So writes Hassan Butt in this Guardian opinion piece.

Quotes:

When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

Friday's attempt to cause mass destruction in London with strategically placed car bombs is so reminiscent of other recent British Islamic extremist plots that it is likely to have been carried out by my former peers.

And as with previous terror attacks, people are again articulating the line that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy. For example, yesterday on Radio 4's Today programme, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: 'What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq.'

He then refused to acknowledge the role of Islamist ideology in terrorism and said that the Muslim Brotherhood and those who give a religious mandate to suicide bombings in Palestine were genuinely representative of Islam.

End quotes:

See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2115891,00.html

My own comments:

In a democracy there are many legitimate ways of protesting policy or trying to have it changed. No democracy can afford to allow its policies to be dictated by internal terrorists. That way lies anarchy and destruction.

ABOVE ALL, secular democracies cannot afford to give in to religiously inspired terrorism.

The problem is the role of Islam in Islamic terror.

Face the facts: The Quran is full of calls for hate and violence against non-Muslims. Islam's great prophet, the man that all Muslims love and respect, their role model, was a man that murdered, plundered, tortured, enslaved, raped and even beat his own wife. These things are found in Islam's own traditions (hadith)and first biographies of their prophet, written by his friends and followers, not his enemies.

Perhaps, maybe, who knows, that explains the link to terror. Mohammad himself said "I am made victorious with terror."

These bombers and terrorists are just doing what their religion commands. They are praticing Islam, not their 'interpretation' of Islam, not a perverted form of Islam, as we hear so often.

The terror will continue. It doesn't make any difference what non-Muslims do. After the war in Iraque ends, they will continue with terror and find another excuse. Month after month, year after year, these things happen, and Muslims can't seem to find a link between violence and - what is the name of that religion?

Muslims are either in denial or dishonest. Time after time I have given references and links to these things, yet it never makes a difference. They don't care. It is always another's fault. They blame terror on everybody and everything. The problems in Islamic societies have nothing to do with Islam either, of course.

You cannot be for Mohammad and against terror. You cannot expect honesty from people who will not acknowledge what is written in their own writings. You cannot trust people that say "Praise be unto him" after the name of a man that did the evil things that Mohammad did.

As you may have noticed here at OLO, I have given links and quotes to these vile things many times, and it never makes a difference. If our Muslims 'friends' here know about these things (they do!) and they still make the usual excuses and say these things have nothing to do with the 'real Islam' - well figure it out yourself.

J. Kactuz

"the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology."
BS ALERT! Someone neglected to insert the word "extremist". We have no idea what the motives of this writer is, or the circumstances of his disaffection. Traitors often tell you what you want to hear, as in the case of Iraq, in exchange for money, acceptance or influence. This all assumes he is not an agent for an intelligence agency also.

"And as with previous terror attacks, people are again articulating the line that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy."

Another ommission is the word, "nearly" or "mostly to do with". By using the word "all", the writer disingenuously sets up a strawman.

The writer also apparently disagrees with, "a 22 year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). From 1996 to 1999, he was the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka Alec Station), the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center"

http://eric.langborgh.com/?p=557

kactuz, this is especially for you, and others equally blind to the most widespread western religion, Christianity.

http://www.evilbible.com/

If you are unsure where to start, how about the section entitled,
"Rape in the Bible"

http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

Or how about "Ritual Human Sacrifice"

http://www.evilbible.com/Ritual_Human_Sacrifice.htm

Mr Steel,

And what has the Bible to do with me? Have I ever argued from a Christian point of view? Have I ever cited the Bible or Christianity in my comments? You must be confusing me with DB.

Christians have never threatened me. I can take them or leave them, or almost any other faith. Only one religion has said to me things like "I am going to get you" and "I am going to find out where you live."

The moment that the followers of Mr Mohammad did that, they made an enemy. I read their Quran, hadiths and other writings. I began to make comments. I noticed that Muslims are not honest about their own religion; they lie and deny everything and always blame others - as they continue to do violence. The vile, evil accounts in Islam do not bother them.

Logic and reason are not to be found in Islam or among Muslims. They are hypocrites, wanting for themselves that they deny to others.

Mr Steel, I ask you a simple question: Was Mohammad a good man? A simple yes or no will be nice.

Kactuz

PS: A few quotes from an Islamic site on "Insight into apostacy in Islam" in which Muslims discuss how to kill people who leave Islam, from
http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=128043

“Waging war against Islam is not limited only to fighting with weapons, rather it may be done verbally such as defaming Islam or the Prophet (blablabla), or attacking the Quran, and so on. Waging verbal war against Islam may be worse than waging war against it with weapons.“

"Islam tells us to do it. Nothing an atheist can say will change our mind. Debate is futile."

So I guess there are a bunch of people who post here that deserve to be crucified and mutilated, as specified in the Quran for those who fight Islam. Nice people, those, and really tolerant.

PSS: Did you see in the news the men that bombed Glasglow airport and ran off yelling "Buddha, Buddha"

Dear Steel. If I took the attitude of Islam (and many individual Muslims) such as here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29HU3j7r9Ys&mode=related&search=
(yes..I did notice the vid was produced by the BNP, but the signs are Muslim)

..toward your comments about the Bible, mate... you are a dead man :)

I would have my 'hit squad' being readied.. training them.... to hunt you down and slaughter you..

