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.