Bikerman

It isn't at all a stupid question - it is quite profound. Some suggestions are that pigeons use a combination of geo-magnetic 'sense' plus landmarks. So pigeons seem to be able to sense the lines of geomagnetism around the earth, but they don't actually follow a straight-line path which indicates that they are also using some external prompts - probably roads/railways/rivers and other features of that sort.

No. Maths is much more than simple pattern recognition and basic arithmetic. Maths has evolved. You need a coherent system of representation which is self-consistent. One dictionary definition would be Now, we need to beware such definitions as they are always reductive, but this is a reasonable starting point. Simple recognising patterns is not the same as doing mathematics - it is a start, for sure, so you could say that we seem to be born with certain abilities which are precursors for mathematics...

But Rushdie is not subject to Islamic law - he is British. We do not insist that you obey our laws so what gives you the right to insist that we obey yours? Which therefore makes Islam as dangerous as people say - it declares war on anyone who doesn't honour its rules. That is commonly known as tyranny. But YOUR laws are for you. If you want to make laws for your own country then fill your boots - help yourself. You do NOT make laws for my country or that cover the citizens of my country. Because I respect, in fact I insists on, freedom of speech then I defend your right to your opinion. Unfortunately you (Islam in general) do not respect freedom of speech so it is asymmetrical - I defend your freedom of speech and you kill people for exercising it. Jews, obviously - as was Jesus himself. No, you got a scripture which YOU BELIEVE is correct. Others disagree. The Quranic story of the arrest is not supported by any historical documents and it actually makes little sense, because such a massacre would certainly have featured in the writings of contemporary historians such as Philo. But I know the bible pretty well - I was raised catholic and taught by Jesuits and Salesian monks so I would put my knowledge of Christian theology up against anyone with confidence. I also have the Quran, but obviously less knowledge on that theology. More importantly I have also studied the works and writings of historians who were around at the time - Philo, Seneca, Josephus etc. This is what calls the whole story into question - both the Christian AND the muslim version of events are not supported by any historical evidence. That is just assertion with no evidence. You have no evidence what changes were made to the gospels - whereas I know pretty well what changes were made from having studied the subject for some while. So I know that Mark was added to and I know that many of the cannonical works are pretty much as written. If a Christian makes the same claim - that Muslims are simply following the works of a misguided person who thought he was a prophet - then muslims tend to go ape and accuse them of heresy. But you are indeed insulting Jesus, according to Christians. What if I say to you that Mohammed was NOT a prophet at all. He was just misguided and deluded - just some ordinary man? That is what you are saying - that when Jesus claimed to be the son of God, he was deluded or mistaken. But you have no evidence for that. The only support you have is the quran which is just some words written centuries after events and is, when it comes down to it, not what we call evidence, just assertion. As I said - the argument is exactly the same as used by Christians - that the Gospels cannot be wrong because they are the inspired word of God. It is simply assertion and can never be proven or even evidenced. But I reject the notion that Muslims have any right to set laws for me. In fact HOW DARE YOU assume that I, or anyone else, is subject to your laws. Do I insist that you stick to UK law? Of course not - it would be presumptuous and wrong to do so. Yet you seem to think that Islamic law applies to non-muslims all over the world. Sorry, it just doesn't. Rushdie and the Danish cartoonists are not subject to your laws. Yes, it includes a sequence (strip) consisting of 3 cartoons drawn by a member of our group. The first shows Mohammed looking approvingly at pictures of him which feature in Islamic art. The second shows him looking at a recent cartoon of him with steam coming out of his turban. The third shows the cartoonist asking 'is it the hands? I could never get the knack of hands....'. Personally I think it is pretty funny. But this, of course, means that many muslims will regard me as a bad person, and we are aware that once it goes out we may well face threats - in fact we expect it. The point is to show that we will not be intimidated by threats of violence. Either you support free speech - which means the freedom for those you disagree with, as well as those you agree with, or you don't. Muslims don't, I do.