BUT WAIT.... "I'm Christian" :) we simply don't do that. Nor can we ever find justification for it in our Bible.

You are free to insult the Lord Jesus, God, the Church, Christians, and our response is:

"For God so loved the world, that He gave his only Son, that whoever believes in Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16)

Jesus said "My kingdom is not 'of' this world, if it were, my disciples would fight and defend me"

So, you are safe. But am I ?

Questions.

1/ Are you Muslim?
2/ Do you know the meaning of Surah 4:24 ?

I claim it means 'prostitution in the guise of temporary marraiage'and
Shia Muslims agree with me about the validity of the practice, but not my word 'prostitution'. but in any language 'money for sex' is prostitution. I don't care WHAT name or sweet adjectives the practice is surrounded with in Muslim web sites or in posts/comments here.
Money... for sex..is prostitution.

3/ Do you agree with surah 9:30 ?

Congratulations to Steven for again coming up with a very well sourced and timely article.

As I understood the news the two men arrested were not shouting Buddha, Buddha but something rather different. I very much doubt however that Allah would approve their actions.
The "politically correct, do not criticise, equal opportunity, multicultural" brigade has something to answer here too. Europe (in particular the UK) has allowed itself to be taken over by an ideology which allows fundamental Islamists to spread their messages of hate and influence public policy.
If we moved to Iran or Pakistan or Afghanistan we would be expecteed to abide by their laws and behave in the ways they wished us to behave. This is not the case in 'the West'. We have bowed to "cultural and religious sensitivities" and demands that we "respect the religious beliefs of others". Fundamentalists have seen that as a weakness and exploited it - to the detriment of everyone. Anyone who believes that women should be covered from head to toe (to the detriment of their health) and have their partners chosen for them and cannot mix freely in society is guilty of abuse. (We have a similar lot locally with the Exclusive Brethren so yes, there are abuses in our culture too - but at least the EB do not approve violence and, on the whole, do not proselytise even if they do try to influence.)

Ran off saying budda budda? even fox would not lie so well.
They cried Allah over and again, we can point to extremists in every religion but you will not find as many in any religion as Islam.
However we one day must be very brave, very wise and dump every man made invented God.
None truly exist or existed and to kill in the name of one is lunacy
This evil we be exposed here in Australia, in time we will learn to hate with the same inhuman blindness.

avoiding terrorism:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1183184822

The peaceful Christian alternative has been to make continual false promises to their governments, install oppressive dictatorial governments into their countries, occupy their lands and plunder their resources.

If there has really been the Muslim/Christian conflict that many of you believe exists, we should have been at constant war for the last 1400 years, not the steadily growing grievances since the first World War.

Are they really likely to change their beliefs to a religion that has brutalised them in this way?

We don't need to convert them to Christianity as long as we willingly convert their children into ash but then complain if there is a hostile response.

Terrorism is not the problem - it is a symptom of another problem.

If you follow the logic of many of these posts, the only lasting solution is to kill every last Muslim so the Christian world can live on as an example of loving peace.

Wobbles that post was strange, who among us even Boaz David has ever claimed Christians want to remove Islam?
I think you may well be lost on this issue, are you from the Muslim community?
Sorry if it offends you.
But I remain convinced lies are as much a weapon for some in that community as any gun.
And used as often as I use my car keys or mobile phone.
And we should not overlook the thread starters good intent or the fact many from within that community think like that.
To defend evil is to be part of that evil.
After this terror is seen in my country we will need a great deal more of this type of threads thoughts and far less of the mindless lies.

Interesting set of responses.

Let me make my own position clear.

In a democracy there are multiple legitimate ways of bringing about policy change. A resort to threats and violence is not one of them. This is a message that needs to be driven home to Muslims and everybody else.

In a sense therefore it makes no difference whether Muslim terrorists are motivated by British foreign policy, by honours for Salman Rushdie, or by Muhammed cartoons. The answer has to be the same:

--No, blowing us up is not a legitimate response to your perceived grievances; and

--No, we are not going to contemplate a change in policy because you go around planting bombs; and

--If you want to bring about a change in policy choose from the many legitimate options available to you.

I want to suggest to people like steel and wobbles who take up the cudgels on behalf of Muslims in this forum that they make one thing clear. They are not condoning a violent response to perceived grievances in the UK, Australia or any democratic country.

The interesting question is this. Why is it that in Western countries in 2007 it is from the Muslim communities that an ultra-violent reaction to perceived grievances is most likely to emanate?

Is a violent reaction intrinsic to Islam?

It seems clear that a violent reaction to perceived grievances is intrinsic to certain interpretations of Islam that are by no means marginal in 2007.

An aside. A news report on the ABC states:

"A new report has shown up to 3,000 young Muslims in Sydney alone could be susceptible to radicalisation by fundamentalist Islam."

The report also quotes one David Wright-Neville from Monash University who doubts there is much of a homegrown threat here.

(See: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/02/1967240.htm)

Interestingly, however, those arrested in Britain so far appear to be foreign nationals.

