The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The myths and realities of Islam’s Shariah law > Comments

The myths and realities of Islam’s Shariah law : Comments

By Jamila Hussain, published 2/3/2006

The Shariah system of personal law can co-exist with the Australian legal system.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 28
  7. 29
  8. 30
  9. All
"the Shariah as a system of personal law can co-exist with the Australian legal system."

If this is the case, why doesn't Islamic leadership in Australia get on with declaring our system "100% Sharia Compatible"?

If our current legal system can accomodate Sharia law, I for one am over the moon. I am a little confused as to why Islamic leadership consistently state that they are seeking changes to accomodate Sharia law if it can coexist with the Australian legal system but what the hell let's get on with it.

This statement indicates compatiblity with "the Australian legal system". This indicates that no changes are necessary to the Australian legal system, otherwise it would be another Australian legal system. If there are changes necessary, this statement is incorrect. To make changes to our legal system to make a minority of 1.5% of our population feel comfortable is ridiculous. It brings to mind the proverb about a man of middle-eastern appearance and the mountain.

If the statement "the Shariah as a system of personal law can co-exist with the Australian legal system" is true, you have won the arguement for me. Let's get on with it, get our Sharia certification and lay this issue to rest.
Posted by jimmyj, Thursday, 2 March 2006 9:59:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article reminds me of the arguments used to justify communism. Namely that there was nothing wrong with communism per se, the problem was in its implementation...

Exactly.
Posted by jeremy29, Thursday, 2 March 2006 10:00:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wizbang said it best:

* I believe any legal system that permits a man to complete a divorce by reciting "woman, I divorce you" three times, but gives no such option -- in fact, hardly any option -- to the woman is uncivilized.

* I believe any legal system that gives women almost no say in who they marry, when they marry, is uncivilized.

* I believe any legal system that makes such private, consensual acts as homosexuality, adultery, and fornication capital offenses is uncivilized.

* I believe any legal system that includes such penalties as physical maiming is uncivilized.

* I believe any legal system that requires an allegation of rape to be supported by at least two male witnesses is uncivilized.

* I believe any legal system that punishes women who claim to be raped, but do not provide those two witnesses, to have confessed to adultery or fornication and punishes them as above is uncivilized.

* I believe any legal system that values the rights and testimony of the adherents of one faith over others is uncivilized.

* I believe any legal system that mandates women to cover as much of themselves when in public is uncivilized.

* I believe any legal system that mandates women be accompanied at all times by a male relative is uncivilized.

* I believe any legal system that mandates adult women of any age need their male guardian's permission for ANYTHING is uncivilized.

* I believe any legal system that presumes that men are filled with uncontrollable lusts that can be unleashed by the slightest provocation by a woman is uncivilized.

* I believe any legal system that blames the woman for provoking those lusts in a man is uncivilized.

* I believe any legal system that is based purely on the tenets of a religion, and mandates that all must obey those tenets regardless of their beliefs, is uncivilized.
Posted by Sage, Thursday, 2 March 2006 10:17:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part II...

* I believe any legal system that says men may marry outside the faith, but women cannot, is uncivilized.

* I believe any legal system that tolerates "female circumcision" -- the removal of the clitoris and, occasionally, other tissue -- is uncivilized.

* I believe any legal system that makes apostasy -- leaving one's faith -- a crime and punishes it with death is uncivilized.

* I believe any legal system that punishes those who proselytize any faith besides Islam, and rewards those who promote it, is uncivilized.
Posted by Sage, Thursday, 2 March 2006 10:19:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
” Based only on the information available in the media, it is not surprising that the ordinary Australian believes that the Shariah is cruel and barbaric and has no place in Australia.”

It is unlikely that an academic would have the slightest idea what “ordinary Australians” believe about Shariah law, particularly as this one believes that these ordinary types accept everything they read, hear and see in the media as the gospel truth. Ordinary Australians are very cynical about the media, and academics.

Shariah law is, Hussain says, one of the world’s great legal systems, and “an alternative to Australia’s British derived Common Law”. Well, it is not an alternative to Australian law, madam, because it is based on religion. It may very well work in Muslim dominated countries, but not here where 1.5% of the population follows the faith. Even our pathetically weak politicians are not going to give it any credence.

The idea of personal “law” is nonsense. All people in Australia are required to abide by Australian law, and Australian law protects them – even from mad mullahs.
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 2 March 2006 10:19:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The real objection to Shariah Law is not its compatibilty or lack thereof, or our misunderstandings about its values and benefits...bla bla bla...

No amount of sugar coating and “media selling" will change or disguise the fact that Islam is NOT an acceptable religion by our Judeo-Christian / Democratic standards to begin with.

A fact that our political leaders are finally accepting.

The notion that Islam is allowed to exist and to prosper in our free society does not necessarily mean that it’s acceptable as a legitimate and non-intrusive beast.

Its Origins, its Prophet, its Books, Revelations, Customs and Tenets are ALL highly questionable to the thinking person and theologians alike – and no amount of sweetening will ever change those contentions.

How can we even pursue any dialogue with such a system when its very FOUNDATION is unauthentic and doubtful at best?
Posted by coach, Thursday, 2 March 2006 10:59:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You said - "attempts are being made to reinterpret old rulings, although often, conservative people get the upper hand and progress is slow." This would surely be the stopper to your unreasonable ideas.

If you believe there is value in some integration or duality of the two legal systems - ours and Shariah - then the onus is on you to bring forward a concrete proposal for legislation that has the complete acceptance of idiots such as the Australian imam who claimed that women who wear tight clothes deserve to get raped. Until you can show that your brand is the community accepted one, we would be buying nothing but trouble to even talk about such a nonsensical proposal.

God knows, we already have enough problem with people who want greater recognition of traditional Aboriginal law that allowed an Aboriginal elder to forcibly rape his child bride.

Perhaps you could go back to academia and leave the rest of us peasants to just get along with a law system that has evolved from one that protected only the wealthy and well-born to one that is reasonably fair to everybody. Not like most world-wide examples of Shariah law.

Regards

Kevin
Posted by Kevin, Thursday, 2 March 2006 11:07:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kevin,

this is unrelated to the current topic. you asked me to address some issues relating to multiculturalism. where did you list those issues? what issues are they?

regards
Posted by Irfan, Thursday, 2 March 2006 11:38:16 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh, if you think the idea of personal law is nonsense, i suggest you tell that to jewish and muslim community leaders who work together in areas such as burials, animal slaughter and a certain other surgical procedure that i dare not mention. you will see that both islamic and jewish law requirements are specially catered for under NSW and Commonwealth law.

i know this might shock some of you, but australia is not an exclusively christian state.
Posted by Irfan, Thursday, 2 March 2006 11:41:50 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irfan

I, not Kevin, asked you to simply give your definition of Australian Multi-culturalism. I have no other issues.

regards
Posted by keith, Thursday, 2 March 2006 11:59:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Though I don’t much like to argue the same side as Coach – he of the constant anti-muslim invective – the proposition of introducing Shariah law into Australia is a truly misguided attempt to facilitate happy multiculturalism.

That said, I am not against “enabling” laws – laws along the lines of exceptions to things like; e.g. food standard laws (if that so applies) to allow muslim Australians to practice their faith, so long as everyone is aware of the risks and possible consequences etc etc.
But only to the extent of them being “opt in” laws – e.g. you could still buy food elsewhere – with no coercive effect. And these would exist within the normal framework of Australian laws, subject to the Court’s approval and by change via simple majority in Parliament. (In other words, not really Shariah law at all.)

The strongest argument against bringing Shariah law to Australia in any form is contained in Hussein’s article:

“There is little demand among Australian Muslims for the Shariah to be introduced in Australia”

I can think of 2 reasons why this might be so:
They think Australian law leads to a better society, or
Like most Australians, they don’t care that much about being political activists, they just want to get on with their lives as best they can.

Though some Muslims might want to change divorce laws, the same can probably be said for the majority of divorced Australian men.

