In most of what I write about Islam, I am arguing that there are serious dangers in the growth of the Islamic community in Australia (and any Western Country). That danger has many dimensions, some more serious than others.
a) Rising conflict between the value systems. (Cronulla, Sth_West Sydney, Refusal of Taxi's to take guide_dogs,alchohol)

b) Possible Terrorism from the radical end of the Muslim population and ideological spectrum. (Terrorism trials Sydney, Melbourne, arrests in Brisbane)

c)Increasing claims of special treatment for Muslims, which can lead to social disharmony.(Specifically 'Muslim' prayer halls at universities, Airports, special washing facilities,(USA))

REFUGE and DECEPTION.
The reality of these dangers (which have as their ultimate goal and objective an Islamic State) is found in the very earliest examples of Christian Muslim relations, as outlined on the Islamic web site below:

http://soundvision.com/Info/jesus/MuslimChristianRelations.asp

The Muslims sought refuge in Habasha, modern day Ethiopia, after suffering starvation and torture at the hands of the polytheistic Makkans. The Prophet Muhammad said about the Negus and Habasha: "a king rules without injustice, a land of truthfulness."
Christian King... Just Rule... land of Truth. (spoken by Mohammad himself)

What 'changed' that in Surah 9:30 Mohammad says “They (Christians) are deluded, away from truth, ALLAH'S CURSE IS ON THEM”

These words were uttered during the period of Tabuk, when Mohammad was trying to co-erce Arab Christians into alliance with him and provide a buffer between himself and the Byzantines Empire.

Such a shift in ideology has to have an explanation.

Now note the elements of the 'grand deception' which took place even in the face of such kindness.

ETHIOPIA (Habasha).. “we need you” so.. they spoke very selectively about 'How much we have in common' reading deceptivly from Surah 19 choosing words no Christian would disagree with on the surface.

TABUK (Surah 9) “We are strong, comply with us or we will destroy you” So said Kalid bin Waleed (Mohammad's General) to Christian prince Ukaydir of Duma, (after Waleed had murdered Hashim the princes brother)

Note: In both cases, Mohammad himself was the Muslim ruler.

Is there a lesson here ?

If Islam is treated as a political system and their agendas put on the table where it can be scrutinised and criticised I don’t think it could survive in any society other than where logical thought is replaced with dogma and repression.

The Islamic political agenda is veiled with religious mumbo jumbo with all sorts of unrealistic promises of paradise and hell. They are very successful in providing the hell but the promises of paradise are reminiscent of where Christianity was in 13th century and often more fanciful.

BOAZ is 100% right to state that there are serious dangers in the growth of the Islamic community in Australia (and any Western Country). Just read "Londonistan" by Melanie Phillips to see what Islam is doing to the UK.
Islam does not want to live in peace with the West, it wants to destroy the whole system and replace it with a world-wide caliphate.
Australia, don't be another UK.

Agreed. People's ignorance of Islam's doctrines necessitates the need to educate and speak out. The backbone of Islam, that is the doctrine of Jihad is all about subjugating non-muslims. The redd herring thrown in from time to time that Jihad also means inner struggle is exactly that, a distraction from the main issue. Nobody is concerned about inner struggle jihad.

Fortunately we have these forums to discuss and debate. Otherwise one of Allah's little helpers might get to us, as were the critics of Muhammed (May Allah Bless His Immaculately Divine Soul).

Peace

Nothing changes, eh Boaz?

Yet another thread dedicated to your obsession, denigrating Islam.

But I have to tell you that my three weeks in Europe have provided me with some additional perspective on your pointless paranoia, and on the fear you attempt to engender in the good people of this right little, tight little island.

I was there for both of the UK's failed attacks, the London car bombs and the Glasgow airport attempt. Leaving aside the sheer banality of their incompetence, they provided a good opportunity, as you can imagine, to chat with the natives about the situation.

And while there is still a marginal element over there that insists this is evidence of a coordinated attempt by Islamists to seize power from the UK government, the majority takes a more sanguine view.

Their new Prime Minister has even begun - so obvious in hindsight - to refer to the terrorists as criminals, thus taking the first step to re-categorizing them as murderers instead of some form of religious martyrs.

That strange creature, the "man in the street", is of course mightily annoyed by the continuing nuisance they cause. Security rituals are reaching ludicrous levels, and in fact form the terrorists' biggest victory, which can only be to cause the maximum of inconvenience.

In the face of both the reality of what the UK faces, and their reaction, your attempt to raise our fear-levels seems a little pale.

If the symptoms here are in fact those you describe at the head of this thread - "Cronulla, Sth_West Sydney, Refusal of Taxi's to take guide_dogs,alchohol (sic all)" - I believe we should all still sleep easy in our beds.

If the situation is as under control as you suggest - "Terrorism trials Sydney, Melbourne, arrests in Brisbane" - we could deduce that the authorities are exercising the necessary caution and diligence.

If the future threats to our way of life are as you say - "Specifically 'Muslim' prayer halls at universities, Airports, special washing facilities,(USA)" - I'm sure that fair-minded people would not consider them to be particularly burdensome.

Pericles, have you ever read the Quran and ahadith?

Do you know about the hate and violence in their sacred texts? Do you know that Islam's own traditions tell us that Mohammud murdered, tortured, plundered, enslaved, raped, preached hate and even beat his wife. These are not found in obsure books, but in the most reliable hadiths and in the very earliest works of Islam (Buhkari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tabari, Ibn Sa'd, Ibn Ishaq, Kathir, Hisham, etc...). It is not one or two stories, either, but hundreds of vile actions found in all accounts.

And yet Muslims say "Praise be unto him" after this man's name.

Tell me, why should we trust a people that do this? Please don't tell me that Muslims have not heard these accusations about their dear leader - either they don't care enough to read their own traditions, or they just don't care. Either way, it doesn't inspire confidence.

And what about us, the "Islam bashers"? Do you doubt that we would be dead if in an Islamic society? Why? Because we have opinions Muslims don't like? Because we tell lies, or don't tell lies? Yes, Muslims usually let infidels live, as long as we don't say anything they don't like, including the truth.

You will notice that our Muslim friends here that defend Islam and who would probabbly say that we shouldn't be killed for our opinions don't live in Islamic countries. How can we know if they are sincere?

Regarding the historical perspective, the fact is that Christians at least are (more) honest about the vile things they have done in the last 1600 years - but I can't say the same about Muslims - starting with their dear prophet. Anyway the past is past. How about Muslim countries starting to respect other religions where they dominate? Why don't they let other religions live, worship and preach openly, without any restrictions and persecutions?

Of course, once you link to a text like this:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4321
or this
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/038.sat.html#038.4348
and Muslims still say "Praise be unto him" then .... Well, you figure it out.

Kactuz

FH,

This is for you.

http://economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9433846

It is probably a very good book about early Arab (Muslim) conquests and probably written from an objective standard. I hope to read it. I love history.

J.

Pericles, get your head out of the sand. To warn of the dangers of a culture that is threatening Western ways of life is not denigrating it. Was the "Red Menace" scare purely an insult to the FSU?

During your time in Europe, you should have crossed over to England to witness Imams preaching hatred and sedition against the government that allows them to live there. I wonder how you would excuse that.

Once you have personally witnressed a bombing, Failed or otherwise, then you can comment on "the sheer banality of their incompetence".

Your belittling of the symptoms, "Cronulla, Sth_West Sydney, Refusal of Taxi's to take guide_dogs,alchohol (sic all)" , is pathetic, as symptoms lead to disease. How do you think the UK's disease started?

You don't see "Specifically 'Muslim' prayer halls at universities, Airports, special washing facilities,(USA)" to be particularly burdensome. Who's paying for these? Would a muslim country allow special non-muslim facilities? Did Afganistan allow the Buddha statues to remain?

With Crusades or Jihads the problem is active monotheism. Here, we have white haired guys bunkered down safely somewhere, creating creeds and doctrines and inciting thers, 18-25 year olds to fight to the death... Regarding Napoleon Bonaparte’s c.1800 incursion into Egypt, the Mameluke leadership serially recruited locals/peasants to fight Napoleon, while moving itself and the trained forces away from the front line. [Created casualities by attrition for the French, while keeping the leader safe and guarded.] Likewise, the Christian Popes kept potential usurpers in control by kings’ forces were off on crusade. Whether it is a call to Allah or a priest blessing the Hiroshima bomb, they are tarred with the same brush. Monotheism is dangerous.