The only place the Quran will take the believers is to a religious straitjacket that closes the human mind to logical thought. I think the whole faith needs a serious revamp to take it into the 21st century. It seems incapable of surviving in any society apart from those where the education system is focussed on sustaining a faith and not education.

stevenlmeyer: it's quite simple. Your understanding of foreign policy is inadequate. To you it apparently means something friendly diplomatic relations. Here are a couple of examples.

Has a foreign government sent agents to overthrow our federal parliament and meddle in internal affairs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

Has your family been wiped out of existance by foreign bombs indiscriminately? That includes your precious, little kiddies too. Have major cities such as Sydney been ruined and turned to rubble?

List of victims and ages on the right panel,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_massacre#Killings_and_immediate_aftermath
"In the latest of a series of attacks causing significant civilian casualties in recent weeks, more than 200 were killed by coalition troops in Afghanistan in June, far more than are believed to have been killed by Taliban militants."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2115859,00.html

We are killing more innocent people than the Taliban. Wow. But that's ok, isn't it? We can kill as many as we want can't we.

Perhaps if a foreign power created a new country within Australia, by taking most of the Eastern coast and declaring it the new Aboriginal country, Australians would accept it gladly and relinquish all that land and political influence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

This is a fraction of what has occured in the Middle East in recent history. Apparently the prior link I posted from the CIA expert was more or less ignored or dismissed. The ignorance of the average Westerner is shameful.

Finally here is a last tiny gem from Madeleine Albright, who represents the US foreign policy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK_QshS2EW8

kactuz, "The vile, evil accounts in Islam do not bother them."

And the vile, evil accounts in Christianity not do not bother you or anyone else. The point of me posting http://www.evilbible.com was to expose the hypocrisy of a Christian who finds crimes in the holy texts of Islam. It is a pot calling a kettle black, situation.

Belly,
I'm actually not from the Muslim community and I am in no way defending evil.
All I'm interested in is maintaining some degree of perspective.
What seems to be happening here is that people are using evil to fight evil. In order to win, our evil must have to be worse than their evil, our lies have to be worse than their lies.

The gist of BD's (among others) strategy is to simply accuse Islam's spiritual leader of being a criminal pedophile and ALL its followers of being misguided, violent, potential terrorists and bent on World domination.
I presume they either want to make them all see the light and abandon Islam or to simply leave all non-Muslim countries and go "home". Either way they are seen as not welcome here. No exceptions, even for those who have lived here peacefully and productively for generations.

Is this how you win the hearts and minds of your perceived enemies? Is this how you hope to cultivate anti-terrorist informants from their community?

This reminds me of the sort of people who walk up to a wasp nest with a stick in one hand and a can of fly-spray in the other and later complain when they get stung. (Or certain kickboxer who has been known to dress up in paramilitary garb and behave provocatively in public. Jesus would be so proud of this messenger.)

I've also seen the ozpolitic.com forum mentioned above and it seems to be yet another haven for disaffected whining Hansonist "small-r" racists and not much different from what may allegedly be talked about in Mosques.More phoney self-righteous indignation without any practical solutions.

Somebody else makes all the decisions anyway but we can at least be aware of how they easily manipulate us through our emotions.

If it wasn't the Muslim boogey-man it would have to be something else.

Steven wrote;

>The interesting question is this. Why is it that in Western countries
>in 2007 it is from the Muslim communities that an ultra-violent
>reaction to perceived grievances is most likely to emanate?
>
>Is a violent reaction intrinsic to Islam?

>It seems clear that a violent reaction to perceived grievances is
>intrinsic to certain interpretations of Islam that are by no means
>marginal in 2007.

Have you noted as I have the exagerated reaction to any critism or
perceived insult ?

Is this not a behaviour problem ?
Can anyone tell me what is the attitude to cousin marriage in the Quoran?
How long has it been common practise ?

Steel,

There is nothing in your various links I have not read or heard before.

I infer from you last post that you believe British Muslims are justified in mounting a violent response to British policy.

I other words, I infer you believe the 7 / 7 bombings and the car bombs of this weekend are a justified.

Is that correct?

Steel,

Just to be clear let's distinguish between the 7 / 7 bombings in which British born nationals attacked Britain and the current round where the perpetrators appear to be foreign nationals.

Is it your position that both attacks were justified Muslim responses to British policy?

Or do you distinguish between the two cases?

Spare me a further screed on evil Britannia / America / Australia or evil Bible. I'm simply trying to grasp your point of view in relation to these SPECIFIC attacks. To make it easy for you I'll put it in the form of a Yes / No questionnaire.

7 / 7: – Justified / Not justified

Weekend car bombs: Justified / Not justified.

While the talk of marriage to a cousin reminds me of some country towns I have visited it is a question that deserves an answer.
Has massive inbreeding anything to do with some human actions?
And Muslims while the most known users of this practice may not be the only people who do so.
I refuse to hide my concern that hate, blind unseeing hate ,and lies are used against us by some who freely use our open door welcome to this country.
And forever I will ask why that door was so wide and so open?

Do the mental retardation insults related to inbreeding extend to the our own rulers - British Royal family - or are they reserved for insulting Muslims?

STeel....

a couple of points.

1/ Violence in defense of "Islam" (as opposed to some arbitrary Arab state) can be traced all the way back to Mohammad and his companions, from now. On a practical and doctrinal level.