As for those – like Coach – who appear to argue against the very existence of Islam in Australia, what would you do?
Make it illegal?
Expel or imprison all those who refuse to surrender their beliefs?
Posted by Alpal, Thursday, 2 March 2006 1:24:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh! Jamila: Going by your name I would say that you are an oppressed islamic female. First of all are you participating in "al-taqiyya" that is are you placating the unbelievers by half-truths and outright lies? Moslems are allowed/commanded to do so when, in their eyes, it's necessary you know.
Utterly pagan, barbaric female mutilation,"honour?" killings, amputations, and stoning is only? practised in Nigeria and Iran - oh yes! but they are in the koran. You add that the above are only a 'small' part of brutal uncivilised sharia law that is unless it's to happen to you or I of course. And 'often?' - how often? the penalty is o/turned by a higher court.
We only have the word of a pagan religion that is allowed/commanded to lie when necessary to unbelievers that the state of women was much better in far off times.They were definitely NOT in the time of big mo in the beginning of your pagan religion- and that's history as well as a part of your terrorist h/book - the koran
You say these amputations, female mutilation etc are not in any way endorsed by islam nor are kidnappings, be-headings, cowardly suicide bombings, the murder of so-called unbelievers, and rampant lying. Here we have it again - except for some hotheads islam is a religion of peace.
It beats me how any educated woman can remain a pagan moslem when they are discriminated against. A woman's word worth half of that of a male. Very few women will make it to paradise - this from big Mo. numbat
Posted by numbat, Thursday, 2 March 2006 1:25:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jamila Hussain,

Put your position in the ivory tower on the line by getting down to debate us. Not just publishing your views unfettered.

If you're proven to be inadequate in your reasonings and found wanting as an intellect, then I won't be the only one to expect your resignation from your lecturer post, which offers you a vantage position to influence the young and gullible towards Islam.

U wrote: "... the Hudud penalties... amputation, stoning and other drastic penalties - are only a very small part of Islamic criminal law and are invoked only rarely... "

This is a frauded reasoning. If something is wrong and unacceptable, the fact that it is VERY SMALL or is very RARE does not make it less wrong and more acceptable...

In logic, 'one' means just that- ONE.

ONE does not equal ZERO. Neither can ZERO be ONE. There is no such thing as a minuscule 'one' which is 'as good as' zero.

Your frauded argument is one of excuse and expediency.

You have FAILED the first test of being an intellect.
Posted by GZ Tan, Thursday, 2 March 2006 1:31:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
you ISLAMOFACIST!!

"... the Hudud penalties... amputation, stoning and other drastic penalties - are only a very small part of Islamic criminal law and are invoked only rarely... "

"only invoked rarely", but yet STILL invoked. Hence, sharia is inconsistent with Australian law and therfore CANNOT 'co-exist'.

Congratulations, your own article deisporved your argument,. thank you for wasting everybodys time. now piss off back to Saudia Arabia or Iran where Sharia is paractised
Posted by Thor, Thursday, 2 March 2006 2:48:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Question for Jamila, Irfan, Fellow_Human or any other muslim poster.

If "The Shariah system of personal law can co-exist with the Australian legal system" why doesn't it?

Irfan's article in the Herald yesterday, "Would Sir Like His sharia Law With or Without Sufism" (forgive me Irfan I had to say it) was making similar noises. Apparently Sharia values are the same values as we have. If Sharia law is so compatible to the point you can co-exist with the current Austrlian legal system - why do you need changes?

Larger minorities in Australia want the tax lowered, child support laws changed and some fairly radical immigration reforms. If you want to change our laws, just what is it that makes you so special?
Posted by jimmyj, Thursday, 2 March 2006 2:54:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If Sharia law is so compatible with Australian law , will the Sikhs,Bhuddists, Swedes,French, Canadians,South Americans , South Africans ect ect all have to abide by Sharia law because the Muslims want it?
Is one religious lot permitted to make every other culture obedient to muslim law?
Isn't that why they came here in the first place?
Posted by mickijo, Thursday, 2 March 2006 3:31:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ms Hussain admits that the situation of women in Muslim countries is among the worst on the planet but has no idea why. Strange!

Well, it is true that Islam gave women “unprecedented” rights, like the right to be beaten by their husbands (Surah 4.34). In fact, Mohammad himself was a wife-beater.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/004.smt.html#004.2127

And don’t forget that slave women have a right to be raped by their Muslim masters: “all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hand possess (your slaves). It is a decree of Allah for you” (Muslim 4:24). Mm. Hussain, do you have a problem with this verse? Is this the word of Allah?

Islam does not endorse terrorism either by or against Muslims or anyone else. Well except for those "So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam" (Koran 8:39), "Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another, but ruthless to unbelievers" (Koran 48:29) and the “Kill them wherever you find them” and many other verses. Tell me, does that sound like “process of law” to you?

Please read this about the failed attempt to implement sharia in another country:
http://www.muslim-canada.org/apostasy.htm
Muslims wanted the right to murder apostates/blasphemers under Islamic sharia law - in Canada!

The fact is that Islam is oppressive and intolerant. It is a religion of hate, anger and murder. Witness current events! And don’t let anyone fool you saying that it only affects Muslims. Where Islam dominates, non-Muslims are also subject to the cruelties of Sharia. The official Islamic position is that religious minorities can have their own laws, as long as they conform to sharia. Gee thanks.

So, Ms.Hussain, please tell me, does it bother you that your dear prophet was a wife-beater, slaver and torturer? And you want Mohammed to rule our lives? In your dreams!

Perhaps you would feel better living in a Muslim country and enjoying life under sharia. No? I thought so. Of course not! The West is so bad, but Muslims just love it, but they hate it.

Kactuz
Posted by kactuz, Thursday, 2 March 2006 3:56:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
They'll keep chipping away like this until they get their way.Firstly ,try to dress up Sharia Law in a seemingly more palatable form and slip it in under the cover of multi-culturalism,victim status and we will have one law for the Muslims and one for the rest of Australia.

Muslim audacity never ceases to amaze me.Imagine if we went to Saudi Arabia and tried to impose a Christian religion and our democratic system on them.You would be stoned to death at the mere suggestion.

Yet another Muslim article that futher alienates Muslim society.Perhaps this is what they want.They seem to thrive on conflict.I'm beginning to understand what Israel faces on a daily basis.

The Western Society and the Muslim way are totally incompatible.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 2 March 2006 5:37:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Should this really be an issue of "personal shariah law" or one of getting the government and law out of our lives as much as possible. We are all free to live to our own standards where those standards do not conflict with the law. To some extent the author makes this point anyway.

I do get concerned about exemptions to the law on the basis of a religious belief.

If the basis for a law is so weak that the law can be put aside on the basis of a religious belief then the law should not be enforced upon anybody, it is an unnecessary inteference in individual freedom rather than a necessity to keep society functioning. Those who really want the law can live by it themselves without compelling others to live by it.

The author uses the example of polygamy in her article. That raises the question - are there valid reasons why society and the law should have any say in the arrangements people make between themselves about "marriage", if there are then those should not be varied because of a religious belief (and the author does not ask that they should be), if there are not valid reasons then the law should not involve itself in those matters. What business is it of mine how many people are involved in a marriage as long as they are consenting adults?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 2 March 2006 5:52:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To all

In my view, this article is akin to being "half pregnant". No need to say anything else.

Cheers
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Thursday, 2 March 2006 6:14:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My sadness for the author is almost beyond description.

To turn away from Catholicism I can understand, with its formal and heirarchical authority structure. Personally I could not live with that. (but I'm happy for those who can to do so).

But to turn from Christ,.... to Mohammed ? It defies reason.

Mohammed-> Islam-> Sharia it all rests on the foundation of the man who (Like Joseph Smith of Latter Day Saints/Mormon infame) claimed to have special revelation from God.

The New testament teaches clearly

15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

What 'fruit' did Mohammed produce ?

