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.