The Christians were as bad as the Muslims when it came to massacres and cruelty , wherein I have provided many examples to just the claim in earlier threads: Make an interpretation on God's will and pull the deluded believer’s lever. Monotheism is amongst humankind’s most perilous inventions.

As a civil instrument polytheism is a superior construct to monotheism. Polytheistic peoples respected each other’s gods. Historically, the Egyptians, Greeks and Roman had territorial wars of conquest but not Holy Wars determining who ruled what. The Jewish zealots were monotheists, ultimately causing the First Jewish-Rom War and the demise of the Second Temple, 70CE.

[Boaz, surprised you started this thread on this topic, when you didn’t answer my question, as to, Islam regarding Christians and Jews as people of the Book. [?] Please complete the earlier thread you started. See you there. :)]

Oliver wrote "Monotheism is dangerous". I'd go one step further - religion is dangerous. Good men do good things, evil men do evil things. Only religion can make good men do evil things.

As for thinking poytheism isn't so bad, ask the Aztecs' sacrificial victims how they felt about that. Most polytheistic cults sacrificed humans at some time or other. Although I hold all religious belief as primitive, polytheism is the most backward, with its various gods assigned to specific fields - thunder gods, goddesses of love etc.

While not being a jew supporter the Jewish rebellion was due to Roman occupation. Like it or not, it was a war of resistance against an invader (who happened to be polytheistic).

>>Pericles, get your head out of the sand... During your time in Europe, you should have crossed over to England to witness Imams preaching hatred and sedition against the government that allows them to live there. I wonder how you would excuse that<<

Ah, but I was there, JSP, actually there at the time of the attempted bombings. Both of them. And I was able to witness i) the same kind of rabid "it's the Mozzies preaching hatred" reaction that we get over here, appearing in the more sensationalist tabloids, as well as ii) the reaction of the man-in-the-street, which tended to be "they're a bloody nuisance, but then we've seen all this before, haven't we?"

From this safe distance it is easy to forget that England during the IRA "reign of terror" had remarkably similar problems to face. They faced them, resisted them, and eventually they went away. At no time did they think that the IRA were intending to take over the world, but neither did they give into the pressure and donate Northern Ireland to the IRA in order to achieve a quiet life, against the wishes of the six counties' electorate who continuously voted to remain under Westminster rule.

What the US and UK are coming to realize - and we will also discover after the usual latency of four to five years - is that the "global Islamist threat" is mostly in our heads.

This particular problem was created by the ludicrous US concept of "introducing democracy" into areas whose leadership it disapproved of, and failing to understand that there are some fanatics around who would use this as an excuse to further their own violent, personal agenda.

Lessons were clearly not learned from Vietnam. The victory of the communist North did not lead to the downfall of capitalism after all. In fact, it probably accelerated its introduction. Once we realize that the real solution to the Middle East problem is not crushing Islam but finding a political solution to Israel and Palestine that does not involve invasion, we might just make some progress.

Sorry, kactuz, I don't buy those arguments.

>>Pericles, have you ever read the Quran and ahadith? Do you know about the hate and violence in their sacred texts? Do you know that Islam's own traditions tell us that Mohammud murdered, tortured, plundered, enslaved, raped, preached hate and even beat his wife. These are not found in obsure books, but in the most reliable hadiths and in the very earliest works of Islam (Buhkari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tabari, Ibn Sa'd, Ibn Ishaq, Kathir, Hisham, etc...). It is not one or two stories, either, but hundreds of vile actions found in all accounts.<<

These are straight from the Boaz "reasons to hate Mozzies" playbook, and they mean precisely nothing to me.

In fact, the only people to whom they appear to hold any meaning at all are - curiously, but satisfyingly symmetrically - fanatical Islamists intent upon destruction of their opponents, and fanatical christians, also intent upon the destruction of their opponents.

Both use quotations from their own and each other's scriptures to support their militant and murderous activities of blind hatred, failing to understand that real people simply ain't like that.

One day we'll all see how silly we have been. And, surprisingly perhaps to you and Boaz, kactuz, when we do, we will all still be alive and free.

Good article in the Courier mail last week from an ex Islamic Jihadist. He wrote regarding the reasons for terroist acts.

'And though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice.' This guys name is HASSAN BUTT
and he was a friend of those respinsible for the London bombings. Those that want to pretend Islam is a peaceful religion will go on dreaming and blame Bush, Blair and Howard for every evil in the world.

Peace to the 'Mosque-teers',

Too bored to talk about the same crap again Boaz.

Since the topic of Muslim Christian relations, watch Deedat on the importance of Jesus (pbuh) to Muslims:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqFluSiXSkM&mode=related&search=

Boaz,

Muslims recognise Jesus as miracle prophet and honours Christians as the 'people of the book'.
What do you teach followers of your faith about Islam and Muslims?

Except for the marketing propaganda, we are a lot more tolerant : -)

Peace,

4 JSP1488,

I am not avocating we return to polytheism, rather I was saying that polythiesm is civil in that it allows syncretion of the divinities, as with the Upper & Lower Eyptian Kingdoms and Greek & Roman dieties. Polytheism has less potential for conflict than monotheism. I wasn't addressing blood sacrifices, but would tend think that sacafice would be kernel rites, of tribal clans [Hebrew} and tribal empires [Anztecs].

The Eygptians would take servants to serve them in the after-life, but this characteristic is independent of theocrasaic synthesis, i.e., whether the deity is Ra or Amon-Ra, the sacrafice would occur. Another non-tribal example of sacrafice, would the ancient Chinese, people were sacrificed and placed at strategic points of significant buildings: the bodies laid in doorways and under pillars.

Nicaea seems to have borrowed from the Serapis godhead and Roman Mystery cults. Comprises were made, to grow the new Christian religion... away from the Jesus cults/assemblies towards a broader audience.

The Hebrew/Jewish-Jesus cult-Christian-Islam thread have common origins to Abraham. However, melding Christianity and Islam would require huge doctrinal compromise. Something like the Pope saying Jesus was a mere prophet or that Jesus is of the same substance as Allah. Doubtful. Monotheistic conflict is more likely.

Religion has provided some organisational benefits and provided some good templates for science [design]. Hoping in 200-300 years, it will achieved its used by date.

Well...I see this has become a lively thread over the weekend.

Some useful pieces of information have also been presented.
Pericles.. your personal insights are always welcome, but I do find myself a little confused by your first hand accounts of 'near and present danger' yet your on going denial of the reality we face.

JSP said "Only religion can make good men to evil".. which is quite a provocative challenge, and worthy of being explored a bit further.
I hope others will pick on the philosophical presuppositions in that quote and scrutinize them. Key words "good" "evil" "Make"...
Actually, I think the problem is deeper than 'religion' it is our basic survival instinct which comes into play, and it also depends on what the religion actually teaches. I cannot for the life of me find any verse in the New Testament (or old) which 'commands us' to fight against 'people of their book' (Muslims) until they are subdued and humiliated, but that is exactly what the Quran says about us. (9:29)

FH. please be reminded that this thread was simply an examination of a chunk of history, and the same lessons could be applicable to any movement, even political Christianity. Nothing personal as always.

BASSAM..as in.. Zawadi? of "Answering Christianity" 'fame' ? :) Hope so. I agree about the need to understand "Islams Doctrines", but not just the sugar coated ones, and also Mohammad must be subjected to honest scrutiny.

Aside from it all, love is the answer, -Pericles, stop choking!
But lets be informed about the challenges to our freedom to love without compulsion.

FH.. can you give an answer to the issue of 'why' the Muslims who needed Negus help deliberatly chose 'Christian-friendly' quotes but they knew full well that "Anyone who associates partners with Allah is to be condemned" (words to that effect) ...I would explain it in simple 'desperation' terms. Say what you have to at the time to survive, but in terms of honesty.. this was outright deception.

It was to illuminate the concept of denial, Boaz, that I provided the first-hand report.

It is you who are in denial, in that the reaction of people suffering real damage - as opposed to experiencing a day's nuisance from a small band of beach hooligans - still differs from your own knee-jerk "whack-a-mozzie" response.

I was not in London on the night of the car bomb incident, but I was there the following day, and met a number of old friends - eighteen in all - who were happy to share their views with me.

In the same spirit, I would like to point out that back in the seventies and eighties I was working in London, through the hottest part of the IRA bombing campaign. In fact I missed one of their Christmas forays by almost exactly 24 hours. It is almost appropriate to add that I frequently drove to and from work through Brixton, in more riotous times.

All of which encourages me to believe that this is simply another phase we are going through. Annoying to many, deadly to a few, but destined to run its course over time.