2/ Such cannot be said about Christ. Violence can be seen in some periods of Christendom history yes. But show me where it is justified in terms of Jesus HimSELF or his teaching?

We could not gather a group of Christian youth and say "Look.. we have to really crunch these Muslims, destroy them.. remove them" and then say "Because Jesus would do it, did it, taught it" why? because he didnt... If we did, they would read their bibles and say "HEYYYYY.. you told us such and such about Jesus and its not true"!

Our calling is to proclaim the Gospel. Those who reject it.. well the harshest punishment is 'Shake off the dust of your feet against them, and move on" *OUCH* that realllly hurt :)

That is the fundamental difference from Islam and the life of Mohammad. One can immediately point to the murder of political enemies, to the invasion of suspected enemies etc and FH and others spend half their days JUSTIFYING all that.

2nd Point: Even IF our government were involved in nefarious activities, as Steven points out there are LEGITIMATE methods of bring political change. PEACEfully. Violent street demonstrations, or making press releases which support the enemies of our State are culpable and deserving of the harshest punishment.

Belly, consanguinity as practised by Muslims does not lead to inbreeding problems without the meeting of two recessive genes, as in the Bradford England example and a cluster of hearing problems in a SW Sydney suburb.

There is a slight increase in problems, roughly to around the rate for 40 somethings conceiving.

Bit of a furphy, this one.

It may have social implications tho', hindering mixing in a new nation, or adding to the sort of insanity we see in Iraq today.

Boaz,

“We could not gather a group of Christian youth and say "Look.. We have to really crunch these Muslims, destroy them.. remove them" and then say "Because Jesus would do it, did it, taught it" why? Because he didnt... If we did, they would read their bibles and say "HEYYYYY.. you told us such and such about Jesus and its not true"!

Actually your own old and recent history proves the opposite: see the speeches of pope Urban II inspiring the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Nazis and as recent as the Rwandan massacres (see Wobbles comments to you). The argument used by few churches at the time that God the father in the OT wanted wrath and revenge and Jesus (pbuh) never renounced the actions of the God the Father in the NT.

Millions of Christians, Muslims, Jews and others died because of the violent teachings above. It being drummed up again now by Christian Zionism preparing for Armageddon.
It would be more productive if you focus on your own backyard and condemn the teachings above and while at it, let us know your actual contributions to the matter.

Peace,

Palimpsest

The question of Muslim inbreeding MAY not be a furphee. Some zoologists claim to have uncovered evidence that even a slight amount of inbreeding can cause problems.

See for example: Too close for comfort, New Scientist, 18 October 2003

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18024175.100-too-close-for-comfort.html

You need to remember that in some societies, mostly but not all Muslim, cousin marriage has been the norm for centuries. Some families have married nobody but cousins for generations. This is a degree of inbreeding unknown in modern Western societies.

Unfortunately researching the long term effects of cousin marriage is one of those politically incorrect topics for which funding is hard to obtain.

I do not know whether any of the recent spate of suicide bombers in the UK come from such inbred families.

Rache, the British royal family is not as inbred as many Pakistani families. I suspect we must look elsewhere for the cause of Charles' feeble-mindedness.

Boaz and Steve,
Your attention is drawn to opinion by Tanveer Ahmed in todays OZ.

Thanks Banjo,

For those who are interested here is a link.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22005648-7583,00.html

Many people conflate attacks on Islam with racism. If you are antipathetic to the religion of Islam, if you are an "Islamo-phobe," then you are a "racist."

I think we need to knock that one firmly on the head. Criticism of Islam is no more racist than criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic.

Of course many racists hide behind attacks on Islam just as many anti-Semites hide behind attacks on Israel. But that fact should not be permitted to shut down debate about the nature of Islam, Zionism or any other belief system or ideology.

Muslim attempts to equate Islamo-phobia with anti-Semitism are piffle. Since 1879 "anti-Semite" has been used to describe someone who hates Jews for being Jews, for belonging to the ethnicity or tribe of Jews. It has nothing to do with the practice of Judaism. Many of those who died in Hitler's death camps were actually Christians who had Jewish ancestors. One Jewish grandparent was often enough to have you sent to the gas chamber even though the grandparent may have converted to Christianity.

Anti-Arab or anti-Pakistani or anti-dark-skinned people is akin to anti-Semitism. It is racism.

Islamo-phobia is akin to "Judaeo-phobia," an antipathy to the religion of Judaism.

This is the important paragraph in Tanveer Ahmed's article:

"But with hindsight, I can see that what we now call extremism was virtually the norm in the community I grew up in. It was completely normal to view Jews as evil and responsible for the ills of the world. It was normal to see the liberal society around us as morally corrupt, its stains to be avoided at all costs. It was normal to see white girls as cheap and easy and to see the ideal of femininity as its antithesis. These views have been pushed to more private, personal spheres amid the present scrutiny of Muslim communities.

""But with hindsight, I can see that what we now call extremism was virtually the norm in the community I grew up in. It was completely normal to view Jews as evil and responsible for the ills of the world. It was normal to see the liberal society around us as morally corrupt, its stains to be avoided at all costs. It was normal to see white girls as cheap and easy and to see the ideal of femininity as its antithesis. These views have been pushed to more private, personal spheres amid the present scrutiny of Muslim communities."

