Misguided attempts at tolerance and political correctness do not overly impress me FD and Helian.
If you are saying we should try and respect individuals, and their beliefs, I would agree, up to the point where their desired freedoms encroach on mine.
I have never disguised my disgust and revulsion for all religious belief systems. I do not like them, simple.
I do not care if others like them, except where that impinges on my rights.
Like teaching Religion in state schools, that sucks, as the kids of atheists like myself, who would never allow their kids to be exposed to the propaganda of christian absurdity from the age of 4 years old.

The result, the kids who do not go to religious classes are made to feel ostracised,  with talk of going to hell, etc.
So many who are agnostic, or ambivalent are happier to just go with the flow, and let their kids be taught this rubbish.

Now to your silly, and erroneous point that christianity does not have a strict hierarchy.
Catholicism, the biggest and oldest? I don't need to expand, you know, but in your pathetic attempt to appear even handed you choose to ignore it.
C of E? Similiar hierarchy to the catholics, but with the Archbishop of Canterbury as the big poobah.

Now your wacky evangelical lot, well personally I rate them as loony as the muslims, except their aim is to strip the money from the pockets of their deluded followers.
So, mainstream christianity has a strong and visible hierarchy, what equivalent to that is their in Islam?
None,so quit you bulltish, I am not attacking muslims, but I will not be coerced into pretending Islam is anything but an outdated medieval system of control, which is creating huge negative impact in our modern world.
They need an upgrade.
You remember the Vatican councils? They dragged the church kicking and screaming into a semblance of modernity, who is going to do that for Islam?

mozzaok wrote on Jun 1^st, 2008 at 7:58pm:

Mozzaok,

Thank you for your reply. I understand that you may not have seen these before. But as mentioned, the law applies equally to both men and women.

The death penalty applied to adultery is NOT for two people falling in love as you say and it really is quite ignorant to portray it like that. It is for not only breaking the sanctity of marriage of which there could be no worse crime, but also for having the audacity of outwardly doing it in public where at least four witnesses could witness it. It is for arrogantly spreading fitnah (tribulation) to the extent of selfishly imposing their perversion onto society instead of keeping their sins to themselves.

I must stress here that in Islam it is not forbidden to get a divorce if you are not happy in your marriage at all, but such a huge betrayal like cheating on the person you are married to is perhaps the worst crime one can commit, breaking a person's heart like that and destroying ones family is considered so serious that not only does it carry the death penalty if proven with the testimony of 4 witnesses, but it carries a punishment of death by stoning because of the harm it does to their spouse, family and society in general. In Islam we consider the family unit as perhaps the most important thing worth protecting and hold family values as incredibly important.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 1^st, 2008 at 7:58pm:


You see that is the problem, you actually fail to understand the intention and context behind such a 'beating' and instead look to the examples that you see from your experiences. Although it is hard to blame you for that I must stress that in Islam it is certainly forbidden to beat women in a way that you are trying to portray.

In Islam, we believe that one should not act on emotion and when they are enraged as you have mentioned, in fact the prophet Muhammad pbuh said that if you are angry and standing, sit down and contemplate, if you are sitting and still angry, lie down and sleep so you can clear your mind. This is profoundly important in Islam as we are taught that to act on our emotions is a sign of weakness and that patience and clear thinking is the key to success in this life and the next.

I must also remind you that in Islam we do not hold women as inferior to men, in fact many examples can be seen where we hold women to be far more important to men. One such example can be seen when a man approached the prophet Muhammad pbuh and asked the prophet who, after God and His messenger, who he should listen to and obey the most and the prophet pbuh replied "Your mother" then man then asked again, who after his mother and the prophet pbuh replied "Your mother again" and the man asked a third time, who should he then listen to and the prophet again replied "Your mother again". The man then asked, after that who he should listen to and obey and the prophet pbuh then replied, "after that then you can listen to and obey your father".

In addition to that the prophet Muhammad pbuh is also known to have said "Paradise lies at the foot of one's mother" and to bring the point home to you further he also stated that the best of men is those who are the best to their wives and treat them with love and kindness and he exclaimed that your spouse is the second half of your faith in God.

I am not apologizing for or watering down my religion to make it seem more acceptable to you, I have the utmost faith in Islam and chose it willingly at an age where I could reason. I do not fear being completely honest and believe that I have indeed been honest to you and have not provided you with any inaccurate pieces of information.

In addition to that I must also stress that out of all of who convert to Islam in the USA every year, about 80% of those are women. They are not forced to convert and do so out of their own free will, if Islam was as bad as you portray, women would be below 50% of the converts, not at 80%.

I must also remind you that statistically one out of every 5 women in Australia suffers domestic violence, so perhaps people in glass houses should not throw stones?

mozzaok wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2008 at 1:02am:


As far as you know? Obviously you don't know anything really then don't you mate?

As I have already mentioned, Islam was a movement which brought rights to women who had a status of basically being objects and slaves. Islam WAS and still is the perfect form of women's liberation.

In Pre Islamic Arabia Female infanticide was prominent and fathers would bury their daughters alive in fear that if they should grow up, they perhaps may be captured in an inter tribal war and "disgrace" the tribe.