I see quite a few people asserting that computers cannot be creative, or that AI systems are limited by original design. Not so in either case. The brain is a network of connections and junctions. There is nothing in principle which says that we cannot build an analogous system in silicon (or whatever material). Those who believe there is something 'extra' about the brain - either a 'divine spark', a 'soul' or some other intangible have not made a convincing case, since such views rely entirely on faith. Given that it is possible in principle to build a silicon brain then I see no reason why we would not, eventually, do so.For those who think AI systems are limited by design - consider a neural network of 10^40 'neurones' and (say) 6 path internconnectedness with full weighting for each in (say) 8 bit code.How many possible states can this system have? (Answer - a number so big that it is a waste of time to calculate it). Hook your neural net up to some sensors and some output devices and start teaching it. What are the limits of such a system? Theoretically we could calculate an information limit (just as we can for the brain), but it would be effectively infinite (unlike the brain which has much less capacity).Could such a system be 'creative'? The answer to that depends on whether you think the human brain can be creative. The answer is the same in both cases. You would, of course, have to supply an initial goal or aim. In humans that is what we get in the hardwiring - mainly the circuitry in the brain before birth.Now, should we be worried? I think not. Why would we build a robot of immense potential intelligence and then make it look like a human? I can see no good reasons, unless it was to mimick a human and humans are much easier to make than robots. Robots and autonoma tend to be made in a form suitable for the function performed. OK we have a few like Asimo that are designed to look human(ish) but they are mainly for show and to test ideas. I don't worry at all about this - though I will be dead before we get systems as intelligent as a human I suspect (ie it won't likely happen in the next 30 years or so).

No they don't. The UK has no death penalty in any case so that is just plain wrong in every way. The US has a Judicial process which in some states carries a death penalty. Comparing this to that is completely bogus. Rushdie wasn't given a trial - he had committed no crime. Leaders were calling for all and any Muslim to kill him - that is on a compeletely different planet to a proper trial, evidence, defence and due process. If you really can't see that then I despair. Oh how nice of them. Do you really think this helps your case? How could Christians support the killing of Christ? Clue - Christian = one who follows the life of Christ AFTER HE DIED. Jeez.. LOL and some guy several centuries later suddenly gets the right version? Not just unbelievable but patronising nonsense. We know what was in the original gospels pretty well. There have been some changes - we even know about them. The notion that the disciples would kill anyone who attacked Jesus is disproven by the fact that when he was arrested nobody died. The closest existing writings to Jesus are the epistles and letters of Paul - that is simply a fact - why would I say otherwise because I dislike ALL religions including Christianity. The notion that the Quran, written centuries later, is more accurate than the more contemporary accounts is just nonsense and wishful thinking - a matter of 'faith' not fact. What you are attempting to do is so arrogant that words almost fail me. Not only do you defend the indefensible, but you then try to say that people of other faiths don't really know their own religion and that Christians aren't really christians. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Anyone who insults your prophet is fair game to kill. But you have no problem at all insulting Christian beliefs - in fact you go further and tell them they aren't even proper Christians....astonishing. Even more astonishing that you actually seem to believe this crap, rather than just trying a wind-up. Hasrat Isa appears nowhere in the bible. In the New Testament you have Jesus and it is made perfectly clear that he is the son of God many times. The Old Testament doesn't mention him at all for the simple reason that it was written centuries before he was born. All religions HAVE NOT always taught the same lesson. There are 3 abrahamic religions and 2 of them teach something different to Islam. The Genesis account that Muslims share is a story, an allegory, not history. The only Christians who think it is history are creationists (or as I call them 'lunatics') - they believe literally in the Hebrew Bible account of creation. Most sensible christians accepted hundreds of years ago - even before Mohammad - that it is an alegory, a story to illustrate a point, not history. YOUR version of scripture was, in any case, written hundreds of years later. So where there is overlap with the Jewish/Hebrew bible then the Jewish/Hebrew bible is right. Go and find a historian. Ask him which is likely to be most accurate: book collection 1 : written about 50-110 years after the events described book 2 : written more than 6 centuries after the events. Want to guess what he will say? And don't give me your 'Mohammad was inspired by God therefore the Quran is right' nonsense. The Christians say the same about their scriptures and I believe neither, but neither is more likely than the other in any case. You don't have to - you defend those who would kill him. That makes as guilty as those who condemn him, both in my eyes and the eyes of the law. We haven't concluded anything of the sort. I conclude that killing 'insulters of the prophet' is barbaric murder, and those who support it uncivilised criminals. I certainly do not think it is 'allowed'. As for violence - even 1 less murder would be a start. PS - I'm sorry if this comes across as insulting. It is not meant to be, but this is something I feel strongly about so I must express that - it is targetted at the beliefs, not the person. PPS - I should, for honesty and fairness, also add that I am a member of a group which is dedicated to protecting freedom of speech in the UK and supporting anyone who is targetted for expressing themselves - whether targetted by the government or religious fundamentalists. We are currently compiling a newsletter which also has depictions of the prophet, and some are not flattering (though all have a point which is clearly explained - we are not into gratuitous insult). If that makes a difference then you might wish to either withdraw or indicate to me that you wish to discontinue this and I will withdraw.