This is the standard view of the GOP Republican Base in the United States. Your blind hate of Islam and Muslims is clouding your minds.

I read Tanveer 'article and he might have a point but it also contains factual and historical errors:

- He referred to the community where he grew up as a blanket to all Muslims. I don't think European Muslims like in countries like Turkey grew up with same teachings even though most are practising.

- He also blurred the line between traditional Islam and political Islam (re position on Jews), ignoring that Jews lived safely in Muslim countries for the last 14 centuries and prior to the formation of Israel. 'Hating jews' is a political islam that appeared post 1940s.

- Although he admits he does not understand Islamic theology, he suddenly makes a judgement call " At its core, Islam is deeply sceptical of the idea of a secular state" which is a Shiite understanding of Islam. 90% of Muslims (Sunnis, Mystics, etc..) do not share this view. The proof is not only secular muslim countries like Turkey, but Muslims living for decades and generattions in Western and eastern secular countries.

- He then dwells on radical pakistani ignoring that dozens of modern Islamic thinkers like Fethullah Gulen and Amr Khaled who already influenced tens of millions.

Peace,

Steel,

I do not hate Muslims.

I do not have a "blind hate" of Islam.

I have an INFORMED aversion to Islam.

I really don't give a rodent's rectum what the "GOP Republican Base in the United States" thinks.

I notice you have avoided my questions.

In your view:

Was 7 / 7 Justified? (Yes / No)

Were the recent weekend attempted car bombings justified? (Yes / No)

F_H wrote:

"ignoring that Jews lived safely in Muslim countries for the last 14 centuries"

Sorry F-H, This is a politically correct myth. The best that can be said is that Jews in Dar-ul-Islam did not suffer more than Christians. Religious minorities did not fare well in either Christendom or Dar-ul-Islam before the advent of secular democracy.

For data on how Muslims view Jews today, and how almost everybody views everybody else, see:

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248

Here's Andrew Alderson and Miles Goslett in the Sunday Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/24/nternet124.xml

Excerpts:

Speaking with a heavy middle eastern accent, Bakri responds: "Salman Rushdie, no doubt what he did was an apostasy… not because he get knighthood but because he insulted the honour of the prophet Mohammed (with his book The Satanic Verses)… He is murtadd (a traitor for rejecting Islam) anyway so there isn't any need for a new fatwa… People like him deserve to get the capital punishment."

….

"There is an unchallenged, unreported Islamist underworld in the UK in which talk of jihad, bombings, stabbings, killings and executions is usual," he [Ed Husain] warned recently. "Rhetoric is an indication of a certain mindset and, I think, the prelude to terror.

Perhaps the people that use the "one is as bad as, or worse, than the other" excuse to downplay islamic terror should consider simple facts:
1. Regarding the Bible. Most, but not all, of the evil is condemned. The acts of kings (David, Solomon, etc), prophets (Abraham, Jacob, stc...) and others are criticized.
2. Regarding the evil that Christians do. Yes, its condemned too. The vile actions and murders done by Christians or so-called Christians, is condemned in all Western societies. I condemn them.
3. Now let us look at Islams dear prophet. According to Muslim traditions, Mohammud murdered, plundered, tortured, raped, enslaved and beat his wife.

Where is the Condemnation for these vile actions? It is not to be found in the Quran, ahadith and writings; it is not done by modern Muslims.

Much to the contrary, Muslims write/ say "Praise be unto him" after the name of this evil man. They consider him to be a great moral example.

No Christian or Jew says "Praise be unto him" after the name of King David, Abraham, Adam or Isaiah. We know that Peter and Paul had moral failings.

That, Steel, FH and Irf, is the difference. You love and respect a man that murdered, raped, enslaved, robbed and tortured. You consider him a "Mercy for all mankind".
Tell that to this pregnant lady split open for criticing him
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/038.sat.html#038.4348

Would some Muslim please indicate a link to an Islamic site discussing the morality of that incident. Please, I would really like to see it. Please.

For Muslims, murder, torture, rape and slavery aren't always bad, because, after all, dear old MOhammad did them too. That is why Muslims have no credibility with this old man. That is why the terror doesn't end.

That is why we read things like this: "A 27-year-old Queensland doctor was arrested at Brisbane Airport last night in connection with Britain’s foiled car bomb terror plot".

Muslims, ask yourselves why violence and terror come so easily to Islam. Where does the hate and violence come from? Oh me oh my, what could it be....

Kactuz

As I mentioned, I took 3months to read the Quran, ahadith and biographies. They are full of hate and violence.

That is bad, but the lack of honesty about these by Muslims is worse.

An example:

An article "Leave The Quran Out Of This"
http://www.altmuslim.com/perm.php?id=1889_0_25_0_C
about using the Quran to justify violence (Irfan writes at AltMuslim. I am banned!)

I am not the smartest person or greatest expert on Islam, but even a simple article like this, by a seemingly knowledgable moderate, is full of errors and distortions.

Mohammad beat his wife
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/004.smt.html#004.2127

"Could any of you beat his wife as he would beat a slave"
Consider the statement... One can have slaves, one can beat them. Morals?