-Married a child of 9 when he was 50+
-Cut the hands and feet of some criminals, after gouging out their eyes, and left them to die slowly.
-Urged torture of those who would not tell where the treasure of the city was
-Forced his adopted son to divorce his wife so he could have her himself
-Slaughtered 600-900 males of the Banu Qurayza Jews who had already surrendered.

by their 'fruit' you shall know them.

Author.. please come to this forum and explain just how you managed to filter out all of the above regarding this so called prophet, and give your life to advocacy for him ?

How could you turn away from the Good Shepherd ?
How could you deny Christ ? (He who denies me before men, I will deny before my Father in Heaven)

Do you even half realize what you have done ?

I urge you to re-consider, to return in humble repentance to the Author of life, to God in Christ. Be reconciled to Him.
Leave this path of darkness and spiritual oblivion you have chosen.

Remember, there is no Christian death penalty for apostacy as you have done, but under Sharia...there is.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 2 March 2006 7:00:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi y'all
I find it interesting how all these posters know more about Islam and Sharia law than does the author, who works in researching and teaching law and Sharia law and Islam. I'd really like to see their diplomas some time. But then of course an ignorant opinion, a misinformed opinion, a bigoted opinion grabbed from some website somewhere must be worth at least as much as an informed educated and explanatory opinion based on primary sources and study, mustn't it.

It is wonderful how someone respectfully, patiently, and gently explains their knowledge of their faith and the law by which they feel called to live, and then is called a liar, a deceiver, a false prophet and an apostate. By their fruits ...

Respect, gentleness, patience were once explained to me to be the hallmarks of christian witness. I don't see them practised here by many posters. Perhaps they are not christian. Perhaps the Australian ethos of a fair go should be the standard. I don't see much of that either. It seems to me that some people would rather attack a Muslim woman than practice what they preach - by their fruits ...

odsoc
Posted by odsoc, Thursday, 2 March 2006 7:26:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Australian law and Sharia Law are compatible? Here is the Ayatollah Khomeini, arguable Islam’s most respected jurist givng his adjudication on Sharia Law. From Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh", fourth volume,

"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However he should not penetrate, sodomising the child is OK. If the man penetrates and damages the child then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girls sister."

"A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on. However he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village, however selling the meat to the next door village should be fine."

Then there is this gem from the Koran.

Quran 4:34: "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping places AND BEAT THEM; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

If you can laugh at Islam then you have got it beat. Pork and alcohol will become a halal foods before Australian law is reconciled to Islamic law.
Posted by redneck, Thursday, 2 March 2006 7:54:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
odsoc: First one does not have to have a university degree to read about on many many web sites both islamic, news, etc. to see what a brutal, uncivilised, bloody pagan religion islam is. Seems to be ruled by savage, bloodthirsty, misogynistic tribal psychopaths.
You ask us to be nice to a pagan mob of sadistic animalistic murderers whose various leaders preach hatred to all other religions. Not only hatred but consider us with the Jews as pigs and monkeys fit only for death. Now I do not hate moslems - I pity them - but neither do I trust or believe them bacause of their al-taqiyya. Yet I deplore their brutal cult of a pagan religion which has and will continue to cause the deaths of many innocent unarmed men, women and children. As another has said to turn from Christianity to arrant stupid paganism is beyong belief. numbat
Posted by numbat, Thursday, 2 March 2006 7:59:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
odsoc,

it seems you are an Islamist.

Scholars or not, the posts here refer to the Qur'an and Hadiths - The Qur'an states:

"Righteous women are therefore obedient, ... And those you fear may be rebellious (nushuz) admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them."[The Qur'an, 4:34. (Arberry's translation)]

"Had I ordered anybody to prostrate before any one, I would have ordered women to prostrate before their husbands on account of men's rights over the women ordained by Allah."[Hadith No. 70.]



odsoc you say about christian 'respect' etc - the highest trait of a christian is love, and a christian loves a woman, christain or Islamic, more than he loves an Islamist, in that he will shout out against the Islamist when he advocates beating her, rather than respect the man who beats her - it is clear you are an Islamist if you don't get this.

It is the trait of an Islamofacist to advocate tolerance of Islam's intolerance!!

The author says that Islamic law uses beheading, stoning for adultury, the sutting of of hands, etc - it is clear such is not consistent with Australian law - if the author treuly belives it can co-exist, i suggest he paractice it in Austrlaian society, and see how swift Austrlai's law moves against him. he can't go around doing those things - what an absolute idiot the author is.

..........................................................

For those of you liberalists on this forum who laughed when i stated that Islamists have a hold on Europe, I refer you to the posted link.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=19468_Europe_is_Shuffling_into_Darkness&only

""The governments of Europe have been tricked into believing that criticism of a belief is the same thing as criticism of a race. And so it is becoming increasingly difficult and dangerous to criticise a growing and powerful ideology within our midst. It may soon, in addition, be made illegal
Posted by Thor, Thursday, 2 March 2006 8:03:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To All

I stand by my previous post. The author is presenting a "half pregnant" position.

What a rort. And you have all fallen for it.

Cheers
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Thursday, 2 March 2006 9:02:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It takes two. For adultery. When the Islamists condemn the male party to the same fate as the woman I might just begin to think Sharia Law as being anything other than a continuom of medieaval thinking.

So sad Germaine et al are takng tea with the Queen.

Not rising to the big challenge of ensuring, at the very least, education/choice about birth control for women, denied an education, literacy and beholden to the then parish priest and now Mullah
Posted by hijacked, Thursday, 2 March 2006 9:13:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Mr Odsoc.

I have lived through a period of history when legions of educated and supposedly intelligent academics promoted Communism as the answer to all the world's problems. The fact that most Communist countries were giant prison camps surrounded by barbed wire and watchtowers to prevent their own people from fleeing it's dominion did not phase the academic world at all.

Today Islam has become the flavour of the month to those people who never tire of attacking their own society in order to make some sort of fashion statement. Once again, the pseudo intellectuals are going into bat for a social system which is not only an affront to western values, but which has been a catastrophe for it's own brain washed adherents.

Jamila Hussein has claimed that Islamic Law and Australian Law are compatable, because they are not so different. That is a half truth. And a half truth told as a full truth is a complete lie. There may be some convergenence in the two laws, but there is also fundamental diferences which make the two incompatable. The days when academics could present lies as facts are over. The Internet has become a tool for ordinary people to find the truth and fling it back into the faces of the anti Western propagandists.
Posted by redneck, Friday, 3 March 2006 3:58:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear ODSOC
what I find amazing is how those sympathetic to the beating of women as 'discipline' react when this is pointed out. They speak 'tenderly' about a position which can only have originated in the pit of hell.

They then attack those who scrutinize and bring to light the evils of Islam, by suggesting that they 'should' be like this and like that.

Jesus saved his most savage criticism for those who HAD THE INTELLECT to know the falsehood of their position, yet refused to acknowledge it. They chose a falsehood over truth, simply because of arrogance, pride and self interest.

Matthew 23
13"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.[c]

15"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

This can and should be applied to the teaching of Islam, and any other teaching which purports to represent God (but perverts the Word) to mankind.

Any teaching about God which diverts people from knowing Christ as Lord and Savior is not 'of' God.

Any teaching which panders to the lusts of the flesh (4 wives, child marraige.. taking war booty..beating up women) is not of God.

Can I make it any clearer ? Dont come back to me with "but Christians are supposed to...." or "My understanding of Christian witness is...." because all that shows is your understanding is wrong. Please update it.

We are called to be 'light' and regarding the need to expose Islam to the light of Gods Word... I will do so without compromise and without fear.

The difference between us who criticize and those like the Author who sympathize, is that we are not living in fear of a system of intellectual and emotional oppression.

"For me, to live is Christ"
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 3 March 2006 6:30:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BD, you appear to have missed the bit where those savage criticism's by Jesus were directed at people of his own faith who misrepresented that faith.