It is not an attempt to take over the world, it is just a number of disaffected youths goaded by a smaller number of more intelligent rabble-rousers. Your attempts to open a second front against this illusory enemy can only serve to recruit a few more to their ranks, under the impression that they should react to your goadings.

It may seem strange to you, and difficult to understand from this safe distance, but the predominant reaction in London was in fact to make fun of the hapless failures. The jokes came and went too quickly for me to remember any specific ones I'm afraid - just think of your favourite stupidity story and substitute Muslim for Irishman/Polack/Newfie etc. and you'll get the idea.

One vaguely related goes as follows:

"Police towed away a suspect vehicle from the kerbside in front of Liverpool Airport yesterday.

It was taxed, insured, and still had its radio installed"

And while I am here, can I just point out the following:

>>I cannot for the life of me find any verse in the New Testament (or old) which 'commands us' to fight against 'people of their book' (Muslims) until they are subdued and humiliated<<

While this may be absolutely and perfectly true (I'm not even going to look), it doesn't explain the Crusades, does it?

According to most of the accounts I have read, the Christian protagonists believed themselves to be "in the right" in this particular set of disputes, and the cited authority was, apparently, Jesus and the Gospels.

He obviously didn't get his message across too well, did he?

In the same vein, I hope you won't take offence if I suggest that the words ascribed to him in the New Testament, while very pretty, are hardly what you would categorize as verbatim accounts, are they?

It is like someone recalling events that happened fifty years ago, claiming to remember exactly the words that were spoken. You'd have your lawyer shoot that one down in flames in an instant, wouldn't you?

So it is just words placed there by some folk with an agenda. Hardly surprising they later got taken selectively and metaphorically, rather than as a whole and literally, don't you think?

Incidentally, given your fundamental disagreement with the interpretation of so many hundreds of millions of Christians who subscribe to one particular church or another, I'm a little surprised that you continue to associate with them.

Even if only in name, as opposed to a common belief system.

So tell, how should we describe you, if the term "Christian" has been usurped by a bunch of organized religions?

That question is also open to others. Might be an interesting exercise.

David

You said:
"BASSAM..as in.. Zawadi? of "Answering Christianity" 'fame' ? :) Hope so. I agree about the need to understand "Islams Doctrines", but not just the sugar coated ones, and also Mohammad must be subjected to honest scrutiny."

I am not to sure why you ask this. The "May Allah Bless His Divinely Immaculate Soul" was sarcasm :-)
I was given the nickname Bassam by a dear Lebonese friend.
I agree, Islam/Muhammed's teachings need to be subject to honest scrutiny.

Pericles

I appreciate your optimism but your comparison would only be valid if Jesus Christ incited hatred and violence towards others, and then made it a pillar of his religion like the doctrine of Jihad in Islam.

On 14 July, Pericles wrote, in puffed-up self-importance, “Ah, but I was there, JSP, actually there at the time of the attempted bombings. Both of them.” Yet on 15 July he wrote “I was not in London on the night of the car bomb incident, but I was there the following day”. So much for credibility. I wonder what other changes and backflips will occur in his posts.

Also, trying to compare the muslim menace with the “IRA "reign of terror” is wrong. The IRA did not want to take over or destroy the West. Their goal was a united Ireland.

No-one who has heard the evil spoutings of the imams in England could dismiss the "global Islamist threat" as being mostly in our heads.

The dismissive “It is not an attempt to take over the world, it is just a number of disaffected youths goaded by a smaller number of more intelligent rabble-rousers” is troubling. Anyone who writes that is either delusional or a fifth-columnist for the Islamic cause. I wonder which it is.

If you'd like some help reading the words, JSP, just let me know and I'll run my finger under the sentences for you.

Let's start with your little dummy-spit. Remember, follow the finger...

>>On 14 July, Pericles wrote, in puffed-up self-importance, “Ah, but I was there, JSP, actually there at the time of the attempted bombings. Both of them.” Yet on 15 July he wrote “I was not in London on the night of the car bomb incident, but I was there the following day”. So much for credibility.<<

Now, here is a complete, sequential segment from my original post.

The finger! Follow the finger.

[quote]>>Pericles, get your head out of the sand... During your time in Europe, you should have crossed over to England to witness Imams preaching hatred and sedition against the government that allows them to live there. I wonder how you would excuse that<<

Ah, but I was there, JSP, actually there at the time of the attempted bombings. Both of them.<<[end quote]

Were you able to connect the dots? E-n-g-l-a-n-d, JSP. I was in E-n-g-l-a-n-d at the time of the attempted bombings.

Now, pay attention, this is the important bit.

London is in England, I was in England. I travelled from a town forty miles north of London, into London, on the day after the bombings.

>>Anyone who writes that is either delusional or a fifth-columnist for the Islamic cause. I wonder which it is.<<

OK, let's assume for the moment one or the other. What are your credentials on the topic, apart from an irrational, all-consuming fear of things you don't like?

Quite why you choose to be so gratuitously rude is beyond me, but in the same spirit, here's the finger that helped you read this lot.

Spin on it.

Pericles, you're so funny. I should run my finger over your latest.. You wrote, "Ah, but I was there, JSP, actually there at the time of the attempted bombings." Only now do you add England as opposed to London. I suppose if you were in California during 9/11, you would be writing that you were "there, actually there" too. Maybe you should review your posts before climbing on your high horse. It looks like you had the dummy spit.

BTW, as you were in E-n-g-l-a-n-d, didn't you come across the imams I mentioned or have you conveniently forgotten? You certainly failed to address that part of my post.

Also, what are your grounds for your accusation of me having an "irrational, all-consuming fear of things you don't like"? Going by your posts, if I met you I probably wouldn't like you, but I would never fear you. For someone so opinionated, you don't like others' opinions do you?

As for being "gratuitously rude", look in the mirror to see the main culprit.

Spin on that

Boaz,

"FH.. Can you give an answer to the issue of 'why' the Muslims who needed Negus help deliberatly chose 'Christian-friendly' quotes but they knew full well that "Anyone who associates partners with Allah is to be condemned" (words to that effect)"

Not sure why is this a ‘debate point’ it makes perfect sense. The verse means that only believers with pure hearts are allowed into the pilgrim (ie Mecca). Non believers with impure hearts do not need to go there. If you tell me “FH, you are a non-believer in my faith and your heart is impure therefore don’t pilgrim into the church of nativity” why would that offend me? If you are not a Muslim why would you want to go in the middle of the desert into the pilgrim area of Mecca anyway?
Am I missing something Boazy?

As for the second part, The Quran clearly states that we are not to judge others and that, for those who deliberately associate partners with God they are alienating him. We just convey the message and everyone chose what makes sense to him/ her.

Peace my friend,

PS: I am in Melbourne next week, I can buy you a coffee if you promise to come unarmed: -)

Come on, JSP, you can do better than that, surely? You're not even trying.

A decent insult should contain at least a scrap of credibility, otherwise it is a complete waste of space. Why not admit that you goofed - my post, in direct response to yours, quite clearly indicated that "England" was where I said I was. I suppose if I had been in London, you would have said "aha, but you weren't in Haymarket or Cockspur Street, so liar liar pants on fire yah boo sucks."

Or something equally incisive.

There were a few items in the newspapers about noisy imams, to be sure. But most English people ignore them, and certainly spend little time actually worrying about them. Just as they did with Gerry Adams in the eighties. You heard the words, but knew they were simply formulaic gibberish designed to please the jackals of the fourth estate.

The conclusion that you must be scared comes from the fact that you have an utterly irrational fear of Muslims. They all have this thing about taking over the world, apparently, after which they subject you to all sorts of indignities. Some quite excruciatingly painful.

So it a perfectly natural reaction to be frightened of them.

If you weren't, you wouldn't spend so much time obsessing over them, would you? And that goes for several other of your fellow-fanatics, who cannot bring themselves to say the word "Islam" without crouching behind the sofa, like when they first saw the Daleks on Dr. Who.

Don't feel ashamed of your fear. Face it, and conquer it. You'll feel better - and braver - once you have done so.

And more able to conduct a civilized discussion.

Pericles said:

"It is not an attempt to take over the world, it is just a number of disaffected youths goaded by a smaller number of more intelligent rabble-rousers"

My goodness.. a team of doctors is 'disaffected youth'?

Thanx for making my case.