Consider the "Never beat God's handmaidens" statement. That is a wonderful verse, but continue...
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/011.sat.html#011.2141
(It was this verse that I learned to check everything a Muslim says!)

The article states: "Prophet said: 'I wanted one thing, but God has willed another'" yet continues to say Allah didnt mean what he said. Logic?

The article discusses translations of Quran4:34, but fails to note that many of the most common ones use the word "scourge". There may be a slight difference between "scourge" and "beat lightly." The translators often add adverbs (then, after, if) to Allahs words to make them nicer.

I could go on, but it is always the same. The experts lie, writers twist things, Muslims omit details. I wrote to Hassabella 2years ago about this, so he cannot claim ignorance.

These writers are more honest about these things:
http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=482&ln=eng
and
http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.comp.malaysia/great_virtues_of_apostle_of_god_79060025t.html
Click "see full article" and read the whole thing "Apostle was a very
compassionate man and prohibited muslims to have sex
with wives on the day of flogging" (because it was painful!). Notice the references to Islamic texts to support this vile but honest essay.

To understand Islam, one must read Muslim texts and visit Islamic sites. People in the West have no idea of the evil and twisted logic we are dealing with. This is why Muslims cannot end terror. To renounce terror is to denounce Islam.

Kactuz

FH. I'd be glad to see some excerpts from the speeches of Pope Urban on justifying the Crusades.

We had a lady leave our Bible study recently because she simply could not cope with the issues raised (which included radical Islam) She was the 'warmth and love only' type. Well intentioned but naive.

So..I'll happily await your reference to Urbans speech :)

As for Hitler, I keep on coming back to the clear misinterpretation he made of the 'Cleansing of the Temple' incident.
-Jesus drove the "Jews" out of the temple.
-We must do likewise.
Forgets that Jesus WAS a Jew, and also neglects many other aspects of the incident.
We can always read 'into' texts what we want. (Unlike Quran 9:30 where it is as clear as the broad side of a barn)

This decisively alters the security landscape: it is not so much a question of recruitment any longer, but of voluntary subscription. These people are recruiting themselves.

Walid Ali in that article.

"The implications are clear: a terror threat that is self-perpetuating, and too random to be dismantled systematically."

Tanveer Ahmad

[But the question is impossible to avoid and I believe that theology is central and not peripheral to the problem. It is grounded in history, but the sparks have been generated by the information age.]

Let me repeat that :) THEOLOGY IS CENTRAL. gee.. *scratches head*...where..where have I heard that before ?

Hmmmm OH THATS RIGHT.. its what I've been babbling and ranting about 100s of times. (if you believe FH its 3500 times.. as in EVERY post I've ever done is to promote hatred of muslims..... duh.. no mate. probably only 50% are on the subject of "Islamic Radicalism" and their theological basis for world domination.

Well finally at least Tanveer is 'getting' it. Walid is not far behind... FH and IRFY are the only tortoises here :)
*catch up guys*

Regarding the 'information age' at least we can actively counter the paranoid, doctrinally evil, deluded views of some Muslims on YouTube, MySpace etc with our own vids :)

KACTUZ..I Followed the Abu Dawood link. I could not believe my eyes !

Here it is: THIS MATERIAL IS A MUST READ! for all.

Book 11, Number 2141:
Narrated Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab:

Iyas ibn Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) as saying: Do not beat Allah's handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Many women have gone round Muhammad's family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you.

Book 11, Number 2142:
Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.

Book 11, Number 2144:
Narrated Buraydah ibn al-Hasib:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: to Ali: Do not give a second look, Ali, (because) while you are not to blame for the first, you have no right to the second.

Book 11, Number 2153:
Narrated Ruwayfi' ibn Thabit al-Ansari:

Should I tell you what I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) say on the day of Hunayn: It is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the last day to water what another has sown with his water (meaning intercourse with women who are pregnant); it is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the Last Day to have intercourse with a captive woman till she is free from a menstrual course; and it is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the Last Day to sell spoil till it is divided

AMAZING The women who have now been BEATEN (on Mohammads permissions) complain about domestic violence, and he MOCKS/CONDEMNS them!

Steven,

Your comment below contradicts history.

Below are two impeccable resources (Stanford education and the APF Organisation).

- and

http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF001974/Rubin/Rubin04/Rubin04.html

Every Egyptian Jew I met, without exception, assured me that the Jews had led a good life before 1948.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/SHR/5-1/text/beinin.html

“Several Egyptian Jews did participate in both national movements. Léon Castro conducted propaganda for the Wafd party in Europe after the 1919 nationalist uprising and founded and edited a pro-Wafd French language newspaper, La Liberté, after returning to Egypt. He was simultaneously the head of the Zionist Organization of Cairo and the representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine in Egypt. Félix Benzakein was a member of the Wafd, a deputy in parliament, a member of the Alexandria rabbinical court, and president of the Zionist Organization of Alexandria. Despite his Zionist commitments, Benzakein remained in Egypt until 1960, when he emigrated to the United States. The intensification of the Arab-Zionist conflict in Palestine during the Arab revolt of 1936-39 strained such dual commitments, and they became virtually impossible after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Yet as late as 1965 Shlomo Kohen-Tzidon, a native of Alexandria who emigrated to Israel in 1949 and eventually became a member of the Knesset, published a book memorializing Shmu'el Azar -- one of the two Egyptian Jews executed for their role in Operation Susannah -- whose central argument, in contrast to prevailing opinion in Israel, was that an accommodation and understanding between the Egyptian and Israeli national movements was possible and desirable. For Zionist historiography, the creation of the state of Israel and the 1948 war signal the end of the Egyptian Jewish community”
In addition to above historian, the fact all large retail, transport and manufacturing were owned by Egyptian Jews (Sidnaoui, Cicurel, etc..) supports my argument.