Neatly done. It took me two attempts (I couldn't remember the expression for the sum of numbers < n and had to work it out from basics. I worked it out for 0<n<N OK then I stupidly forgot to subtract the 1 when doing the problem - dumbass - I only saw the error when I crunched it - still, got it right the second time ). Typical physicist - always the specific case and never the general solution. No rigour at all....bleedin atom smashers...

Murder is murder, and even if you did see it as some bizarre form of self-defence it would still be murder. If someone insults my mum do I go on TV and urge all my friends to murder that person? Only if I am a weirdo. You haven't even read the Satanic Verses and still you defend someone being murdered for writing it. That just makes it worse - sheeple not people. I have read it. It is quite hard going in places - a lot of Rushdie's books are - but it rewards the effort and I saw nothing insulting in it. It is a work of magic realism, not a documentary. As for the cartoons - have you actually seen them? They make a serious point - and the muslim reaction to them actually confirms the point being made. This notion that it is blasphemy to produce an image of Mohammed - it is INVENTED. There are thousands of images of him in muslim art. Just a few hundred are shown on these pages http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/ I'm sorry but this is indefensible. To claim as you do that Islam is a peaceful religion in one sentence, and happily condone the murder of someone in another sentence, well that is not just inconsistent, it is something known as cognitive dissonance - deeply conflicted thinking. It is also very stupid. It gives your real enemies ammunition and adds support to their views. They love to describe your religion as murderous and muslims as the enemy. Who can argue with them when otherwise reasonable people are happy to commit murder or see murder committed and applaud - over a book or a cartoon drawing. It is barbarism, uncivilsed and worthy of nothing but contempt. You should seriously think about this and thank your God that Christians don't generally behave like you do. Otherwise they would be out slaying every muslim they could find for insulting the Christian God (not just the prophet) by saying Jesus isn't God. That has to be far worse than drawing a picture of a prophet or writing an imaginary passage about him. Still - at least I can now give you a good answer to the original posting about violence. 1 really quick and guaranteed method to cut violence - stop condoning it.

Exactly my point. I'm not trying to score cheap debating points - this stuff is important because unless people can see and admit that these people exist then there is little chance of things changing.... I have no interest in calling people names, but there is a difference between responding in a civilised manner to an insult and calling for the person to be murdered and I am surprised you do not see that. Nobody has a right to murder is what you keep telling me, yet if anyone dares to insult Mohammed then they are fair game. You see no contradiction in that? Oh yes, it is certainly true. I worked in network/systems management for a while with a Pakistani - Aftab ****, good bloke. He helped put in some of the routing used by the Pakistani government to implement their censoring systems.. PS - I have edited my last paragraph and changed Aftab's name - giving his real name might have been silly of me in the circumstances - it could cause him problems and I have no wish to do that.

That could be a solution, but it is a bit trivial :-) There is another less trivial one

Very good. I've just added a few things for completion. You have it sussed, nice one.

You keep shifting the goalposts. First you say that you doubt any aamin or mufti would condone killing an innocent person.I give you evidence that this is wrong, so you shift it to say - ahh, but the majority disagree...That is not how I do debate and not how it should be done. You make and defend a point and concede it where refuted.You also completely ignored the other examples - Rushdie and the Danish Cartoonists - in both cases a huge number of Muslims, including their leaders, called for the murder of all of them. That is insupportable and it is, incidentally, when I stopped being outspoken in defence of Muslims. In my youth I often used to jump in and say how wrong people were about Muslims being murderous evangelicals, determined to convert or kill.After 1990 I was not so sure of that any more. I still believe that most muslims are reasonable people just like anyone else, but there is a very nasty side to Islam (from my point of view) that censors what it doesn't want to see and declares those who break that censorship to be evil people who HAVE to be killed. That, to me, cannot be defended and MUST be resisted actively. That is why any move to islamicise our systems of government whether education, juduicial or whatever, will be strongly and actively resisted by people like me.PS - any guesses why you can't open that other link? It opens fine for me....could it be...censorship...perhaps? :-)(I'm assuming you know that your internet connection is actively censored and filtered by your Government?)