FH. next week... errr *ducks for cover* :) Tell me a date, and location, in fact..the best thing to do is provide the phone number of a go-between.. someone who can contact you..and I'll ring them and try to work something out. Yes..I'd love to meet you. Me armed ? :) hilarious.. I AM... a weapon mate *grin*...should I wear my 'ninja' mask ? :) Ok.. joking aside... yes.. I might be able to squeeze in a coffee... it would mean 3 hours out of my day from where I am.So.. YES.. you WILL be buying old son :) and I'd expect some cheesecake also..... look out for the dude waddling along with his turbo charged 'walker' thingy...

you can write to me if you like on newlifeinhim777@yahoo.com.au
and we can arrange the venue and time if poss... the best for me is close to flinders street station. Like Maccas in Swanston st.
blessings
BD

Most Australians are indifferent to political agendas, as long as they are not being personally threatened. Creating fear is a way of gaining a following based on some legitimate or some illigitimate agenda.

For instance the Greens have found a winner, they believe, by creating fear over global warming, if factual, will threaten everyone. However the sublimated communist socialist asgenda combined with an overt threat to environment associated with climate warming is a tool for creating fear to indifferent citizens. Ask, is it working? We in Sydney I hear have just experienced the coldest July since records were kept.

Public Schools and Universities teach global warming as fact created by overpopulation and human abuse of environment to the young generation and they believe it because they fear for their future.

When university lecturers and school teachers belong to left wing political agendas and run as Green's Candidates can we not see them as possibly subverting our way of life and continuing prosperity. Much of our current wealth has come from projects the socialists Greens see as damaging to a sustainable environment.

One major natural event like a volcanic eruption can pour more toxic chemicals into the atmosphere than for what we can compensate. Global warming may be a fact created by sun activity for which we have no controll.

There are agressive political agendas seeking to subvert and overthrow our free way of life. The Greens can accomodate Muslim Candidates as they did in several electorates in the recent 2007 NSW Elections because they wish to change our culture. Some fears seem legitimate and are a diversion from the real but hidden social agenda. Some try to divert raised public fears of an exposed threat because they do not believe a threat exists, others because they believe in the goals of those posing the underlying threat.

This is all you could come up with Boaz, after I wrote two pieces 'specially for you?

>>My goodness.. a team of doctors is 'disaffected youth'? Thanx for making my case<<

If you were to make a list of all Islamic suicide bombers, you would find that the vast majority of them are "disaffected youth". Just as one swallow does not make a summer, and the exception proves the rule, your observation on the doctors hardly makes your case, now does it?

Your case is, and always has been, that it is the teachings of Islam that force them into violence. The simple fact that they are Muslim is enough, in your view, to condemn them, and their only possible salvation, you believe, is to join your religion instead.

However, as the article on "Internet Jihad" in this week's Economist explains:

"Jihadists, Mr Ulph [senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation] says, are fighting less a war against the West than “a civil war for the minds of Muslim youth”. In this process of radicalisation, “the mujahideen attract the uncommitted armchair sympathiser, detach him from his social and intellectual environment, undermine his self-image as an observant Muslim, introduce what they claim is ‘real Islam', re-script history in terms of a perennial conflict, centralise jihad as his Islamic identity, train him not only militarily but also socially and psychologically.”" http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9472498

The key phrase here is the need to "detach him from his social and intellectual environment, undermine his self-image as an observant Muslim" in order to radicalize. If it were the religion alone that creates terrorists, there would be no need for additional radicalization, would there?

While there are a few nutters around who use the whole Islam vs Christianity thing to preach world domination, they still form a tiny proportion of their population. Unfortunately, they have been very successful in producing fear-based reactions in some folk, which feeds their ability to recruit, and turn, more youngsters. Look, they say, the depraved and decadent Christians revile us... and so it goes, round and round.

Hi Pericles, sorry mate.. I have been pressed for time this past day or 2, I'll look more closely at what you wrote tonight.

I appreciate your exploring this issue, and your last post definitely has some important points.

"Your case is, and always has been, that it is the teachings of Islam that force them into violence"

Let me just address that point first. I would not quite say 'force' them... I'd say 'pre-dispose them' and your subsequent quote about 'detaching them from their social and intellectual environment' was an excellent point. Surely you don't disagree with that do you ?

Using just the UK as an example. The London bombers who were successful were home grown and well educated in some cases. Now we have doctors having a dabble in jihad. This supports the idea of the faith being used to provide the spiritual launch pad for these activities.

Islam as a faith, has many dimensions. Not all are violent or anti social. The problem is, it has sufficient momentum on the violent 'defend the faith and honour of the prophet' to make it very easy to use in conjunction with Al Qaeda or Islamist propoganda videos in acheiving that social and intellectual discocation crucial to successful Jihad.

Pericles.. I had a read :) ur hilarious.. able to convey such wit ..

finger...follow the finger.. E n g l a n d :) fourth estate.. etc. Verrry entertaining stuff.

I disagree with the 'irrational fear' bit though (about JSP)

Nevertheless we would be lost without your barbs. Keep it up.

JSP.. your input is valued also mate.

It's good to see a softening of your attitude on this Boaz. It would be uncharitable of me to say "and about time too", so I won't.

>>[Your case is, and always has been, that it is the teachings of Islam that force them into violence]
Let me just address that point first. I would not quite say 'force' them... I'd say 'pre-dispose them' and your subsequent quote about 'detaching them from their social and intellectual environment' was an excellent point. Surely you don't disagree with that do you ?<<

If you are happy to concede that it is not Islam itself that creates the problem, but instead it is people using Islam as an excuse to incite violence, that's a good start. It places their activity on the same level as the Crusades, for example, or the IRA.

In order to get the troops to traipse across Europe to battle in the Holy Land, as they knew it, they were told that right was on the side of the Christian, and they were therefore allowed to create mayhem. Pope Urban II summed it up in 1095:

"It is indeed the will of God; and let this memorable word, the inspiration surely of the Holy Spirit, be for ever adopted as your cry of battle, to animate the devotion and courage of the champions of Christ. His cross is the symbol of your salvation; wear it, a red, a bloody cross, as an external mark, on your breasts or shoulders, as a pledge of your sacred and irrevocable engagement."

The IRA simply used the difference between Protestant and Catholic to incite their troops to bomb innocent civilians. Again, they probably used more subtle versions of "detaching [their footsoldiers] from their social and intellectual environment" to convince them that their religion supported their actions.

If you were to start modifying your tendencies to take every opportunity to denigrate Islam, and instead used every opportunity to rage against terrorists of every stripe and tendency, we might make even more progress.

PART-1
Hi Pericles...
don't get too excited, we just need to further clarify some things.

IRA Firstly,- I feel that conflict was more related to ill treatment of the Irish by the English historically than a religious divide. It might become a bit chicken and egg, but the situation would have been the same even if the Irish were Indian Hindu's as much as Catholics.

So, the Catholicism/Anglicanism was more about political independence/self- rule than the religious aspect itself.

Then..you said:

"If you are happy to concede that it is not Islam itself that creates the problem, but instead it is people using Islam as an excuse to incite violence"

and you quoted Pope Urban.

Here are my observations on those statements.

1/ Islam does in fact have specific commands to 'fight' infidels and people of the book until they are subjugated and humiliated. It does not have a specific command to 'convert' by force. But Quran 9:29 comes pretty close.

9:29
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Ok.. all I concede here is that Islam absolutely commands Muslims to fight non Muslims until they:
a) Believe in Allah and the last day
b) Do not forbid that which Allah and his apostle have forbidden
c) Acknowledge Islam as 'The Religion of Truth'
d) Pay the Jizya if they don't convert.
e) Are subdued and humiliated.

English Translators add the words in brackets "back" after "fight"
But as I'll show, this is not how Mohammad or his companions understood it.
Some claim that the context is about those who broke treaties. Yes.. this IS the case regarding the Arabs.. and the battle of Hunayn is mentioned. Broken treaties was NOT the case for the Christians or Byzantines, there was no treaty to break. Hence, 9:29 cannot be taken in that context.

This is a fairly typical argument strategy from you Boaz, and it is one that you should attempt to curb.

>>I feel that conflict was more related to ill treatment of the Irish by the English historically than a religious divide.... So, the Catholicism/Anglicanism was more about political independence/self- rule than the religious aspect itself<<

We move directly from "I feel that conflict was more related to ill treatment of the Irish by the English..." to "So, the Catholicism/Anglicanism was more about political independence/self- rule"

Just because you personally hold that view does not make it true.

