I see your point, and no I don't. I'm just pointing out that for most non Muslim people it's quite easy to associate certain behavior by some extremists to be the acts of Muslims in general. I'm not trying to split hairs with you I'm mearly pointing out an observation, and as I pointed out previously, I have a young Muslim workmate who understands that, can see it and is embarrassed by it, He even says he he hates people who give Islam a bad name.

Of course, just like any other organisation/belief there's always someone that takes extreme views and gives it a bad name.

I really don't see why this thread is still open. Its sole purpose is to incite relgious hatred.

Afro, you're very touchy on the subject, though have little issue taking piss out of Christianity. Noone's inciting hate of any kind, just making a factual point about the fact that Islamic countries are far more intolerant of other faiths than any other, save perhaps for North Korea.

And i am not sure how defending Zim came into any of this - he may be Muslim but isn't a spokesman for Islam, he's just a guy on a forum, noone's having a go at him at all.

Dont get me wrong. I acknowledge their are extreme sects or factions who go under the banner of Islam much like any other religion. i too am extremely embarassaed by them and would rather they be done away with.

I just dont like the generalisation in his comment, as if to imply that this is a norm of muslims. To be unsociable, uncooperative and basically and a pest and menace to society.

So because the Westboro Baptist Church is not in Australia, what they are doing is fine?

You obviously have no idea what is going on in Egypt, Syria and the like. Its not christians only being attacked, but muslims too. Very large majorities of muslims. In fact its the majority muslim population under attack from their own tyrannical governments. Its not just a case of religion, its a case of tyrants wanting to stay in control and power and hence they attack and kill anyone, christians probably bear the brunt as they are of a different religion.

I criticise, rebuke, satirise and generally malign all organised religions equally. But if you're going to attack these people, at least get it right. People here are making sweeping generalisations of the religion which is just plain wrong. It's not "Muslims" it's "Muslim fundamentalists" and "muslim extremists", the difference between these people and your 'every-day' well-to-do muslim is huge.

Zim is just an example. One of many muslim forum users.

These people declaring a 'fatwa' on Christmas are no different to any other bigot out there and should be criticised and recognised as the arseholes that they are, not because of their religion but because they are arseholes.

This isn't about arseholes - these exist in every religion, every single one. But the majority of Islamic countries make it very difficult to practice another faith, prozelytising is punishable by corporal or capital punishment and renouncing Islam or converting away from it is punishable by death. That's enshrined in law, not the work of individual bigots.

This isn;t about arseholes, it's about national law and a lack of separation of "mosque and state", so to speak. I thought we were all pretty much in favour of keeping religion as far away as politics as possible? And before you argue America at me, the Christian bigots in pockets of the US are hardly in line with national and state laws.

Need I point out the crusades, the Spanish inquisitions, along with all the other Christian-based ethnic cleansing that's taken place through history?

We are talking about today's world, not things that occurred 500 years ago or more. It's interesting though you mention crusades and inquisitions (which btw were not exclusively Spanish, and I can mention lots of other violent events in the name of Christianity - St Bartholomew's Night anyone?) as, historically speaking, Islam is in the place right now that Christianity was 500-odd years ago. Just like individual Christians did not institute crusades and inquisitions but the Church did by leaning on the kings of the day, so too individual Muslims are not resposible for the oppressive and discriminatory laws in many of their countries but that does not absolve the Islamic countries of responsibility for instituting these laws as prevailed on them by religious leaders for their own political gain.

But there is definitely similarity between the way many Christians were duped by the church into believing that Christian exclusivity was worth killing and dying for (and many others tacitly approved or were powerless to prevent it/afraid to speak out for fear or repression, torture or death) and the way many Muslims are duped into believing that Islam is worth killing and dying for (and many others tacitly approve or are too afraid to speak out for fear or repression, torture or death).

The parallels are striking. As I have said numerous times, until the Islamic world goes through its own Enlightenment the way the Christian world did in the 1700s/1800s it will continue resembling the Christian world of 500 years ago. And we all know the "Arab Spring" was no Enlightenment - they've swapped corrupt, power-hungry secular dictators for intolerant religious dictatorship, which is hardly progress in anyone's language.

I'm sorry but "the tyrants that attack and kill anyone" are a product of Islam. This is the fruit that Islam produces generation after generation.

Classic rudimentary comment by a misinformed Westerner!

The crusades, inquisitions, and the genocide of south america are products of "Roman Catholicism" a cult created by the Germans running Rome after the fall of the city to the barbarians - real, unchanged, organic Christianity, as preserved in the Orthodox churches had nothing to do with these ghastly initiatives, in fact they were victims, particularly during the 4th crusade.

Well then, you better watch out, because im coming to kill you.

Pretty sure Hitler, Pol Pot, Mussolini, et al weren't Islamic.