Yet again correct....applause rings out...OK as the final one of this series, something a bit more tricky perhaps... Question 4 In my street, there's only one side with houses. The sum of all the housenumbers smaller than mine is equaly to the sum of all housenumbers bigger than mine. The 'connection/relation' between my housenumber x and all houses in my street is?

Well that is delta covered. Obviously the delta value will give you an average. So the two examples I gave (velocity and acceleration) would give the result as an overal average velocity or acceleration for the time taken (t). Sometimes you want an instant reading whilst you move. Then you have to make the value of t very small. Heres a graph of the car moving: You can see it is a straight line when we plot distance in km against time in hours.You should be able to tell, from the graph, what the velocity is, in km/h. How? Well the velocity is given by the slope of the line. If we divide d by t then distance/time = velocity. or as we now know Δd/Δt = v (difference in distance divided by different in time = velocity) But what about if we choose something else - like a ball? Throwing a ball up in the air and catching it produces the following graph.... Now you can see the ball is not straight-lined but a curve - actually it is a special curve called a parabola. Can you see what the graph shows? It shows the ball starting off at a fast velocity then slowing down continually until it reaches the top of the graph and stops for an instant, then slowly at first starts to come back down, speeding up all the time. So how could we get a value for the slope of this line (the velocity)? Clearly it is constantly changing. This is where the lower case greek delta comes in. It means a very very tiny change. If you imagine ddrawing the same triangle on this graph as we did for the car, then we would get: Trouble is that the hypotenuse of the triangle (the curve) is not a straight line. If we make our triangle smaller and smaller, then the line gets straighter and straighter. Newton worked out a mathematical dodge. He made the sides of the triangle infinitessimally small (almost infinitely small) and then the side would be as near to straight as made no difference. So instead of using big delta for change, we use little delta for tiny tiny change. now we get: δh/δt = v (tiny change in height divided by tiny time period is the velocity at that point. Welcome to calculus. The tiny change in h is correctly called the derivative of height. Likewise for the derivative of time. So we can now work out this sum to get the velocity at any point on the graph. No point progressing past this until your course catches up - they may teach it differently.... good luck..

Really, so if I show you differently? Try these http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ https://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/10/new-jerusalem-mufti-endorses-suicide-bombers http://teeth.com.pk/blog/2008/09/11/aalim-online-inciting-murder-against-ahmedis Then, of course, you have to remember I'm British and I read a lot. That means I like Salman Rushdie. I heard just about every senior muslim call for him to be killed for writing the Satanic Verses, so when you say that murder is a major sin then it rings a bit hollow. Likewise with the recent protests in Danemark and the UK about a few cartoons in a magazine. Muslims were screeming hatred, death threats and bile at anyone who would listen. In fact 4 were arrested for incitement to murder. Now please don't tell me that this was justified because they insulted your prophet. That will not do at all. We don't kill someone who writes something we find objectionable or draws a few cartoons. That is not civilised behaviour, that is the behaviour of the thug, the bully and the tyrant. Fine, I hope you are very happy. It wouldn't work here - in fact it would probably cause real trouble if you tried to tell English women that this was a good way to behave. I promise you that they would not agree. This is another reason why Islamic law cannot be allowed into our secular society... No you still misunderstand. It isn't what I believe, this is what Bin Laden and radical islamists believe and what they quote. Their interpretation is quite different to yours and to the sources you cite, but that does not mean they are wrong even though you think they are, I think they are and the majority of UK muslims think they are....

I can barely believe my eyes...OK. Firstly, Hitler had a weird superstition thing going on. He mixed up bits of Christianity, Paganism, spiritualism and plain old racism, to make his nonsensical arian dream. Quite ironic for someone who looked less than arian himself.Hitler played the oldest, easiest and most morally reprehensible cards a politician has. Choose a victim and then focus all the anger and fear of the population on the scapegoat. Blame them for any problems or policy mistakes. Works everytime. You see it with both the UK and Argentina over the Faulklands.Hitler's central plan was his 1000 year Reich and basically keeping the population pliant but satisfied. Your comments on Jews are racist/antisemitic and don't belong on a civilised forum. They are also deeply ignorant. If you knew history you would know that far from being sacred, the jews were scapegoated from the middle ages onwards by Catholics in particular.Anyone who thinks it is acceptible to drive a segment of the population out of their own country has no basic moral sense.