And on this topic your position is not particularly well supported by the facts. As far as the most recent version of "the troubles" is concerned, the battle lines were, as always, drawn along sectarian Christian lines, the Protestants on one side, the Catholics on the other. The Protestants (who were predominantly immigrants from Scotland, by the way, not England) had for many years ensured that Catholics in the North had inferior jobs and financial prospects.

The element of "political independence" or "self rule" was introduced (or more accurately, re-introduced) by the Catholic South taking advantage of the conflict to reproduce the Home Rule push of the late nineteenth century.

Whichever way you cut it, religion was front and centre. Yes, there was an economic edge to it, but one that was established along religious lines. Similar, in fact, to the argument that the present conflict with Islam has economic roots, the "have nots" of Muslim countries in conflict with the "haves" of the Christian or atheistic West.

And to save you some effort, I should point out that I have never accepted that many-centuries-old documents are valid when assessing twentyfirst century behaviours. If we can concentrate on this aspect, we may be able to continue the discussion.

Boazy,

Caught you red handed again : -)

“that Islam absolutely commands Muslims to fight non Muslims”

This is absolute non sense. Missionaries love to quote surah 9 only because it’s the only one revealed when Muslims were facing extermination wars and hence were allowed to defend themselves. The self defence ‘permit’ came with clear boundaries : ‘Shall not transgress’ and ‘until they persecute you no more’. Did you explain to Pericles why Surah 9 is the only one of 114 Surah that does not start with “In the name of God most gracious most merciful”? I didn’t think so: -)

Re your other 'facts':

- Point b) has a typo it should read “Do not allow what God forbid”.
- Point c) is a proven fabrication. A Muslim must honour followers of Christianity, Judaism. After the Muslims conquered the Byzantine in Egypt, Muslims became the majority of the population 500 years from the defeat of the Byzantine Empire. If it was forced there would be no church or a Christian arab today.
- ‘Pay the Jizyah if they don’t convert’ . Jizyah was the defence tax on those who don’t join the army and are financially capable. Incapable, poor non-muslims were exempt. Also, Christians & Jews who helped the Muslims defending Jerusalem during the Crusades were exempted from the Defence tax (Dr A. Ashour, History of Saladin).

Get Ron Hubbard's book on Dianetics, it will help you analyse the deep seated grudge for Islam. PS: it a safe reading its from the 'church' of scientology not the 'mosque' : -)

Peace,

Fellow_Human,
1. Can I ask why the Muslims were defending themselves, and against whom? Was it because they posed a perceived jihad threat to the society in which they lived?

2. Do Muslim countries today still impose taxes on non-believers?
3. Why if they do?
4. Do the same conditions exist today as in Mohamets time?
5. Why still today are Muslim converts to other faiths murdered or subjigated to torture?
6. Are all people considered equal without religious bias or favour under Muslim laws?

In my workplace I contact Muslim builders and find their behavior and attitudes as thuggish in the extreme.

Philo, you forgot to ask "when did you stop beating your wife?"

Similarly phrased questions, it must be noted, can be constructed for a range of other organizations and situations.

1. Can I ask why the Hutus were defending themselves, and against whom? Was it because they posed a perceived genocidal threat to the society in which they lived?

Every community should be allowed to defend itself against perceived threats without asking permission.

2. Does Australia today still impose unequal taxes on religious adherents and atheists?

Taxes are never going to be "equal". In Australia, churches get tax breaks that are not available to secular establishments. How is this "fair"

3. Why if they do?

4. Do the same conditions exist here today as they did before 1788?

Over any period of history, circumstances change. In Australia, there was not a single church anywhere to be found before 1788. Some would say the change has not been an improvement, given the arrogance of the "stolen children" episodes.

5. Why still today are Muslim non-combatants incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay for years and subjected to torture?

Take a look at some of the statistics.

"39% of Marines and 36% of soldiers believed 'Torture should be allowed in order to gather important information about insurgents'
17% of soldiers/Marines believed 'All non-combatants should be treated as insurgents'"

Source: Mental Health Survey of US soldiers & Marines serving in Iraq (05 May 2007)

6. Are all people considered equal without religious bias or favour under Australian laws?

Abortion? Stem cell research?

FH... typo-yes..I intended it as you wrote.

PERICLES.... a couple of points.

1/ 2000 yr old documents do indeed effect our thinking today, 'me' being a prime example.

Rather than post part 2 now, I offer 2 pieces of information for both you and FH to consider, reflect on and react to. Its better that way, so that there is no 'BOAZ' to 'beat'.

You can draw your own conclusions, and I'd be interested if they align with my own, and if not, why. For this, you do need to temporarily at least put aside your '2000 yr old documents' approach, because the information relates to those who are in fact effected by them.

1/ Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/053.sbt.html

From this, please
-offer a view of 'how did the early Muslims understand Surah 9:30'?
-Was Umar in 'Offensive' mode or 'defensive'.. did he plan to 'defend' or invade ?
-What was the justification for the posture he adopted ? (look at the words of Al Mughira (who became governor of Basra later) to find this)
-Does the understanding of Al Mughira differ from that of FH who waxed eloquent above about "limits"?

Now.. the 2nd thing. FH... you should also listen to this.

http://muslimhope.com/Debates.htm

click on "Jay Smith vs Shabir Aly Birmingham 1998" Pericles will find in that, some very good info about 'historical evidence' for both the existense of Jesus, and the reliability of the Scriptures.
Note especially what Jay says about the Nuzi tablets, place names.. etc.
His knowledge of early Islam relative to archeology is quite devastating at first hearing.. FH.. you better prepare urself for some shocks there mate. You will have to conclude:
1/ Jay is a liar
2/ Jay has wrong information
I don't feel he is a liar, - he gives sources and references, and you might like to look further into some of his claims about the textual integrity (lack thereof) of the Quran. If you disagree, list the point, and give a reason and a source which counters it.
blessings all.

Boazy,

I don’t believe Jay Smith is a liar just the approach of an 'excavation egineering' is flawed. The first question re scripture is its consistency with the natural laws of scripture: messenger selection and dictation. Throughout history and for unknown reasons to us God chose his prophets and dictated his scripture. Abraham, Moses, David, Mohammed. Similar to the Torah, The Quran was ‘forced’ or dictated to the prophet ( I won’t dwell on that since you studied the prophet’s biography, how can you explain Surah 80 “He frowned”?)

Anyway, if you insist on comparison, the following should be the philosophical fundamentals of comparison:

- The concept of God: who and what is God? a spirit, an energy, a cat, a man, etc..

- Teachings compatibility to timeless reasoning: Time change and teachings have to be reasonable and meets the average common sense throughout time. So matters like oneness of God vs Trinity, Original sin vs everyone is born innocent, the Messiah concept of salvation vs personal accountability, etc..

- Purpose of life: the Quran teaches the purpose of life is letarafu 49:13 “Oh humanity, we created you from a single pair, male and female, and fashioned you into tribes and nations, so that you would know each other and get to know each other and not hate and despise each other. Surely the most honored among you is the one who is most righteous and just”. As far as I know of the Bible the purpose of life is Armageddon.

- The Comprehension of the framework: regulations or governance framework to inter human relations, marriage, environment, animals, etc..

Just to clarify I am not criticising your faith, I am simply answering your direct question to me. Apologies if any comment above offended you or any follower of your faith.

Peace as always,

Pericles,
I take it you agree with the Qur'an then since you post current attitudes supporting a defence of it. The Qur'an is a religious text that defines how Muslims should live. Their devoted do live by its edicts.

Unfortunately many who call themselves Christian are not devoted to the Teachings of Christ or follow his example. To be a true devotee to each Teacher means diametrically opposite attitudes of behaviour in their devotees. The questions I ask still remain legitimate in the light of each sacred texts.

Sometimes this place gets surreal. But perhaps I am not expressing myself sufficiently clearly.

>>PERICLES.... a couple of points. 1/ 2000 yr old documents do indeed effect our thinking today, 'me' being a prime example<<

Boaz, the fact that you are affected by a 2000 year-old document is patently obvious.

But what I said was "I have never accepted that many-centuries-old documents are valid when assessing twentyfirst century behaviours"

The key word here is "valid".

I didn't say they don't affect people's thinking, Boaz, just that in my view, they should not be allowed to be used as the final judgement on any matter in the twentyfirst century. I was referring, of course, to your constant references to the Bible to justify your own position, and your constant references to the Qur'an to justify your belief that all Muslims are out to get you.