I'm not aware of any new testament example where he focussed his attention on teachers of clearly different religions and blasted them for their wrongdoing.

Rather his most savage attacks were against those who outwardly shared his faith. Something you might like to consider.

I agree with the position of not wanting any formal recognition of shariah law in australia and I don't believe that the author is asking for such. Nor do I want your religion to restrict my freedoms either. Muslims should be free to live by their beliefs as long as those beliefs do not contravene Australian law just as fundy christains, athiests, agnostics, buddists, hindu's etc should enjoy the same freedom. As I said earlier if the law is unnecessary then remove it, if it is necessary then apply it to all.

Much would be gained by religious types placing more emphasis on their own lives rather than how others live - muslims not liking bikini clad women, fundies not liking topless women or women with head coverings in public places, coach not liking people who drive hot cars or 8 seater vans etc. Wear what you like and get over it.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 3 March 2006 7:52:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jimmyj,

Shariah law can co-exist as a personal law. Yes and let me confirm that from own life in Australia for 10 years: I don not gamble, drink or do drugs; my savings account is a cheque account (no interest). I pay the poor due from my net income. I don’t harm others by word or act. My will to my wife when I die is to divide my assets as the Holybook tells me.

As far as I can tell, none of the above conflicts with the Australian laws.

Boaz and the Mosque-teers,

“By their postings and lack of responses (like Coachy boy) you shall know them!”
So, the Bible story of a chosen prophet getting drunk, sleeping with his 2 daughters and getting them pregnant is true...untrue...good...bad...ugly?
Boaz, when are you going to engage in a real dialogue about accepting each other?

Coachy,

One of my greatest puzzles is your 'Judeo-Christianity' thingy.

Judeo = the saviour is not here yet..its all hoax folks!.
Christianity = the saviour came and left...its all done..Jews missed the boat.
The first part proves that the second is wrong! Is this another puzzle like God have forms stuff?
There is a lot more in common Judeo-Islam (Commandments).
and Christianity-Islam (Jesus prophethood).

Can you put the sword down and have an acceptance dialogue?

Peace,
Posted by Fellow_Human, Friday, 3 March 2006 8:20:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well I never!

What a marvellous stream of invective this essay has provoked!

Middle Eastern Islamic societies are still essentially feudal and have yet to undergo the type of reformation which hit Christianity after Martin Luther nailed his "95 theses" to the door of a Wittenburg church in 1517. (Reformation is relative of course. Protestantism did not save the lives of the Salem "witches" 200 years later.)

These Islamic countries' concept of Sharia law is best compared with that of Christian countries in the 13th and 14th centuries, not the present day.

Ziauddin Sardar is a UK-based Muslim writer and author of the book, "Desperately Seeking Paradise: journeys of a sceptical Muslim". His interesting essay, "Can Islam change?" is at http://www.perfect.co.uk/2004/09/can-islam-change

His answer?

Yes. It already is.
Posted by MikeM, Friday, 3 March 2006 9:05:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Redneck,

We fought all major “ISMs” but Islam is a different beast. Somehow history must always repeat for people to wake up and acknowledge a new menace.

R0bert,

What you don’t realise is that islam claims to be an extension to Judaism and Christianity – plus they made it their business to attack those two faiths - mentioned by name in the Qur’an.

So if someone assaults your family would you just sit back and watch them do it?

It is not as simple as you think. Accepting islam as a religion is espousing the whole package deal: social, political, cultural, ideological, judicial, etc…Most of which is incompatible to our values.

Islam will NOT compromise to suit us – but sure as hell they will make us believe they are.

To accept islam is to play with fire – one must get burnt. Just watch that Joseph Thomas guy …

Which leads me to Fellow_Human...

Sorry I don’t get what you are talking about; but I’m guessing you are denigrating my beliefs which is SO MUCH NOT LIKE YOU of course…

The only way we could have a productive dialogue is if you prove to me that your religion is worth dialoguing with.

So far all you have is a self proclaimed prophet who hijacked someone else’s religion to pursue his trading business empire. In the process he broke every rule of decency using a fictitious god as his stamp of approval for his hideous acts. Wrote a book about it and made it the new law for his victims err…I mean followers.

Now how can you entertain the notion that you can even remotely consider – let alone vaguely imagine - to approximate Mohammad to Jesus?

Where would you begin to pencil your doted lines?

Islam is not just dead as I once said – it has never lived. There is NO LIFE outside of Jesus the son of God – (not the Isa ebn Mariam travesty version of the Qur’an.)

Sorry mate – but I really pity you - your tall tale will never wash against the Bilble.
Posted by coach, Friday, 3 March 2006 9:44:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fellow_Human (and Jamila),

You're a disgrace due to poor reasoning plus the way you both deceive yourself and others.

FH wrote: "... personal law... in Australia... I do not gamble, drink or do drugs... ... as the Holybook tells me."

That's your prerogative in accordance with your belief, nothing to do with laws, least of all Australian Law.

Tell us, if you knowingly or un-knowingly break your Shariah 'personal' laws, like going to the pub for a drink or steal something, who is going to come and arrest you for breaking your laws? Will you pay a fine (to whom)? Will you voluntarily chop off one of your hands? If not, doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

'Personal' laws... is like saying a death penalty is acceptable (and actually already implemented) in Australia simply because no-one commits a crime that warrants a death sentence in the first place.

Australian laws are not just about what you shouldn't do but also what happens if you break the law. Hence your Shariah 'personal' laws are just deceptive bulls*it.

Like I suspected, there is no such thing as a Muslim intellect, which is a contradiction in terms. Muslims are at best PSEUDO-intellect, something that's proven again and again.

I expect Jamila Hussain to RESIGN from her lecturer post, a position of influence if she can't even show up to defend her pseudo-intellect views.
Posted by GZ Tan, Friday, 3 March 2006 10:02:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Response to Fellow_Human

As always, good to hear from you.

From your description, you have found a solid accommodation within our legal system to practice civil sharia law. If you can find a balance without changing Australian law I am pleased and heartened. This is the way forward on this matter and it is good to see somebody taking a rational and pragmatic approach.

Legal changes to suit Sharia law are not going to happen so it is up to Muslims in Australia work within the parameters. If an accommodation is reached within our current legal system, the practice of Sharia law is none of my business (nor anyone elses). Any changes to our legal systems would unacceptable and recognized by most Australians as nothing less than the “thin end of the wedge”.

If this is the case I am still extremely confused one a final point. If the Australian legal system and Sharia law are compatible – why is the Islamic leadership constantly stating that it is lobbying for legal changes to suit Sharia?
Posted by jimmyj, Friday, 3 March 2006 10:05:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jimmyj,

Good to read from you too.
The example I gave you is a practical example that I live by and apply in day today life and there is no conflict what so ever between my Australian value and being a Muslim. In all honesty I don’t know who is asking for Shariah law that scares Peter Costello every two weeks apart from a Melbourne Imam with a 100 audience.

My position is this:

Australia is a secular society and should be kept this way.
A secular system works on precedents. P Costello should rather ensure no religious-based exceptions is/were given to any minorities because if we open the exceptions door…it can’t be closed.

Coach,

“Now how can you entertain the notion that you can even remotely consider – let alone vaguely imagine - to approximate Mohammad to Jesus?”

You are right I can’t entertain that since all prophets are equal in my faith. The luxury of comparing and favouring one human over the other is all yours!
I also don’t use ‘Old testament’ & ‘New Testament’ but rather use the Torah and the Bible. Its arrogance only you can afford.

I can only answer your questions about Islam & modernisation:

http://www.freemuslims.org/

GZ Tan,

The philosophy of Shariah law is around prevention to protect individuals, families and societies and hence its starts from one's choice.
Here is an example: if myself, my wife and my kids agree on our wills being according to our Holy scripture; there will be no need to take it one day to court even after my death; or is there?