Yes correct answer: well worked out.

That depends whether they are Shi'te or Sunni (or Wahhabi).We have several learned scholars who don't say he is wrong. Travel over to Egypt and you will find that many muslims not only support him but think he is a truly great man. In fact quite a lot of your fellow Pakistanis are very supportive of Bin laden..I'm sure you must know that... Here's a 2008 survey before the election http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Pakistan%20Poll%20Report.pdf (PDF file) And I think it is a selfish male nonsense that is both sexist and extremely offensive. Why should your feelings be the thing that decides things? What about her feelings? It doesn't bode well if you are getting jealous thoughts before you even meet the woman...I'm afraid you are going to get quite a shock when women's lib finally penetrates the muslim world...and it will, trust me.. Sexist stereotype. Better with children, yes, probably. The rest? Nonsense. What you mean is that you, as a man, are allowed to be less neat and less organised because the wife will do it for you. You are entitled to your beliefs as I am, but there is absolutely no way that I would tolerate any such laws or even proposals in my country and the huge majority would agree. Jeez, I tell you true mate, it is a really good job my missus isn't reading this...she may be small, but she is very feisty and she knows exactly where to punch and kick... This is directly contradicted by Sura 2:191 where specific intruction to kill the infidel is given...

Well, my computer is attached via 2 8 channel sound cards to a 24 track mixing desk and a load of outboard kit - I have a home studio setup. So I actually don't have an audio player because it gets in the way. I use cubase and wavelab for recording, processing, editing, mastering and listening..:-)Not cheap tho....When I use my other computer (not in the studio) that has media player on it. I made the mistake of installing media centre but it is too 'heavy' and slow for my taste, even though the functionality is good. Likewise I don't like running real player - I don't like any software that tries too hard to get me to press the pay button instead of the free download button So I play realmedia through windows media player using real alternative...

I was just going to ask the same when I saw this answer..Thanks...will do. appreciate the help.

Problem 2 - these from my maths cohort at Frih They asked the baker, Mr. Wis, how many breads he had sold on monday. The baker answered: My first customer bought half of the stock + half a bread. My Second customer, bought half of what was left + half a bread. The third customer asked for half of the stock that was still available + half a bread to feed the ducks. The last Customer, Mr Salomon, wanted to buy a bread, but there were no more breads. Mr Bread didn't sold any half breads. Can you tell me how many breads he sold? Problem 3 In a farm house there are some hens and pigs. There are altogether 60 eyes and 86 feet. So, give me the total number of hens and pigs in the farm.

Yes, you did solve it so QUDOS to you. BEA and CED are smiliar triangles (same angles sides twice as big) that immediately gives you EB - 1/2x From there it is much easier...

But in effect there will be no equalisation...anyway this is getting monotonous, let's drop it and move on. I object to ANY religious law in my secular country. I am an atheist, would you like me to move to pakistan and insist that all the mosques be closed because I think my lack of belief is better than your belief? Missing my point...it isn't what I think, it is what the real=politik is. The country that matters is the one with the most power - either military or commercial or, preferrably, both. For about 200 years it was the UK. Since WW2 it has been the US. Next it will be China. We call them 'superpowers' - though the USSR never actually should have had that nametag IMHO, since it was a lot weaker than the US led people to believe. But again you are missing the point. They will have a reason and justification for everything. Bin Laden is no idiot and I think he genuinely regards himself as a good Muslim. Have you ever noticed that even his worst enemies in Islam are never accused of not being Muslims? The worst thing Bin Laden says about other muslims is 'they are bad muslims'. You could say the same about him, but you can't say he isn't a muslim. The same applied regarding the treatment of women. I KNOW how women are treated in much of the middle east - a cross between a possession and an ornament. Sharia Law is fundamentally sexist, sorry but it just is. Now you can say that Saudi and other countries are not real muslim countries but that is the same argument again and it won't do. Islam can allow or not allow whatever it likes, but the fact is that the people who brought down the twin towers, the people here who blew themselves up and took a lot of people with them, the people in spain who blew the train up - they are all Muslims. So to say that Islam does not allow killing innocent people really gets on people's nerves. It is like saying that Christians don't tell lies, because the bible says they shouldn't. The simple fact is that they do, just like everyone else. I know, as I said I have read most of it and I know that the 72 virgins is a corrpution of Surah At-Tur (52):20], Surah Al-Waqi'a (56):34-36 and Surah Ar-Rum(30):21...27. mixed up with Hadith 2562 in Sunan al-Tirmidhi "The least [reward] for the people of Heaven is 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome of pearls, aquamarine and ruby." So they mix them together and get 72 virgin

Thanks for that...I'm sure I must have posted at least half a dozen worth a dollar...maybe I'm deluding myself and they are really terrible :-) Time will tell.