>>Pericles, I take it you agree with the Qur'an then since you post current attitudes supporting a defence of it"

<sigh> No, Philo, I am as ignorant of the contents of the Qur'an as I am of the contents of the Bible, and I hold them in identical esteem. They are the texts that different religious factions believe should help them through their confusion about life, and how it should be lived. That's utterly fine by me, I have absolutely no problem with it.

What does annoy me is when people misuse these ancient texts, recruiting them as weapons with which to beat up on others. That does not imply any "agreement", or even "disagreement", with the texts themselves.

>>The Qur'an is a religious text that defines how Muslims should live. Their devoted do live by its edicts. Unfortunately many who call themselves Christian are not devoted to the Teachings of Christ or follow his example.<<

I'd be interested to have a clearer explanation of this, I think it might be a key point.

And I'm sorry, Boaz, I'm not going to download 30MB of audio material, I simply don't have the time to sit and listen. Is it documented somewhere?

Hi Pericles.. yes I sympathize with the 'download' thing.. but I assure you, its a 'once only' thing.. I am not aware of it being documented, but in truth, much of what Jay says is documented in FF BRUCE material on the text of the new testament. It would take quite a bit of digging to bring it all together as well as Jay has.

I only recommend that audio because it is 'outstanding' in the material it presents, and contains some challenging bits which merit further exploration.

It might be possible to download it to a file and then to your memory stick as mp3 and just listen in bits and pieces during travel time in the car (which presumably is fitted with an mp3 input..unlike my own dinasaur)

I encourage you on this mainly because you have been very adamant in the past about 'evidence for' Jesus. Well this might be helpful.
If you want to send me 'Mosely' I'll happily read it, but probably not so much until Christmas which is when I tend to do most that kind of reading. I'll give you a PO box if you drop a line to newlifeinhim777@yahoo.com.au

FH.. hey.. don't forget our meeting :) but no mobile phone camera action k....

You have launched out into the philosophical netherworld there.. My starting point is
-Foundation Documents.
-Their validity.

If we go outside that, we can come up with umpteen zillion versions of "truth".... So.. I cannot address many of ur points in that last post. To me.. speculating outside the foundation doco's is futile.

Offend ? :) as our Lord said "Have I been with you this long, and yet you do not know me" ?

When have I EVER said a harsh word to 'you'?..

Boaz,

I sent you an email.
"mobile camera?" Please! Your ego is getting bigger by the second.

"You have launched out into the philosophical netherworld there.. My starting point is: -Foundation Documents. -Their validity"

Foundtion documents in your case was developed centuries after the event and are of philosophical nature around what happened to Jesus and what could be the wisdom and philophy behind his disappearance.

Your key challenge is that the core belief, the Trinity, is not in the Bible. The church ignored a number of other of opposing theories such as the famous banned GOB (Barnabos Gospel) which Muslims believe in, even though Barnabos is the only Author to have lived during and was a close companion to Jesus (pbuh).

Watch Deedat interview with Tracy Grimshaw on channel 9 and the following videos re Easter from a Muslim point of view:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKqwlSzkEt8

Peace,

You are joking, of course.

>>It might be possible to download it to a file and then to your memory stick as mp3 and just listen in bits and pieces during travel time in the car (which presumably is fitted with an mp3 input..unlike my own dinasaur)<<

We are a one-car family, and that one will be twenty years old next July. Because my wife uses it to get to work, I rarely see it. It has a primitive single-play CD player.

Apart from that, a great suggestion.

Are you sure there aren't transcripts? What makes it so special anyway?

FH... not ego mate.. but important security measure, given that I've received certain suggestive communications of a 'worrisome' nature in the past. You said 'as long as I'm not armed'.. and that was your (probably teasing) grabber..well.. the phone camera bit was mine :)

I can see you are squirming there a bit, either you listened and found it threatening, and decided to try for new debating territory now, or you didn't listen and are simply trying to focus on what you believe are your strengths. But if you HAD listened, you would not have taken that approach so please listen first.

PERICLES.
You could also download this file into a memory stick which could be played in an ipod I'm fairly sure, (not 100%)

Now.. I just this moment (11:30am) found some highly relevant information about 'why' it is so important.
Jay Smith is a debater of very adventurous proportions. He produces both warmth and hatred from the Muslim community, he debates at Universities, and at 'Speakers Corner' in London. He also befriended a Muslim through these debates and then saw his picture later as a suicide bomber !... Check out this link and read the full story (not long)
http://a4theroad.blogspot.com/2005/09/jay-smith-islam-and-christianity-clash.html

The observations he made of those giving a hand up for willingness to do the same thing, (prior to London bombings) are very telling considering what actually happened..
Have a nice day/blessings.

Pericles (and FH)

I found a transcript.. documentation of the major points Jay Smith makes here:

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/debate/debate.htm

Of particular interest is the occurrence of 'Rabinnical' additions to Biblical stories, in the Quran. ie. Mohammad acquired these stories from Rabinical sources not revelation. The fact that he has included the stories as he did, and the existence of verifiable sources showing the 'real' story (biblical) (all prior to Islam by the way) show a lot about the supposed 'revelations' of the Quran.

Goto the link 'Talmudic sources in the Quran'
http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/debate/part2.htm#C2

Finally... Truth, and the work of the Holy Spirit are as real today as in Pauls. Jay shares about a young Muslim man as follows:

Smith briefly shared that he has met two young men who were very strong Muslims of good reputation who recently became Christians who might be Paul's who can reach the Muslims.

One of them had read an article by Smith and received the Gospel of John to read. He read how Jesus responded on the Cross. He thought about how Muhammad lead military campaigns. Because of this tension, he became a Christian.

(Comment: and this is exactly why I point out such things here, not out of hate for Muslims, but out of pastoral concern for their eternal destiny)

The other man Smith met used to watch videos of Smith and then teach Islamic youths that Smith was wrong. He was working in a Mosque when he heard a voice saying, "This is Jesus, follow me." He eventually became a Christian.

Boazy,

You are either getting desperate or just tired:-)

I can't believe you resorted to that old mythology "Quran copied from the Bible" that missionaries invented to mislead the faithful.

A Muslim scholar went through the old scripture in detail and came up with 116 (1-1-6) arguments on how the above is a total fabrication:
Start my friend:
http://www.islamicinvitationcentre.com/articles/Introduction/Quran/Proofs_Quran.html

Can't we just be different Boazy? I mean why do we have to be 'wrong' so you can be right?

Peace as always,

Part 1

Sorry for not responding sooner, Pericles, but I’ve not been on-line for a few days. At the great risk of insulting you (as you seem to be so thin-skinned and take any criticism as an insult – just like your muslim friends), I will ignore your latest outburst of “pants on fire” as a sign of immaturity. As you would write, “you can do better than that” and hold a “civilised discussion”.

All I pointed out was that when you wrote that you were “there, actually there”, this inferred that you were more than just in the same country. I, and I’m sure others, read that as you were in London at the time.

Anyway, you since stated that, in the matter of noisy imams, most English people ignore them. This is part of the disease. It’s not a case of ignore them and they’ll go away. Ignore them at your peril as they will take that as a sign that they’re getting away with their outburst and rack it up a notch. Over the past few years, the Brits have been conditioned, by the PC Labour party, to accept imams making murderous accusations against the West (where they have asylum) while viewing any criticism against them as “islamophobic”. That term is actually in use over there.

Also, the British culture is under attack from the muslims, as anything deemed offensive to them is removed even if it’s a part of the majority culture. Christmas decorations are curtailed. Even high street banks have been told not to display “piggy” banks in their windows for fear of offending a passing muslim. Police conducting house searches are instructed to remove their shoes before entering muslim houses and not to arrive at prayer times. There are many, many more examples of this sort of censorship of the native British culture

Part 2

Already, this is beginning to happen here, with day care centres not being allowed to celebrate Christian festivals for fear of offending the children of immigrants. At the same time, we have multicultural messages shoved down our throats. Look at the Cronulla riots where top cops tried to tell us that the blame lay with “racist” Australians who dared to display our own flag. If a Palestinian flag was flown, the multi-culti advocates would be telling us to celebrate diversity. You surely can’t think that that is nothing to worry about. Unless you are, yourself, a muslim or a raging loony leftist.

I don’t have “an utterly irrational fear of Muslims”. I practise martial arts with one and there are a couple of muslims at my local shooting club. As far as I can tell, these people are not fundamentalists. Fundamentalists worry me, not the secular minority. BTW, the daleks never scared me…it was the cybermen.