“Pseudo-intellects” indeed!
Posted by Fellow_Human, Friday, 3 March 2006 10:25:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isn't it about time we admit that both Christianity and Islam come from a more repressive time in the distant past and that both have some good laws and both have some horrific ones that most modern people would hate to live under?

I agree with the half-pregnant statement, there is no point ignoring the bad bits if they are obviously as unacceptable as they are.

As long as you are picking pieces from the Koran here are some oppressive and unacceptable laws from the New Testament. Go look them up:

Support for the'divine right of Kings' (dictators) to rule:
1 Pet. 2:13,14 Rom.13:1-2 Luke 19:12-27

Those who don't work should starve:
Galatians 3:10 - (no mention of the sick)

Women Rights:

Abuse of Widows:
1Tim.5:9-5:14

Restrictions on women's dress:
1Tim.2:9 modestly covered and no decorations
1 Corinthians 11:6 If a woman not cover her head (when praying) then her head should be shaved (men don't have to because he is the image of God)

Women not to teach the word.
1Tim.2:12

Women not to speak in church:
1Corinthians14:34

Women to be taught by husbands:
1 Corinthians14:35

Women subjected to men:
1Tim.2:13-14
1Peter3:1
Colossians 3:18
Eph.5:22-24

Women who study are silly and sinladen:
2Timothy.3:6-7

Women were created for the benefit of man and not the other way round:
1 Corinthians11:9

Peter 2:8 Calls Lot a righteous man even though he knowingly gave up his two daughters to be raped and murdered by the crowd in order to protect his guests.

Animals:
1 Corinthians 9:9-10 God doesn't care about animals

All must become christians
Phillipians2:10

Approval of Slavery:
Eph.6:5
Col.3:22
1 Tim.6:1
Titus 2:10-11
Even against abusive masters slaves should not protect themselves:
1 Pet.2:18-2:20

Philemon1:10-1:19 Paul returns a runaway slave to his master

Christians not to sue Christians (others are fair game)
1 Corinthians.6:1-7
Posted by Aziliz, Friday, 3 March 2006 11:16:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unacceptable people, to be shunned, caste out of the Christian community and caste into the pit by God after death:

Jews, Idolators, witches, heretics, anyone who disagrees with Paul, Cretans, Jesters, homosexuals, adulterers, unbelievers (not to marry or to be friends with as well), greedy people, fornicators, the effeminate, drunkards, extortionists, revilers, Edomites, unbaptised, Canaanites, sorcerers, liars,etc and very hard for the rich

And that is just the New Testament, so what about the Old Testament?

Mathew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

The Old Testament is full of horrific laws and although a lot of Christians like to ignore it, it is approx 3/4 of their Holy Book and approved by Jesus himself.

Jumila there are plenty of exhortations against witches in the Bible and:

Exodus 22:18"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"
Levitucus 20:27 "A man or woman in whom there is a pythonical or divining spirit, dying let them die: they shall stone them"

were the basis of the witch trials.
Posted by Aziliz, Friday, 3 March 2006 11:16:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fellow_Human,

Sorry I was talking about your alleged prophet and my God Jesus.

I agree with GZ Tan that intellect is not one of islam's genetic traits.

I have given you a summary of your prophet’s career –

YOUR RESPONSE? TRUE or FALSE?

If you were a soldier in the Australian Army – and lo and behold Indonesia decides to invade us …

Will you as a muslim aim at your muslim brothers and kill them?

Will you quit the army on moral grounds?

Will you fight with your muslim brothers against the Australian infidels?

_____________

On that inheritance thingy – I wonder if your daughters know that under Sharia they will only get one eighth of half of what their brothers will get.

So if “consenting adult women” prefer to be treated that way, they should continue to get what they rightly deserve from islam.
_____________

Thanks for recommending that site: http://www.freemuslims.org/

From which I quote:

Sharia is the constitution of the institution of Political Islam, which is defined Maolana Mawdudi (1903-1971), the father of modern Political Islam:

"Where an explicit command of God or His Prophet already exists, no Muslim leader or legislature, or any religious scholar can form an independent judgment not even all the Muslims of the world put together, have any right to make least alteration to it".

and,

"Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere in the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam?.. If the Muslim Party commands adequate resources it will eliminate un-Islamic governments and establish the power of Islamic governments in their stead."

Yet Sharia is not merely a codification of laws. It is the main pillar of Islamic theocracy. To its followers it is God's divine command to establish a global Islamic State in order to apply Sharia.

Believing so is regarded as alliance to Islam itself. All books on Sharia law univocally maintain this dictum.

End quotes
Posted by coach, Friday, 3 March 2006 12:28:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lets get some perspective here.

Yes, Christianity and Islam (as outlined in their holy books), do have unacceptable presscriptions for modern life. The difference between the two is that in the west we have secular states, and nowhere is the New Testament directly imposed on citizens as law. Sharia, for its part, is the explicit maifestation of Koranic teachings as the law for those nations that are Islamic.

I know which type of country I would rather live in.
Posted by jeremy29, Friday, 3 March 2006 1:09:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a "christian" I would never advocate that we live according to the biblical laws written two thousand years ago. Times change, everything changes.
That is the peril with Islam, nothing has changed, they still slavishly follow the dogma written fifteen hundred years ago and would force the rest of the world to do the same.
I agree with Arjay. There has been a little nibbling from the Muslims wanting Sharia. They have gone quiet but when the time is ripe , they will try again. Maybe getting a little bit then another and another until they win.
The old 'marginalising' trick will be pulled again with the unsaid threat always in the background.
They will not give in and we must be vigilant that our coming generations do not live under the oppressiveness that is Islam.
Posted by mickijo, Friday, 3 March 2006 2:13:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Response to Fellow_Human:

I stand corrected – I cannot find any references to Islamic leadership advocating changes to our legal system to accommodate Sharia law.

This is beginning to look like a dastardly plot by imaginary pro-sharia muslims agitating for widescale changes to our legal system. The whole thing sounds scary but when you scratch the surface and there is nothing there but a few random nutters with virtually no support. There are enough issues to deal with integrating Australian Muslims with mainstream society without making new ones up.

Can anyone on this forum show me an example of remotely mainstream Australian Islamic leadership calling for changes to our legal system to accommodate any form of Sharia law?

Leaving aside the “Islam is evil” and “they are all lying to you” arguments for a minute – can anyone tell me what is wrong with people trying to follow their interpretation of civil Sharia law within the current Australian legal framework?

On a more worrying note, I have noticed that the Muslim population was 500,000 mid last year according to an ABC news article, another article two weeks ago measured it at 300,000 and one last week was 400,000. I think the Muslims are up to something nasty here – they have made 200,000 people disappear and managed to increase their population by a third in one week. This is an issue that warrants further investigation!
Posted by jimmyj, Friday, 3 March 2006 2:57:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, here is an example of Muslims in Australia calling for Shria law

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/005631.php

Muslim leaders want a separate Islamic court in Australia to deal with Islamic divorces
"Muslim leaders' divorce proposal," from the Australian Daily Telegraph, with thanks to all who sent this in:

MUSLIM leaders want to set up a separate Islamic court in Australia to deal specifically with Islamic divorces.
The radical idea was raised by Muslim leaders in a meeting with Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs Minister Peter McGauran last week.

But Mr McGauran and Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock yesterday rejected the idea.

"The law in this country is secular. There's a clear separation between religion and the law and Australia's laws apply equally to all citizens, regardless of their religion," Mr McGauran said.

A spokeswoman for Mr Ruddock added: "It would not be appropriate for the Government to establish a separate religious court."

But the Government said it was sensitive to problems experienced by Muslims, particularly those with dual citizenship who seek a divorce.

Muslim Women's National Network spokeswoman Jamila Hussain said a divorce was only recognised under Islamic law when the husband says "I divorce you".

