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.