JSP1488,

“anything deemed offensive to them is removed even if it’s a part of the majority culture. Christmas decorations are curtailed. Even high street banks have been told not to display “piggy” banks in their windows for fear of offending a passing muslim”

Let me stop you there for a second: I am a Muslim, my daughters have ‘piggy banks’ and they have “Babe” on DVD. We just don’t eat pig meat just like the Jewish people. If someone else is creating needless sensitivity why is it Muslims problem? Just like the Christmas: for followers of Christianity to celebrate Christmas or Easter carries no meaning to us. We just don’t celebrate them.

Same as with flags, we are all Australians regardless of background and the flag belongs to everyone.

Peace,

Fellow_Human,

I too would be uncomfortable with the idea of "foundation documents" written generations after Jesus' mission and separated by location too. Creed was written hundreds of years later.

BOAZ,

We have covered some these matters in your other thread, wherein seemingly Jesus' oral teachings about the Kingom of God/Heaven based on freedom and the obsolescence of the Jewish Law, were transmuted and Hellenised by Paul and became the creed and doctrine of an institutionalised church. We have (a) the original teachings, (b) an oral tradition period with regionalised versions, (c) Paul deifying Jesus under Greek influence, (d) the writings of many local gospels [too smaller or greater extent influenced by the pagan religions], (e) the Nicaean Council reaching back in their history and selecting and standardising threads and chosing the gospels [keeping some eliminating others]and creating a godhead [perhaps influenced by the Egyptian Serapis model, Jesus is Horus].

Jesus wanted to change the Jewish prevailing system demoting the family and the Law/Rites. Mohammed wished to instil an identity to unify the Arabs and protect his people from foreign encouchments. Jesus used centrifugal forces, whereas Mohammed used centripedal forces

OK, try this for civilized discussion JSP.

>>Even high street banks have been told not to display “piggy” banks in their windows for fear of offending a passing muslim.<<

The piggy bank story was debunked ages ago.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1494636.htm

>>the British culture is under attack from the muslims, as anything deemed offensive to them is removed even if it’s a part of the majority culture<<

This is nonsense. In fact, it is a source of great amusement to the locals that we seem to lap up all these sensationalist stories as if they were true.

>>Police conducting house searches are instructed to remove their shoes before entering muslim houses<<

No, they are advised - not instructed - to do so, to avoid giving offence. This is not just a Muslim thing - other religions have similar domestic customs which the police, as part of the community, try to observe wherever possible.

>>There are many, many more examples of this sort of censorship of the native British culture<<

None that bears scrutiny as being a form of censorship.

>>Look at the Cronulla riots where top cops tried to tell us that the blame lay with “racist” Australians who dared to display our own flag<<

The Cronulla "riots" were nothing more than a re-run of the mods-and-rockers style gang punch-ups that Britain experienced in the sixties. A few hot-heads, a few interracial insults and away you go.

Anyway, do you really think that was riot? How many people were actually hurt, for goodness sake? Los Angeles 1992, now that was a riot.

What you appear to misunderstand is that Britain has for many years been a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country. It hasn't happened overnight, and it hasn't happened without some give-and-take. But unless you are one of those people who believe that all immigration is abhorrent (usually called "little englanders" over there), the attitude is predominantly one of acceptance.

I happen to agree that the occasional example of self-styled do-gooders to overcompensate and make unrealistic compromises is to be condemned. But a genuine attempt to live together need not sink to this level.

I will have to second Pericles re the Cronulla riots.

Australia was unfarely portrayed in international media.
All what happened was protest that got hijacked by few empty headed under the influence of alcohol, sun and an overdose of Allan Jones.

Thats not Australia or Australians.

Peace,

Part 1

Fellow Human, I accept that you are not offended by “piggy banks” etc. That only reveals that you are a liberal or secular muslim and not a fundamentalist. Incidentally, most of what is deemed offensive is decided by and acted on by town and city councils, not actual muslims. It is also reassuring that you accept the Australian flag as your own.

Pericles, “The piggy bank story was debunked ages ago” may or may not be true. Having been mostly in Australia since the 90’s, I have had to rely on reports from the media and friends abroad to keep me updated on any developments.

I checked out the ABC link and see that the media support the “piggy bank” theory while the banks oppose it. ABC being the media itself, who should we believe?

Whether police are advised or instructed to remove shoes before entering a house for search purposes, this would interfere with the integrity of the search, giving the occupants time to dispose of anything illegal if that was the case.

I can’t see how the “Cronulla riots" were nothing more than a re-run of the mods-and-rockers style gang punch-ups. Mods and rocker were of the same race and religion, whereas in Cronulla, there were definitely racial/religious undertones. If it wasn’t a riot it was still a breakdown of public order

Part 2

On the subject of “acceptance”, on my many visits to Butterworth (Penang), I was made aware of certain dress codes such as not wearing singlets in public as that may cause offence to the locals. . Why couldn’t they accept my lifestyle?

I understand, only too well, Britain’s multi-ethnic make-up. I lived there until 1990. When I was a kid, I saw the first Pakistanis arrive and take jobs on the buses. I heard Enoch Powell warn of troubles if immigration was not netter managed. I saw Chinese Triads move into Glasgow and the Pakistani/Indian immigrants bring in their extended families (something I couldn’t do here). A few times I visited London and was amazed at the amount of different races there. One memory is of being on the Tube and being the only white passenger in the carriage. So it’s one thing advocating a bit of give and take, but another to bring minorities onto equal footing. I’ve adopted Australian culture as my own and don’t expect any special treatment.

I suppose that I’m a “little Australianer”.

Branding and related issues with product management are common. The Bank of New South Wales' Donald Duck money caused some controversy when tellers cut Donald's kneck and the kids freaked. The Subaru Legend was to be called the Legacy but in Australia the name was dropped because of associations with a charity. Club dark chocolate has replaced the pipe from next to the arm chair. On the other hand, chocolate with milk from contented cows seems okay for Indians. Choo-Choo Bars as recently as 15 tears ago had a gooliwog on the wrapping.

JSP... would you mind contacting me at newlifeinhim777@yahoo.com.au
I'm interested in something you said. Thanx

FH.. I checked out the 'mythbuster' link you gave.. *sigh* :) no mate its not me who is 'tired or desperate'..but that link was quite weak. It was not 101 'arguments' ..it was 'questions' with no answers provided, nor references to any sources.

When I gave you the link to Jay Smith, he does
a)Make a statement
b)Provide a source.

You are welcome to scrutinize his sources, and offer an opinion as to their veracity, but that 'reasons' demythologizing link was not worth its place in cyberspace mate.

Smith is a doctoral candidate in Islamic studies, and has a masters in it, so he has done some original research.

Speaking of desperation.. when arranging a debate in the UK the Muslim side called in Shabir Ally, flew him in..under an ASSUMED NAME to give the impression he was not the 'highly qualified debater who knows Jay Smiths material very well' even so, when I heard what he had to say, I was unimpressed.

FINALLY.. Our discussions have nothing to do with 'me' being 'right' and you being wrong. They have to do with grappling with Islam and Christianity, and the truth or falsehood of them. That is much bigger than me or you.
I'm just a small bit player, but I play to my best, and still seek truth. Truth is able to be determined based on facts. If facts point 'away' from a certain path, we would be wise to consider them.

OLIVER special for you :)

Something Jay Smith said struck my attention, I recommend you google him in 'Muslim Christian debates' and listen to what he has to say.

He said "Except for 7 verses, the WHOLE New Testament can be reconstructed from quotations in the writings in the early church fathers"
I found this claim rather striking, and have not tried yet to independantly verify it, but if true, it is most impressive regarding the documentary foundation we have in our Scriptures.

I won't re-hash all the stuff we already covered in other places, but, IF... the Gospels were written AFTER Paul, one would expect 'Pauline Theology' to be widely reflected in them... but it isn't. So it suggests the Gospels were well preserved in their original form.

cheers.

Not quite sure about the definition of "true" that you are employing here JSP.

>>Pericles, “The piggy bank story was debunked ages ago” may or may not be true.<<

It is certainly true that the story was published in the Daily Express, under the front-page headline "Hogwash: Now the PC brigade bans piggy banks in case they upset Muslims"

Two Banks were named. They both denied the accusations.

[Halifax] "Halifax has not withdrawn any piggy banks from branches. As a matter of fact we have not used piggy banks in our branches for a number of years."

[Natwest] "Piggy banks have been and will continue to be used as a promotional item by NatWest"

That makes it well and truly debunked, doesn't it?