Women could not inherit wealth, vote, divorce, choose their husbands, they had no right to education, no right to be free from molestation from men on the street, no right to have a political voice etc, to be treated like equals with dignity and respect. A dowry was paid to the brides father which in a sense was payment for the bride.

Islam changed all of that, female infanticide was forbidden, women gained the right to inherit wealth, the right to vote, to divorce, to choose their husbands, the prophet Muhammad pbuh encouraged women to be educated, even if it meant that men could not be educated as preference was given to women. Women were to be treated with dignity and respect with no molestation from men, they were given equal rights and also gained a political voice. They were granted the inalienable right to be protected, provided for and loved. The dowry was then also given to the women, and not their fathers for the women to keep as a gift, not a payment to her father.

In Islam we even go as far as to say, that even if a woman has a job which pays 10 times more than her husbands does, the husband still cannot ask for or touch her wealth but instead has to provide a living for her and sustain her and her wealth is her own and she is granted the right to spend her money as she pleases. Compare that with the Christian West where up until recently, all of a woman's wealth was transferred to her husband's ownership when they got married.

Islam was the women's rights movement to come to the Arabs and women were given rights of which some were not equalled by the Christian West until the 20th century.

Women in the Christian West did not start getting educated until the 19th century and certainly not given the preference for education like in the Muslim world even until now, now it is only an equal right to have an education. Women were not given the right to vote until the 20th century, women had to pay a dowry to their husbands. There certainly was NO law against beating one's wife in the Christian West until the 20th century either, it was not looked down upon and it was a man's own business if he severely battered his wife and not anyone else could tell him how to run his household.

Beating one's wife like that was forbidden more than 1400 years ago for Muslims yet still was not criminalized in the Christian West up until only within the last 100 years. I will also add that it still continues today with statistics in the Christian West showing that in the Christian West, an average of about 22% of women go through domestic violence.

So please don't come and tell me about the status of women in Islam as being bad when history can attest that in reality, the Christian West is the one that has been incredibly barbaric and primitive in it's reluctance to give women equal rights and treat them with fairness, dignity and respect. You have taken far longer (up to 1300 years in fact) to evolve to a level that is anywhere near your Muslim counterparts in regards to women's rights being granted.

This explains clearly why 4 out of 5 of every person who converts to Islam in the US is a woman.

The result, the kids who do not go to religious classes are made to feel ostracised,  with talk of going to hell, etc.

That does not infringe on your rights.

Now to your silly, and erroneous point that christianity does not have a strict hierarchy.

It doesn't have any heirachy at all. Just like Islam.

Catholicism, the biggest and oldest?

So what? Catholicism is not Christianity.

C of E? Similiar hierarchy to the catholics, but with the Archbishop of Canterbury as the big poobah.

Every religious group has a leader if you break it down into small enough factions. The position of pope and of Archbishop of Canterbury have no biblical mandate. People are just as free under Christianity as they are under Islam to set up their own little group and preach whatever they want. There is no rigorous method to denouce such factions, just as there aren't in Islam. The pope has been denouncing the church of england for centuries. It achieved nothing, exactly because he has no biblical mandate to support such a denouncment. People could make the exact same argument about Christianity and point to the leaders of the factions of Islam, and pretend, through ignorance that the Catholic church, COE, Russian orthodox etc do not exist. That is what you are doing to Islam.

So, mainstream christianity has a strong and visible hierarchy

No it doesn't. It has a fractured leadership, as you just pointed out. Try counting the number of Christian groups that don't belong to the Catholic church or the COE, then get back to us.

Feed my lambs, feed my sheep, feed my sheep? I don't see anything in there about the pope. I don't see anything about selecting a single person to rule the church. Maybe Peter could claim a special connection, but that's about it.

In fact, in terms of having a leader, Islam does a far better job than Christianity, in that Mohammed had a political eladership role. This is ahrdly a good thing. It is naive to expect a spiritual elader to achieve the change you want. They are just as likely to do the opposite.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2008 at 12:04pm:


You are forgetting that Peter (as Simon was renamed) is Petrus (Latin for Rock) so it is most definitely Simon (henceforth known as the Rock) to whom Jesus is referring.

In verse 19 (And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.) Jesus goes further and gives 'The Rock' power to bind and loose on earth and declares that Peter's decrees will be honoured in Heaven.

freediver wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2008 at 12:28pm:


Nothing. The Archbishop of Canterbury was once the Catholic Primate of England. His Primacy in the UK is not recognised by the Catholic Church.

Also it is not universally accepted that Peter had primacy over the other apostles. The Orthodox Churches have always disputed the claim that the bishop of Rome has a primal role, even if they accept that he was first among equals. That is one of the great disputes that prevents the Schism of Orthodoxy from Catholicism from being resolved.

Hi Helian, yes I was aware peter meant rock.

Thanks for repeating the rest of that verse, I should have included it. It is significant. very interesting.
A few verses later on he also says
"Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

hey, what has this got to do with islam ?????
Who cares.