For the 'fellowship of the ring'

youtube have ots of English videos for Deedat explaining what Islam is and isn't. www.youtube.com and put 'deedat' in the the search.

Peace,

F_H

In both Christendom and Dar-ul-Islam there were times when Jews were allowed to prosper and there were times when they were subject to persecution.

What is called the emancipation of the Jews occurred in Europe starting in about the seventeenth century. This also coincides with the emergence of secularism in Europe.

The influence of secularism spread to the lands of the former Ottoman Empire. Egypt, for example, became de facto, if not de jure, secular during the nineteenth century. This spread of secular thought allowed ALL minority religions, not just Jews, to live peaceably in Egypt and other parts of Dar-ul-Islam.

At other times persecution of Jews and Christians in Dar-ul-Islam was severe. If you would like a brief introduction to the history of anti-Semitism including Muslim anti-Semitism, I suggest Robert Wistrich's "The Longest Hatred."

That should help dispel some of your illusions.

Interestingly the degree of persecution of Jews and other minorities could vary from place to place throughout Dar-ul-Islam. The great 12th century Jewish scholar, Maimonides, fled Muslim persecution in Cordoba and settled in Cairo where the ruler was somewhat more benign. Egypt has long been more tolerant of Jews and other religious minorities than the rest of Arab Dar-ul-Islam.

Bottom line is this F_H. The Muslim treatment of Jews was not worse than the Christian treatment of Jews throughout much of history. On balance it may even have been a bit better. But the notion that Jews and Muslims lived happily side by side for centuries is pure illusion. At some times in some places in Dar-ul-Islam they did.

Mostly they did not.

Steven,

I quoted you impartial educational body and a research/ humanitarian organisation. You referring me to a point of view expressed in a book doesn’t change history:

- Throughout history as per above the Jewish people lived and flourished in muslim countries. Most Muslim leaders since the 10th century had Jewish ministers and advisers (since Saladin all the way to the last century ottoman empire.

- The fact that European Jews escaped the persecution of other Christian nations and migrated to Spain went it was under Islamic ruling.

- The fact that Jewish people escaped the persecution of the Spanish inquisition and left Spain with the arab muslims to live in arab muslim countries in North Africa.

- I grew up in Egypt (a muslim country) and studied most modern history. Egyptian Jews contributed to economy, arts, entertainment and were driving the maturity of public debates since the 19th century. Among aspects of religious harmony between Jewish and Islamic faith, many of the rituals by the Sufi Muslims were shared by Orthodox Jews in Egypt and Morocco.

You seem to be enjoying your own illusion (your word) but it got nothing to do with history.

"Bottom line is this F_H. The Muslim treatment of Jews was not worse than the Christian treatment of Jews throughout much of history"

Flawed statement and contradicts even Jewish history:
Millions of Jewish people were murdered before and after the inqusition and ending up with the Nazis. Hitler claimed to be a devout follower of christianity (see April 1922 speech on the german archives website). None of the above atrocities have anything to do with Islam or Muslims.

Peace,

FH... you are carrying on somewhat there.

"None of the above atrocities have anything to do with Islam or Muslims."

How can you even say that... KNOWING of the Banu Qurayza genocide and the various purges of Jewish Tribes from Mecca and finally from Khaibar.
I mean.. you speak about history, then you go into some mental zone of denial which says 'It didn't happen'..... when you know full well it did.
Lets not use the Qurayza Jews.. after all "Ibin Ishaq was a liar who got his stories from Jews".. well..I'll remember that next time some Muslim quotes him to show Mohammad was some kind of 'hero' figure :)

You moving into this 'asserting' mode rather than speaking truthfully.
I guess you are running out of responses, but..God is with you, working in your heart.. drawing you.. so, we will keep praying.

I hope everyone read those Abu Dawud hadiths. I could not believe them at first.. but.. they are 4th in importance for Sunnis, so they have clout.

I generally only bring up these things when you need to be corrected, or when someone else does. So, if you stop saying 'wild' things...my responses will probably become tamer also.
It gives me no pleasure to 'put Islam down' because that impacts on lives. My true pleasure is proclaiming Christ Jesus. But even Jesus criticized the Pharisees in a very stern way.
Warm blessings to you, always remember, they said of Jesus "He has a demon" perhaps the equivalent for me is "you hate all Muslims"?
Neither of them are true. Not for Jesus, nor for me.

Boaz,

I am sure Steven does not need your support he can defend his views.
Every Muslim knows the incident you refer to was related to 'war time treason' and not religious persecution.
a) Only 1 of 3 Jewish tribes committed act of treason.
b) In addition, the prophet asked them to chose their own judge (the judge was a Jewish ally).