>>Whether police are advised or instructed to remove shoes before entering a house for search purposes, this would interfere with the integrity of the search, giving the occupants time to dispose of anything illegal if that was the case.<<

The advice was not designed to cover searches, which continue along their normal path.

http://sportscalendar.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1378529.ece

"Fifteen officers, armed with machine guns and pistols and dressed in three layers of protective clothing, burst into 46 and 48 Lansdowne Road at around 4 o'clock in the morning on June 2 last year, believing that explosives mixed with hazardous materials -- a "dirty bomb" -- might be on the premises."

I doubt if they stopped to take off their shoes.

But had they been calling to say "I'm afraid your son has been in an accident", they would have removed them, I'm sure.

>>I was made aware of certain dress codes such as not wearing singlets in public as that may cause offence to the locals. . Why couldn’t they accept my lifestyle?<<

If you had been visiting a tribe who traditionally did not wear clothes, I doubt they would insist that you strip, respecting that you would be uncomfortable. However, if they visited you in Australia, you would probably prefer them to be clothed.

That's what "not causing offence" is all about.

BOAZ,

" 'Except for 7 verses, the WHOLE New Testament can be reconstructed from quotations in the writings in the early church fathers ' " [Smith in BOAZ]

- Does the author refer to Quelle? Q1 is reconstructed to Galalee c.50 CE, Q2 to Northern Palestine c. 65 CE and Mark drawing directly from Q3 c. 80 CE. However, the miracle and pronouncement stories forming Mark come from Palistinean oral tradition between 50 CE and 70 CE.

The Q1, Q2 line goes to Thomas, more closely reflecting Q1 [Galilee 50 CE]. Mark has more religious stories than does Thomas, and was developed twenty years after Jesus died.

" 'Pauline Theology' to be widely reflected in them... but it isn't. So it suggests the Gospels were well preserved in their original form."

Paul doesn't link to/from the Gospels in time or by location, but Paul and Mark, both might have Kerygma as a common root. Paul [Letters] should seen more context with Colosians and Ephesians.

Regards.

Oly....sounds like you are a passionate subscriber to the 'Documentary Hypothesis' :) - I'm not.

Presumably when you mention 'Q' you are referring to the supposed document on which Mark relied ? (the document supposed to be behind some of the material found in Matth, Luke and John which is not found in Mark.

Your statements about connecting various portions of the Gospels to various traditions and areas is overflowing with unwarranted confidence. Its pure speculation mate. One of the problems with some of these more exotic 'theories' is that when you apply the rules they used to other portions, you find that content which is known and verifiably NOT of such origins suddenly becomes 'from Thomas' or something like that. Hence, such theories are weak, and I often think they are more about some German scholar getting a 'name' for himself in academia than about seeking truth.

Not exactly on topic mate :) come back to the fold and discuss "Muslim Christian relations here" and have a look at whether the early Muslims actually DID use deception toward King Negus of Ethiopia.
cheers.

Pericles, I used “true” to be the same as the true definition of the word in the dictionary. As I wrote previously, I checked the link to the ABC that you supplied and noted that there were statements for and against the “piggy bank” theory. I have just checked again and see that all the newspapers quoted affirmed my claims while the Halifax and NatWest denied them. I don’t see how that debunks anything. To be selective with the evidence does not prove a point. All evidence has to be weighed up before coming to any conclusions. Also, I have friends still in the UK who describe what is happening there. Why would they lie to me?

Your link to the “Fifteen officers, armed with machine guns” etc also has the statement from the IPPC that “the Metropolitan Police should make a ‘high-profile public apology’ to the families involved and should have altered their ‘very aggressive’ behaviour as soon as they had taken control of the two houses on Lansdowne Road”. Do you think that this would have happened on a raid on bikies’ premises? “Sorry for that Mr Hell’s Angels president, we will be nice to you in future”.

If I visited a tribe that sat around naked, depending on how fit the females were, I might well join in. I don’t think that they would respect that I would be uncomfortable naked, as that was their normal way of life. As for me prefering them to be clothed if they visited Australia, do you mean Western style dress or burkas, hijabs etc as is expected to be accepted here now?

My Dear BOAZ,

Above, I was asking, on what basis the author you cited could support his claim... Q? The history and the nature of the Dispora of the Jesus groups and Jewish communities are known and some [differing]gospel fragments do exist [physical evidence].

Relatedly, I don't see it spectulative that first century peoples separated in time [decades] and distance would develop their own Jesus accounts. The contradictions are not always evident from Christian sources, because, as a result of Nicaea, "Correctors" were employed to harmonise the gospels and other scriptures. Some early materials have only become available in last sixty years, escaping the post-Nicean Christian fires. Moreover, one can rightfully draw comparisons between fourth century Christianity and today's Taliban, down the destruction of an ancient statue.

Back to the Muslims: It is certain that the history of Mohammed is better known than the life of Jesus:

When Islam found it hard to gain acceptance, as a parallel [prophetic] religion to Christianity and Judaism, it seems these guys, the Muslims i.e, leaped-from backwards to Abraham, wherein, all are loved by God, not just denominational enclaves.

In some ways, early Islam encountered the same problem with Jewish scholars, as did Jesus with the Pharisees, i.e., a conflict between prophetic teaching [Jesus & Mohammed] and a religion-based penchant towards observance of the pedantic. Conflicts "within" Islam came about because of political conflicts over succession from the Prophet.

Islam is more cross-cultrally tolerant than Christianity or Judaism, accepting, as the prophets, the prophets or god, of the older religions. Herein, Islam is more universal in its approach: It maintains a belief in a god whom dialogues with the faithful of many societies, not, exclusively.



- What do you understand by, "The People of the Book"?

[p.s.The Jesus thread you started still has loose ends]

Regards.

Boaz,

"Our discussions have nothing to do with 'me' being 'right' and you being wrong. They have to do with Islam and Christianity, and the truth or falsehood of them"

Thanks for admitting the first part : -) The second part is interesting. Why not just accept there are 2 views on Jesus (pbuh). I mean, you reached that with the Jewish faith and now you pride yourself on Judeo-Christianity thing, right?

Islam and Christianity are the largest 2 religions today and people with wisdom and knowledge should focus on how can we bridge the two for a better future and harmonise their resources to fight poverty and diseases. Sounds you are still stuck in the Crusades age and 'us or them' mentality.

Peace,

The Qur'an is influenced by much of Catholic theology in 600 AD and reflects many of the common denials made by Judaism in its era of Christ. It is limited in its context and culture to the period of its writing. As was Catholicism it was more interested in Nationalism and political control than in understanding God and living in the character of God.

Jesus was never party to subduing nations by the sword, which seemed the primary mission of Catholiciam and Mohamet in the 7th century. To subdue nations meaning the will of the people must be changed or removed by threat of death or terror. Muslims will not accept democracy as from Allah, as we witness in Afganistan and Iraq. Anyone who promotes personal freedoms they believe opposes Allah. Islam's primary tenet is submission to Allah, even if it has to be enforced by law with the penalty of death.

Christ taught the freedom of every man of his conscience and will; for unless these function in individual choice then the heart is bound by another. It is under these principles that Christianity differs.

Hello Philo,

Agree with most of your post. Islam was constructed to unify the Arabs, first priority. Jesus seems to have taught about the Kingdom of Heaven and saw his life and death as substitution of the Jewish Law/Rites. Christianity is in a third corner, political and utilising Jesus, but adopting centuries of Chinese whispers and accreditions.

The pre-Moses Hebrews were henothesists emphasising a tribal god [YHWH]over other gods whom nonetheless existed. [Albeit YHWH was a subordinate god in the El godhead]. Moses promoted that tribal god. The Arabs were a little different. They had tribal gods: al-Lah was instilled in lieu of the earlier gods.

Unlike the Catholic Christianity, Islam stresses the importance of "reason" and "curiosity" [Armstrong], and the development of the intellect; herein, ayat [messages] can be better understood.

YHWH of the OT, may have more common with Allah than Jesus, the former, especially YHWH, are warlike; whereas, as you say, Jesus was not. YHWH was culturally centric [unlike Jesus or Abraham (?)], Alah was universalist and focused on building a just society and opposed injustice. In its earlier days, Islam recognised The People of the Book as having their on prophetic [Jesus as a prophet] relevation and there was no pressure in Islam to convert Christians or Jews to Islam.

Jihad is a struggle against injustice. Politicised this meant rading Jewish landholders and sharing the booty with Arab communities: A barstardision of taking from the rich to give to the poor. There were campaigns into Northern Africa too.

Regards.

BOAZ,

- What do you understand by The People of The Book?

KR, O.