A Muslim woman may obtain a civil divorce under Australian law but she cannot remarry if her husband refuses to grant her a religious
divorce.
Posted by jeremy29, Friday, 3 March 2006 3:05:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aziliz:You show yourself as a prize ignorant twit when it comes to the Bible.
F_Human: You seem to know as much about the Bible as you claim to know about your pagan moslem terrorist handbook -the koran [what else] numbat
Posted by numbat, Friday, 3 March 2006 3:09:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Numbat, I just looked up the bible passages quoted by fh and aj, and sure enough, there they are.
And yet, instead of answering, you resort to name calling.
Not particularly constructive now, is it?
Not particularly persuasive either.

Fundamentalism - that of taking the exact literal word of either the bible or the koran - is offensive to most Australians, and should rightly be railed against.

But instead of useless name calling, perhaps it would be more useful to find out what the modern interpretations are that operate in the various Australian Muslim faiths (there are certainly plenty across the plethora of Christian entities).

Ranting against old fundamentalist Islam, while certainly easy enough, doesn't really accomplish much. Find out what the dominant Australian Muslim faith says today, and if you don't like it, rant against that instead.
Posted by Alpal, Friday, 3 March 2006 4:06:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have question for Kalweb.Quote " This article is akin to being half pregnant."

Pardon my ignorance Kalweb,but does this mean that the foetus is deformed and thus is rejected by the body or does it simply mean that it is impossible to be half pregnant?

Just another question to display my male ignorance;Does menopause mean a pause from men or is it relief from fundamentalist urges of spontaneous rage caused by the threatened implosion of our personal belief systems?

I'm getting all hot and sweaty just thinking about the answers.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 3 March 2006 5:33:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
At least Jamila Hussein has the guts to lay it all out on the table, I mean, most Islamic academics are too embarressed to even admit they support it in public.

Still though, and I knew quite a bit about Sharia practice before reading this article, for a human being, a rational organism, to believe that this barbaric, sickening code of mafia thuggery - not law, could sit side by side with the civilised legal systems of the western world, is attrocious.

Absolutely attrocious.

On reading that Hussein is merely an Anglo-Australian convert made me laugh as well, as I doubt the REAL Islamic scholars, the Ayatollah Khoemeini's and such would allow, as she says, for the truly barbaric aspects of the Sharia to be reinterpreted.

I'm glad to see most posts here are rational people, who would never accept such a system gaining popularity in Australia.

As for her claims about Sharia giving women rights, it's interesting to note that the Sharia experiment in Canada, which has recently been shut down, was opposed mainly by Muslim women.

Now all we need is to get Muslims to swear an oath that Mohammed was really a Jew if they also don't want to impose Sharia on us, and once they admit it, brand them Islamofascists - the NAZI's of the 21st century. Well, no, Muslims who support Sharia always were Nazi's.
Posted by Benjamin, Friday, 3 March 2006 5:52:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Moreover, for Jamila Hussein to actually desire such a system, not only is she ill, for women are considered half the worth of a male within a Sharia court, but it effectively means that she thinks non-Muslims are dirt.

Anyone who knows anything about Sharia knows that the testimony of non-Muslims is worth nothing against a Muslim, and that, under Sharia regulations, Christians can't build churches, display religious symbols, and face death for preaching in public. For a religion that treats outsiders so cruel, it's annoying that they make so many demands of our secular society.

This may not sound very nice, but I believe that a lot of Anglo-converts take to Islam because they are overweight and fancy a bedsheet covering them instead of being looked at as an object.

But this is where I get really angry, because Islam, far from being what it's followers claim, actually is the ONLY religion which TRULY GIVES IN TO MAN'S DESIRES.

It is Islam that allows polygamy & unlimited temporary (read wealthy Gulf state Arabs travelling to Pakistan to rape 9-10 year old virgins) marriages. It is Islam that sanctions murder of enemies, killing has always been a passion of men, at least Christianity forbids it. And don't give me that defensive jihad crap, we have educated ourselves about Islam. We know about how the Prophet slaughtered a Jewish tribe & took the women for slave-girls.

It is Islam that tells it's followers that heaven is A BROTHEL AND A BOTTLE-SHOP. Rivers of wine and houris virgins.

Your all fighting a losing battle, I predict that by the end of this century, although it will be bloody, only because we've given the Islamic world western technology, Islam will be extinct.

Even if the Taliban state were the only humans on earth, eventually, women would fight for their rights, and democracy would follow.

It is HUMAN INSTINCT TO BE FREE.

Once again, I'm disgusted, appalled, that anybody could try to compare the sick, Islamist Sharia, to the legal systems of the CIVILISED west.

Go and cry.
Posted by Benjamin, Friday, 3 March 2006 6:06:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fellow_Human,

Your example to explain the co-existence of Australian and Shariah laws amounts to this:

-> If X is true ( where X = Agreement on wills)
-> then Y is false ( Y = Go to court )

Unfortunately for you, instead of illustrating co-existence of two laws, you actually proved that shariah laws are INDEPENDENT of Australian laws.

Further, your reasoning was inadequate because you failed to consider the other possibilities, such as:

-> If X is false ( where X = Agreement on wills)
-> then Y is true ( Y = Go to a court )

Also, your argument is similar to this scenario:

-> If X is true ( where X = No one commits a death penalty crime. ie good behaviour )
-> then Y is false ( Y = Give death penalty )

But according to your reasoning, the conclusion would be a ridiculous one:- Australia death penalty can co-exists with personal good behaviour.

Whereas the truth is :- death penalty is INDEPENDENT of personal good behaviour.

Just like I mentioned in my earlier post, your argument about 'Personal' shariah laws... is like saying :- Death penalty is acceptable in Australia ( because no-one commits a death penalty crime in any case).

So congratulation to you for an explanation that refuted your position rather than supporting it.

Hence your personal shariah laws are nothing more than illegal 'backyard' laws, useful for bullying other family members into submission. They certainly DO NOT co-exist with Australian laws.

Yes, just like I said, a pack of Muslim pseudo-intellects indeed.

( Have anyone heard from Jamilla Hussain, the Anglo-Irish author who is a pride and joy of Islam conversion ?? )
Posted by GZ Tan, Friday, 3 March 2006 8:19:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay

I know that you are having a lend of me. Good one!

Benjamin

I think your point about polygamy is spot on.

Questions to all:

* How come, when OLO posters challenge people of Islamic faith re Mohommed's evil acts, such as paedophilia - Muslim OLO contributors never seem to deny same?

* Why don't OLO Christians and Islamists accept that there is another viewpoint of God, life, and the world we live in? Life for all of us would be much easier if they did. Both groups claim their religion is peaceful - yet most of the postings from these groups are very aggressive, flaming, stereotypical and downright black and white. The world is grey for goodness sake.

Cheers all
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Friday, 3 March 2006 8:21:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Sickness of a Sharia shaped mind

Why refer to this faith as a ‘sickness’ ? The best illustration is probably in the ‘mindset’ of a Muslim woman.

Note the thinking processes of Hanifeh, wife (number 1.. the official one) of Kaysar Trad. .

“ It has not been easy and they remember 1998 as their worst year when Trad fell in love - "became obsessed", his wife says - with another woman. In desperation, Hanifeh proposed marriage on her husband's behalf to the other woman.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/01/1033283486605.html <=PLEASE READ

See her response to him ‘becoming obsessed with another woman” ? ‘SHE proposed MARRAIGE to the other woman !

Does this not strike most of us at best ‘odd’ ? I don’t know any women who will do other than FREAK OUT at their unfaithful husbands over such a thing !

Lets analyze this further.

“He” ....”falls in love” with this other woman.

What does this tell us about his love for Hanifeh ? Does she fulfill him ? Does she satisfy him ?
How can this be possible, because he is OBSESSED WITH ANOTHER !

So, his actions are an ongoing insult to Hanifeh, a living daily reminder of her inadequacy as a wife and a woman. YET.. her response is to ‘propose marraige on behalf of her adulterous husband ’ to this adulterous woman, for which the penalty under Islam is ‘stoning’.

Is it not ‘adultery’ to have feelings of desire towards one other than ones wife ?