******OUCH... So good until there. But I'll forgive and forget the minor error8.485 not 8.458 (you transposed 2 digits) Good effort, but you can do it more simply.......look to do it using only the top big right triangle but using the two right triangles that make it up. Look for a common angle which will allow solution in 2 expressions.... BUT before you can, you need to spot a relationship between some triangles....think back....congruent?....similar?..... See if my crappy sketch helps

No it won't. How many people do you know who, at the end of the year, say - hey, I've got this spare 40 grand? Nobody. They won't have any spare - that is the whole point. It will be invested, or paying for 'stuff', or in a trust. Rich people are not stupid and they are not more ethical than others (arguably less) so why on earth would they leave spare money to be taxed? Even a rookie accountant will stop that on day 1. You actually highlight a difference between the west generally and the rest of the world. People in the west generally don't save. People in China, India, pakistan etc generally DO save. We are used to having enough money so that we don't need to worry about lean times. But then as standards rose, credit was cheap so even if you haven't got the money, you buy it on credit and pay it off. So now we have the weird situation where India and China are floating in money - so much they have to get rid of some, so they buy America and the UK. Really, I'm serious. It is Chinese money mainly that Americans spend - the Chinese buy up Government bonds (which is national debt, in another name) and they invest in businesses.A lot of UK business is now owned by Indian and Chinese consortia. So the people who earn the least have bought the people who earn and spend the most...poetic irony.. :-) No but they are in the half that matters. Yes, I know that is offensive, but it is true. As far as the west is concerned the west is more important that the east. I'm sure that as far as China is concerned the same thing applies in reverse - the Chinese must regard the Chinese as by far more important that the US. The difference is that until recently we have been right - you really didn't matter except as pawn in the cold war and as bases of operation to ensure the oil kept flowing. Now it is changing rapidly. China is very important to the US now. India slightly less so but still important. Those two countries are huge and both will overtake the US in commercial power soon (arguably China already has) But this is why your health service and social services are worse than anything we have. We pay much more into the common pot of government money. Typically a low paid worker will pay 20% (not a measly 2.5%) and a rich worker will pay 40-50% of any earnings above a certain level. I didn't say the poor were idle/lazy. I was trying to explain how becoming used to government benefits gradually destroys your motivation and energy until you literally cannot be bothered to get out of bed. This happens to respectable middle-class people who suddenly find themselves with no job. It is a very bad experience. Obviously in Pakistan it is worse - we get a handout, you could starve. I have 2 copies of the quran on my shelf - the Saudi annotated one which they distribute everywhere, and Panj Para Complete Quran in Six Volumes (bought from a local bookstore for the bargain price of 50p). I have read most of the quran so I know what it says in the main. It is a bit like using the new testament to tell you what Jesus was like. You get a very one sided picture.I have no wish to offend you, but neither will I say that which I do not believe. Let us just say that I'm not personally convinced that Muhammed was as pure and honest as you think he was. I don't think he was particularly bad, certainly for the time, but the picture from the quran, sira and hadiths is not the same picture that emerges from non-Islamic historians. I have nothing against muslims. I know quite a few (though to be honest, less nowadays because we live in a largely white middle-class area) I was born in Lancashire and we had a fairly large muslim population since i was born. I have also travelled a little in muslim lands - Morocca and Algeria in particular. The problem with arguing about who is following the quran is that both sides say exactly the same thing. Bin Laden, Bakar Bashir, Zakir Naik and many others would say that their version of Jihad against the invader of holy muslim mecca is what all true Muslims are called to do by the Quran. Fight the enemy that occupies the holy places until he is dead or gone from the holy lands. That isn't word for word (I don't know the quran that well) but it is a fairly accurate paraphrase of one of the surahs...and this is what the terrorists use to justify their actions and their Muslim credentials. I know you can point me to many more verses that talk about being kind and generous - I've read them too. But it is too easy to say - they are not proper muslims because no proper muslim would do x or y. That is YOUR interpretation - theirs is different. It is also an example of something called the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman