslim.

So I ask myself, how much credibility can I give to a) a confused religionist and b) an under-sourced piece in a community information-bucket.

And what exactly did Reubenacher ask?

"if there was a slave market today, I could go and buy a fourteen year old girl just in order to sleep with her?"

So apart from everything else about the article that smells phoney, it is a hypothetical question, yes?

And when the obvious follow-up question was posed...

"Another female student asked, whether this was still applicable today? The shaikh did not address this question - he did not seem to understand what the student meant by 'applicable'"

So the answer is assumed by the writer to be "yes"? On what basis?

And aren't you just the teensiest bit suspicious of the highly convenient "reason" offered for the lack of response?

If these are the sources you rely upon, you must expect me to remain cynical.

Pericles,

<<GZ, you can't change history.>>

You're kidding !!
Your vitriol and falsehood deserve a firm rebuttal. Doing a text search of "overreaction" on this thread will confirm you are the first that accused me of an "overreaction" multiple times. I merely responded to your false supposition by paraphrasing your sentence.
My own (very original) statement said : <<"My REACTION to Islam is motivated by facts:">>.

Your latest comments ring like an appalling HYPOCRISY.

Based on your comments, I now conclude the following issues do not concern you at all :

(1) anti-freedom, anti-democracy;
(2) irreversible brain-washing regime;
(3) world threatened by a mere hoax (of Muhammad)
(4) Chamberlain's policy of appeasement towards Hitler.

Such problem issues of major impacts (to the world) do not seem to perturb you... I can even infer there must be lots more "negatives" that you are either (i) totally unable to discern, or (ii) prepared to accept & overlook.

What a "wise" guy you must be !!

But strangely, such an accepting fella seems totally unable to tolerate an opposition to Islam, irregardless.

Your disproportionate (and biased) OVER-REACTION to critics of Islam; irrational FEAR of such oppositions to Islam tell me something...

...you are either a Muslim in disguise or have a vested interest in Islam.

So who is really the one that over-reacts in irrational fear ? YOU !!
Your credibility is a complete tatter.

You are indeed a stoogie of FH, are you not ??

Now will you come clean, and stop pretending to be a neutral umpire ??

Nice air of injured innocence GZ, but ultimately unconvincing.

>>Your vitriol and falsehood deserve a firm rebuttal<<

If you classify my posts as vitriolic, GZ, I can only commend you on the sheltered life you have led.

But you promised a rebuttal. What happened to it? Simply an attempt to step around the fact that did in fact write "overreaction".

So you mistyped, big deal. But given the rest of your hysteria I may be forgiven for teasing you about it.

And what a hysterical rant it is! I'm flattered that my musings on your anti-Islam stance has generated such heat.

Although very little light, I'm afraid.

"HYPOCRISY... totally unable to discern... prepared to accept & overlook... unable to tolerate an opposition to Islam, irregardless...
disproportionate (and biased) OVER-REACTION to critics of Islam; irrational FEAR of such oppositions to Islam ... a Muslim in disguise... have a vested interest in Islam... over-reacts in irrational fear ? YOU !!... credibility is a complete tatter... a stoogie of FH..."

Lovely stuff, I'll treasure it.

I wish I knew what a stoogie is, though. It sounds like a squashed cigar, but I happen to know Fellow Human doesn't smoke

<<Now will you come clean, and stop pretending to be a neutral umpire<<

Neutral umpire? Moi?

I am passionately and single-mindedly against the forces that create hatred between people on the basis of their religion.

So if I have been guilty of pretending to be neutral, I apologize unreservedly.

As any kind of umpire my credibility would indeed be "a complete tatter".

Pericles..All this time you are a 'secret muslim' :)
Oh Mon dieu, sacre bleu:) How could you? Repent quickly and see GZ Tan 'pseudo-light' or else.

GZ Tan,

How about new nick names like 'The Tantans' , 'Jerry Tan' or 'Every one loves Tan'. Working from a hotel room at midnight, thank you for giving me the best 'laughter to the tears' in years..

Much appreciated mate.