Jesus said “If a man so much as LOOKS at a woman with lust in his heart, he has ALREADY committed adultery with her.

That pretty much describes 100% of us here including me.

This man, is a ‘spokesperson’ for the Islamic community, (he tells us) and he also says he is trying to inculcate ‘Islamic values’ into their NINE children.

If he simply recognized the sin of his own life, no one would be yelling like I am now, but when he actually JUSTIFIES such action GOD says:

“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil” Isaiah 5.2
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 3 March 2006 8:32:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No Kalweb,I wasn't having a go at you,it was the fanatic fundies.Are they smart enough to see the parallels?
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 3 March 2006 8:49:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Like I suspected, there is no such thing as a Muslim intellect, which is a contradiction in terms. Muslims are at best PSEUDO-intellect, something that's proven again and again. " Posted by GZ Tan

...........
It stands to reason that anyone unfortunate enough to be infected with the teddy (god) mind virus has lost all claims to be an intellect. It's possible to refer to these infected types as simply scholars in a given branch of knowledge such as found within a religious playpen where there is much rote learning.
Posted by Keiran, Friday, 3 March 2006 9:41:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BD

I have read the link re Keysar Trad. Sickening.
See ya
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Friday, 3 March 2006 10:15:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The only Christian people today who consider the Bible to be the literal word of God are an insignificant minority who most Christians consider wackos. None of the unacceptable concepts that you submitted from the Bible has any currency with Christians today.

But you know, and I know, that the Muslim world is different. Muslims even today regard the Koran as the literal word of God, and His commandments must be obeyed through Sharia Law. Christians went through their Reformation five hundred years ago where they began the process of re examining the sacred texts to make them more relevant to the modernizing world. Islam has yet to have it’s own Reformation, and until it does, it can not cope with the modern world.

Not that this worries me much. As a competing civilization, I am very happy that my civilization is beating the pants off your civilisation. So keep bobbing up and down on those prayer mats waiting for Allah to solve all of your problems for you. I want your mob to keep buggering everything up.
Posted by redneck, Saturday, 4 March 2006 5:53:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“here are some oppressive and unacceptable laws from the New Testament”

Azilis that was your first mistake. Claiming that these are ‘LAWS’.
You are mixing Church (Grace) and State (Law).

Lets subject your post to some scrutiny eh ? (p.s. anyone can goto a ’50,000 contradictions in the bible’ site and do some cutting and pasting)

Probably the best way to refute ALL of your ‘shotgun’ blast is by demonstrating the poor interpretation of just a few.

1/ ABUSE of widows ? 1 Timothy 5.9

9No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband,[a] 10and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.

What I read here is that restrictions are placed on something called the “Widows registry”
by the Church, where only those of good character and proven faithfulness are registered.
why ? SIMPLE because the Church undertook to SUPPORT them in their fading years. If the church admitted ‘anyone’ onto this register, pretty much EVERYone would seek to be listed, (u know..freebie meals etc) So, the emphasis on good character was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with ‘abuse’ of widows, quite the contrary -it was encouragement to Godly living.

2/ DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS (DICTATORS) TO RULE. ?

The verses you cite simply point out the divine sanction of “Authority” ... in the general sense for the social good. Without leadership. we have anarchy. Even ‘bad’ kings have a divine responsibility to rule justly, if they don’t they better watch their backs because they might wear a sword for a toga.

Romans 13
“for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” (even CALIGULA!)

(yes, God is sovereign)

and guess what. That applies to the next king who wipes out the current one and all his family. So, the important point is to understand “established” by God. Go do some reading.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 4 March 2006 6:47:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alpal: Sorry you were offended but again you chose to be offended yet in spite of that I tender my apologies to you.
What is the point of trying to explain a Scripture to a couple of pagans! They just would not get it at all - like casting pearls [not islamic pearls which, as you know, are perpetually untouched boys with bottoms like peaches for the use of in the pagan moslem X-rated paradise] before a certain 'unclean?' animal. numbat
Posted by numbat, Saturday, 4 March 2006 12:26:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BD, - "Jesus said “If a man so much as LOOKS at a woman with lust in his heart, he has ALREADY committed adultery with her.

That pretty much describes 100% of us here including me."

See my comments elsewhere to coach about laws which nobody keeps. You are outraged by a system that seemingly works with what you recogise to be human nature while supporting one that condems us all for being what we seemingly can't help.

I don't know how polygamy works in practice, I've only got the perspective of our culture where it is widely condemed and don't have an independant view. I do know that there are cultures where it has been accepted and have heard some arguments which suggest advantages for all concerned (other than the western view of "two become one"). I know that some key biblical fugures supposedly close to the Old Testament God practiced it and that did not seem to be a big issue to the OT God. In the New Testament the only clear ruling seems to be in regard to leaders in the church.

Again as long as all involved are consenting adults what business of yours and mine is it how people structure their domestic affairs? Is this just another case of you trying to force the christian equivalent of "shariah" on the rest of the population or can you point to clear reasons why it is societies business?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 4 March 2006 1:07:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert says that polygamy is OK as long as it involves consenting adults.
What Islamic country permits women any say in who she will marry? Or whether she has objections to becoming wife No. 1,2,3 or 4?
Posted by mickijo, Saturday, 4 March 2006 3:37:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DB and Kalweb,

SMH presented this as a loving and wonderful thing. When actually he’s basically he’s bred her out and needed/got a new mare. The morality is un-Western.

Socially the West is already behaving as if we are under sharia law. When in actual truth we are not at all, legally Australian muslims may “sin” their asses off here, as we all can (if we so choose) in secular society. (Drinking, having sex or homosexuality etc)

It’s a small jump to legally “behaving” as if we are under sharia. The turning of a blind eye to "islamic" polygamy is a classic example. Other polygamists would not be able to so blatantly admit it in the newspapers, with out reaction.

Can poly marriage claim benefits/housing for many wives? Presently I hope not, but what’s to stop a judge setting a precedent that a dole fraud like to be let go, or only lightly punished under an islamists religious rights, then islamists lobbying for legislation.

Even though this is presently illegal, consistent behaviour sets social models and laws are modified.

I think it’s legislation race between secular us and non-secular them.

Robert,

I'd never have an open poly relationship myself, but have no problem with free and consenting adults doing any kink they dig, it's a free country hey, but as Mickijo points out under islam it's not consenting as in the Western style of "choice". It's islamic law, 4 wives.

Keysar's wife was presented with either divorce or embracing the mistress
Posted by meredith, Saturday, 4 March 2006 3:53:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mickijo, I'm not claiming knowledge of how it is applied in practice (I think I made that clear) nor am I talking about Islamic countries. I'm suggesting that in this country with the framework of protection we have in place I don't see a place for the state intefering in peoples domestic arrangements unless good reason can be shown to do so other than "God does not like it" (and there issues which God seemed to be much clearer about which have been ditched as cultural context by most of the church).

I'd also ask how much worse the situation you describe is than those who find their lives torn apart by a partner getting bored with a marriage and walks out taking the kids, the house, the superannuation, future income etc with them. How much worse than the betrayal faced by those who have a partner going behind their backs to deal with what according to the bible we all do (at least in our hearts if not in practice)? How much worse than so many things that are part of ordinary marriages which are a consequence of two people trying to build lives together?

If Islam supports polygamy then women who choose to belong to the Islamic faith have that issue as a consequence of their faith. If it is all that bad it might serve to deter the vast numbers of impressionable young women who are apparently converting to Islam (one recent poster seemed to be very concerned about impressionable young women converting to Islam).

Some people might find that their needs are fullfilled much better in a small group than in a two person marriage. How many parents never get quiet time together when kids are young and how easy could it be with three adults in the house?

I've been through one western style marriage and know that we can't sit on our high seat and tell everybody else how to do it because we have all the answers.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 4 March 2006 4:15:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meredith

'Can poly marriage claim benefits/housing for many wives?'