Why listen to me? read the truth from Jews who converted to Islam:
http://www.jews-for-allah.org/jewish-mythson-islam/muhammad_900_jews_notkilled.htm

Now, over to you Steven.

Peace,

As a result of the latest attempt to murder innocents to prove only one God and his followers has the right to live, a Medea event took place.
One of those under arrest had a former Friend tell of what he knew about him.
This friend said while he share the view a world wide Muslim rule must come he unlike his mate would not murder to bring it about.
I understand people like this threads author are against such insanity but question how many are not?.
How can any western government not ask are we wise to let our good will and freedom endanger us?
This country one day will suffer at the hands of such bigotry why not question can we truly live together?
That non violent bigot is in my view unwanted in this country.
I doubt we can without great pain make this part of multi culturism work, why make the effort if it is one sided?

I hope that it is clear to all that things are going from bad to worse. Look at what has happened in the last week. Notice the reaction of the Muslim community to these events. Nothing changes. All we see are the same old excuses and Muslims saying this has nothing to do with Islam. Day after day, year after year these things happen, and Muslims give us the same old excuses and/or start blaming things on everything and everybody - but islam.

We have seen from our Muslims here this same denial. No matter how many times we point out the hate and violence in the Quran, no matter how often we ask that they examine the state of Islamic societies, no matter how many Islamic sources we quote that tell of vile deeds by their prophet - these mean nothing to them.

At best, Muslims argue that others have done the same things, as much as or worse. Often this is true. They don't seem to understand that a non-Muslim murderer or rapist called X, doing evil, is NOT the moral equivalent to Mohammad murdering, torturing, enslaving and raping. We condemn X. X is not a moral example. On the other hand, Muslims love Mohammad and consider him to be a role-model and "mercy to all mankind."

The fact that if this were a public forum in an Islamic country many of the people posting here would have been emprisoned and put to death (Does anyone doubt this?). This does not bother our Muslim friends either. Think about this and ask why this fact does not at all diminish their love for Islam. It can only be one thing.

Understand that the West is confronted by a nihilism so total that it is beyong comprehension and unredeemable. Muslims lie about their religion and its writings without shame. They lie about their attitudes. At best, they are in denial - at worst they are dishonest. In anycase they cannot be trusted with your life and freedoms and those of your family.

Remember these things. I told you so.

Kactuz

Dear FH... I've read all the arguments, I prefer the actual sources, such as they are rather than distantly removed opinions about those sources which contradict them.

The point in mentioning those things, is purely to give balance, and offset the spurious claims that Mohammad was a prophet and "The Best of all Mankind". In the same way that Jesus said "If you do not believe me.. then believe the Miracles".. i.e. "look at what I have done".. I am looking at what Mohammad did. (warts and all) We could neglect that incident, (Banu Qurayza) it would change nothing.

The nub of the issue will always come back to "Is Mohammad a prophet from God"? which of course cannot be. Christ was/is 'the' way.

"Before Abraham was...I am"
"I and the Father are one"

On the grounds of those statements, the Jews knew exactly what he was saying,and charged him with blasphemy, and no one in 2007 can claim a better understanding of Christs words than those who actually heard them, who shared His culture.

"If you have seen me, you have seen the father"
"Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?

38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

In John 17 Jesus says "that they may be one, even as we are one" Zakir Naik suggests that this is the real meaning of our Lords words in John 8 and 10. But in John 17 he also says:

3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

COMMENT: My understanding of this, is that eternal life, salvation, has completely and finally come, in Christ. Nothing could come after this of any relevance.

and I can only offer this for your (and everyones) prayerful contemplation. No offense intended.

Kaktuz,

“At best, Muslims argue that others have done the same things, as much as or worse. Often this is true.”
That’s mythology, only criminals can think like that and it contradicts Islamic teachings. Once someone is set out to harm innocent civilians it means he stopped being a Muslim. www.fethullahgulen.org

Dear Boaz,

Dr Anis Sorrosh challenged Islamic theology over 2 hours with the very same argument in your comments above. You can watch it and make out what you want: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcMzHgq2zRo

“and I can only offer this for your (and everyones) prayerful contemplation. No offense intended”
Thanks I appreciate the invitation, no offence taken (I would have been offended by now if I was the type ;))

Peace as always,

All the ranting about Islamic and Christian theology will not take anyone anywhere. The way I see it is Islamic immigrants to western democracies end up as a backward underclass if they maintain their faith. If they want to maintain the faith they should stay in the Islamic nations.
No nation needs an embittered underclass that creates its little no-go areas in our midst.

Sille,

"The way I see it is Islamic immigrants to western democracies end up as a backward underclass if they maintain their faith"

Replace western democracies with "Australia".
The first thing I noticed when I migrated to Australia a decade ago was the quality of migrants from muslim countries in Australia was not as good in comparison with muslim migrantion to the US, Canada and Europe. It was no surprise that on educational and socio-economical levels, migrants coming to Australia from certain countries were far less qualified or educated than their countrymen favouring the US or Europe.

The answer can only be immigration policies which largely relies on government regulations and the standards required to let in migrants into Australia. Seems the US, Canada and Europe have better mechanisms to attract and retain intellects and the more qualified.
I think the government policies are changing but it will take a while to see substantial improvement.

Peace,