Dear ttbn,

All religions change with time, and Islam is no exception. At first Islam refused converts in the territory it covered outside of Arabia. It regarded itself as a religion for the Arabs. The Arabs ruled the countries they conquered, and Muslims did not pay tax. One reason that they discouraged conversion was that converts would not have to pay taxes. Muslim universities in early Islam were open to people of all religious beliefs while Christian universities at that time were open only to Christians. It was only later that Islam became a missionary religion outside of the Arabian peninsula.

Early Islam made great contribution in science, literature and mathematics. Algebra, alembic, algorithm, apogee, perigee, Aldebaran and azimuth are all words of Islamic origin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Arabic_origin lists words of Arabic origin. From the list one can see the many fields that Islam contributed to.

Unfortunately later, the Islamic clergy managed to change the magnificent Islamic universities into theological seminaries, and they were no longer leaders in the arts and sciences.

Islam entered its Dark Ages at about the time that Christianity was leaving its Dark Ages. At the beginning of the twentieth century except for Turkey and Afghanistan the Islamic world was colonised by the Christian powers. Christianity did not rule over Islam by any peaceful means. The colonies were acquired by war. Christian violence was more effective than Islamic violence.

Islam has a history as complex as that of Christianity and has made as many changes. Current Islam is as different from early Islam as current Christianity is from early Christianity.

Different views of history are always interesting.

But we live in the moment or arguably we do not live at all.

So Australians are naturally concerned about the impact of Islam on their way of life and on the future for their children.

Having some sympathy for the history and the slow/absent reformation of Islam is for the historians and religious buffs, although many who seem interested may have unacknowledged political beliefs and (misplaced where OLO is concerned at least) political lobbying as their agenda.

I am concerned about the practical issues, the simple ones that are the only hope of a less disruptive reformation, for example, that girls are never required by medieval beliefs that put-down women, to limit their choices of clothing in ways that would never be contemplated let alone rationalised for boys.

Incrementalism is the way to reform Islam to make it possible for it to sort of assimilate with a secular society. Islam is not the way forward, not a positive and constructive way forward for western society.

I do not believe that any well-meaning and constructive person, someone who is prepared to put his/her politics and ideology to one side for the betterment of humanity, would not be supporting those reforming Muslims that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has identified in the West. Would those who now criticise Ayaan Hirsi Ali (they are gutless and concentrate on the person and avoid discussion of the ideas and facts) also have criticised the necessary reformation of Christianity way back when (and since!)?

G'Day there DAVID F...

Your breadth of historical knowledge amazes me. And yet you're a mathematician ? They say most of life's most complex problems, the solutions of which, can be found somewhere in a branch of Mathematics. Reading your material does make me cringe, by realising how little I know about anything of importance. What I do know is essentially basic and practical, with scant acknowledgement to many things of esoteric consequence. Still, I'm not in gaol, nor living an iniquitous lifestyle, so I suppose I must know a little. I guess it means there's room for both; Scientist & Pragmatists, each harmonizing with each other.

Thank you DAVID F.

How anyone can call what the Roman State has done to the World in the name of "Christian" amazes me. It does not reflect anything of the true nature of Christ teachings. It is a brutal and bloody misrepresentation of anything that Christ stood for.

It depends on which branch of truth one is comparing; The Roman Church and its political conflicts or those that adhered to the teachings of Christ.

Dear Josephus,

Indeed, for whatever historical reasons, the word 'Christian' came to have a double meaning, one pure, the other not.

I may argue that the same applies to the word 'Muslim', so that whoever follows the true teachings of Muhammad (as opposed to the false teachings of those who impersonated him in the Kuran), humbly surrendering himself/herself to God ('Allah' being just another name for the same God), is also following the teachings of Jesus Christ, and vice versa.

The only way one can compare Islam and Christianity is to look at the lifestyle and teachings of its founders. All other pseudo adherents that claim followers of Mahomed or Christ cannot claim to be living in the likeness of their founder and his beliefs if not obeying his teachings and examples. Read the words attributed to each and make the comparisons. NO! atheists prefer the bloody history as it suits their agenda. Atheists have their own bloody history that they fail to see.