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.