Poirot>> If you are going to identify and classify people according to their religion, whether it be Muslims, Jews or Christians...how can you say it's not them - but their religion.<<

P, a few contributors have pointed out the duplicity in the "nature" of Muslims.....uni educated , living in a first world nation, but carrying the ethos of a 7th century religion.

The Shakespear line of "If you prick us, do we not bleed" examples the quandry over "moderate" Muslims. We know they have a humanity, but we know they have a zealous religion, so is it the religion that is zealous or the congregation?

If we use the "people’s will" in a correlation between government and religion we find government and religious doctrines running contrary to the beliefs of the majority, and it is not the peoples fault.........but you can change a government, but reformation is another thing. Moderate and sedate now....firebrands under a new regime.

Foxy>> The problem is that extremists and
fanatics don't follow their religious
teachings they either ignore the teachings,
or follow their own selective interpretations of
those teachings.<<

Foxy my dear................the head choppers worshiped at the Lakemba mosque........the Aussie home of moderate Islam. The religion needs reformation, and it seems that no matter how first worldy Muslims become they are still living in a primitive state of mind due to Islam

sonofgloin,

"P, a few contributors have pointed out the duplicity in the "nature" of Muslims.....uni educated , living in a first world nation, but carrying the ethos of a 7th century religion."

Gawd!

Can't you see my point..it's not about the intrinsic nature of Muslims - or any religious persuasion.

It's about the stupidity of a comment where the first part of the proposition cancels out the second.

The religion isn't an entity by and in itself. It's "nothing" without the people who practice it - (any religion, not just Muslims)

To say:

"Muslims are not the problem, it's the religion they follow that's the problem...."

So rehctub is saying that "Muslims" - ie, those who follow and practice the Muslim religion - aren't the problem...it's the religion that is the problem.

Can't you see what gobbledygook rehctub's sentence is?

Sheesh!

Steele,

Quoting the Guardians sanitized version:

<< the Central African Republic (CAR), where Muslims are under siege. ...Muslims came here to trade in the early 19th century...[and all was well till those nasty Christians attacked the peace loving Muslims for no reason] >>!

But here is more balanced view of what happened --and why:
"When Muslim Seleka rebels of the Central African Republic's [C.A.R.] swept south to seize the capital city, Bangui, and ousted the Christian President Francois Bozize in March, 2013,[1] the event received sparse attention in Western media. What the media still seems unwilling to see is that the Seleka onslaught is unwittingly serving a wider offensive by Muslim extremists to expand the realm of Islam into the African continent's sub-Saharan interior."

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4150/central-african-republic-islam#

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

Robert,
The Lebanese problem is a racial issue, it's not the same as the broader issue of Islam, there are 400,000 Muslims in Australia, not even a quarter of them are Lebanese.
The Lebanese gangs are styled after the Hollywood gangster films and music, their influences come from Hip Hop, not Hadith.

Misanthropy is misanthropy is misanthropy. A common device of misanthropes and "useful idiots" is to justify their brand of misanthropy by framing the question in terms of a mythical pair of kitchen scales. Thus they can counter your attack on this or that brand of misanthropy by weighing it against a carefully chosen alternative brand and proclaiming (or merely implying) that you can't attack the one without exculpating the other.

Thus when Zionist racism is under attack the Zionist riposte is to try to switch the debate to one about Islam, or Hamas. If Islam is under attack the tame dhimmis usually reply with an attack on Christianity (or the feudal imitation of Christianity), or on something in the Old Testament.

However for the most revealing critique of one breed of misanthropy it is instructive to see what a rival breed says about it. In this context, an excellent description of Islam, its core commitment to jihad and its strategy of "taqiyya" (self-righteous lying favoured by PC dhimmis and integrated in the structure of the Koran) I would thoroughly recommend the Zionist critique at

http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war.

sonofgloin,

Moderate Muslim? I guess all things are relative. I prefer to call them inactive Muslims. Just little bit of squeeze and intimidation and they will be activated.

In the west we promote the separation of church and state. Islam has no such distinctions. It is a “bound” religious, political, law enforcement, judicial, social and economic “state” in whatever country it resides.

Islam cannot co-exist with democracy and is why all attempts to democratize Islam have failed.

For those who find it difficult or “ideologically incompatible” to criticize Islam and instead proselytize it’s peace and harmony, just have a look at last months “tally sheet” across Islamic nations, then tell us again how it is everyone else’s fault that Islam behaves like it does?

http://pickeringpost.com/story/dear-mr-marles/3653