While working for the parks I saw quite a few men with more than one wife. They get married in the mosque and the marriage is not registered with the aussie authorities and the women keep their single names. Or as Jamilla points out...

'Muslim women have always been entitled to a separate legal personality and may retain their own names on marriage'

So it's all perfectly legal I suppose.

They all live under one roof and can all claim single mother benefits if they have kids.

I've checked the pension cards and drivers licenses of mossie families, one male four women, all at the same address.

My friends working in the RTA have also reported the same.

The rare mossie, ashamed of her co religionists have told me exactly how they do it.

If someone wishes to have more than one partner, that's fine by me as long as all parties consent and support any resulting offspring themselves. But not subsidized by the taxpayer to (in)breed dozens of little mossies.

Further reading go to Kreepy Keysar's website...

http://www.speednet.com.au/~keysar/polyg.htm
Posted by CARNIFEX, Saturday, 4 March 2006 5:25:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jeremy-I didn't criticise the west, but christianity. As happy as I am about there being a separation between religion and the secular state, I still acknowledge that separation is only as strong as there are dissenters to that religious view among its population-otherwise you have at least temporary de facto religious law.

Nor do I criticise a religious law provided it's fair, and upholds both the well-being and integrity of society. There are many fair and worthwhile laws in both Christianity and Islam.

While many criticise Moslems crying 'Jihad' against the West, I'm equally horrified to be a member of an allied country of a President who cries 'Crusade' (a Christian concept), calls others 'evil' (the language of the Church) and expects everyone to agree that such a person therefore has no rights, including detention without charge or trial, torture (as approved by Rumsfeld), and the suspension of the Geneva Convention for 'enemy combatants'.

Any religion that condemns others to hell, calls them evil-doers, and consistently exhorts its followers to not speak or mix with people who don't share their faith (both Christianity and Islam have this in their holy teachings) is a faith that's dangerous to society as a whole.

I'm tired of Christians who think they're good solely on the basis they say they believe in God, believing that exempts them from any need to be civil and caring to others, villifying others solely on the basis they don't believe. Even to the extent they attack them without provocation in their own countries, torture them in their prisons, etc., then say they're only evil moslems so who cares.

As a person who would advocate toleration, I ask this: Does the advocater of tolerance tolerate intolerance? Or does the advocator speak out against intolerance?

I choose to speak out against it. I choose to speak out against anyone, any state and any religion that advocates the abuse of our fellow human beings.
Posted by Aziliz, Saturday, 4 March 2006 7:51:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have Christian Martin Ibn Wariq, Numbat, Mickijo and Redneck saying they don't believe in the Bible-Redneck says most Christians don't. If you don't want to follow the Bible then why believe in its religion?

What is this belief that is a non-belief? Why be a member of any group espousing beliefs you object to? Especially when that group insists their beliefs are the Word of God himself and every word in the Bible is to be believed (Dei Verbum)

You break the laws/rules/advocations of your own religion that are supposed to save you from Hell. That's hypocritical. Why can't you understand there are some Muslims who feel the same way about the Koran? That you don't understand that's also hypocritical.

Numbat, how about discussing intelligently and maybe even supplying some relevant quotes and some interesting links to support your objections? Do you really think all you need to win an argument is to be as insulting and as uninformative as you can? Poor Numbat.

BD-you quoted the wrong bit.

1TIM5:11-13 But refuse younger widows, for when they have grown wanton against Christ, they desire to marry;having condemnation, because they have rejected their first pledge.Besides, they also learn to be idle, going about from house to house. Not only idle, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things which they ought not.

That's abusive. They're condemned if they remarry and not supported by the church if they don't and are reviled simply because they're young widows. The elderly have to be so spotless in character it is a joke. It reeks of condemnation of most widows.

An admission from BD he wants dictatorships! It was people bravely standing up to dictatorship that brought us (pagan)democracy and broke the back on the (christian)'Divine Right of Kings'. People therefore with anti-Christian/pro-pagan attitudes.

The Renaissance, a rebirth of pagan thought through a return to ancient classical literature and the literature of the Arabs, brought about the rebirth of science, mathematics and the development of Humanism outside the christian church-more important than the Reformation for the basis of christian disbelief in the bible today.
Posted by Aziliz, Saturday, 4 March 2006 7:52:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Aziliz..

You are trying pretty hard.. so I'll give you a tick for that.
But some things you say wreak of 'trying to score a point no matter what the cost'.

Example is 'BD wants dictatorships' ERR.. hardly.
I'm just making observations about politics. I wont rehash that bit.

On the young widows, keep this in mind

1/ Paul is still speaking about a support registry/list. Young women should be able to fit into a more productive situation than older ones, this would be in the context of the extended family.

2/ Paul is speaking about condemnation due to 'promiscuous' behavior.
He says in the next breath "14So I counsel younger widows to MARRY, to have children," so the kind of 'condemnation' he speaks of is not the eternal kind, I think its more of a concession to our human frailty. Please read the REST of the chapter to gain a full understanding of the position and responsibilities of the Church in regard to 'widows' it shapes up pretty well actually.

ROBERT
Polygamy.. never brought happiness to the Old Testament patriarchs, it just brought lots of children.

Common sense tells us that a woman who knows her husband is 'obsessed' with a younger woman would be heartbroken. Life for her would be an ongoing pain, and I can never imagine she would EVER in her heart accept a 25% attention from a man, because if he has 4 wives he MUST NOT give her more than 25% of his time.

The crazy thing is, Mohammed had a 'FAVORITE' wife.. the young one,
Ayesha. Now what is the point of claiming revelation from God that you should treat and love all your wives fairly, and then NOT do it yourself ?

Regarding your other point. (and one of Aziliz also) Gods righteous standard is 100% perfect. Hence Jesus words about 'thoughts'=Adultery.
We CANNOT be righteous in Gods eyes, because we sin. Only IN CHRIST can we be acceptable to God.

Aziliz.. are you paying attention ?
"we" are not 'good'...CHRIST is good
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 4 March 2006 10:47:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aziliz,

U wrote: "I didn't criticise the west, but christianity."

You're a liar.

U wrote: "... separation between religion and the secular state...."

This statement is illogical. Religious and secular states are like ONE and ZERO. It's one or the other. 'separation' is not the right word.

U wrote: "Nor do I criticise a religious law provided it's fair..."

This statement is futile. (I see, you do not criticise a law which is fair)

U wrote: "... There are many fair and worthwhile laws ..."

This is completely pointless. Do you suppose anyone will challenge such a rhetorical statement?

U wrote: "... a President who cries 'Crusade'.... detention without charge... torture... and the suspension of the Geneva Convention..."

This is none other than a biased political accusation, wildly exaggerated music to the ears of Bush's enemies. Such accusation is ALWAYS regarded as '100% factual' to them without any regard for fair analysis. Hence you are not credible as a fair-minded person.

U wrote: "Any religion that condemns others to hell...is a faith that's dangerous to society..."

What society? This is another rubbish statement from you who claims to be fair-minded (by attacking Christianity and Islam in the same breath). The truth is, if Islam is indeed a true religion of God, then all societies ought to accept Islam in its totality. Islamic states do not regard Islam as a danger to their societies. Likewise, a 'christian' nation would not regard Christianity as dangerous to its society. It's only when non-Muslims who regard Islam as a religion of evil and hoax are confronted with Muslims (who believe Islam's way of life must prevail above all others) that makes Islam a dangerous threat to our SECULAR society.

You have ranted incessantly with impunity in a manner that makes it difficult for others to figure you out.

I don't need to go through your entire posts to pick out lots of holes in your argument.

Next time make sure you're FOCUSED on your discussion. EVERY statement carefully thought through before posting.

To me, you rants are so far lacking in logic and credibility.
Posted by GZ Tan, Saturday, 4 March 2006 10:52:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Christians have sorted through their Bible and realised that God was getting a bit carried away with Himself when He wrote things like “Suffer not a witch to live”. So they chucked out those Holy proclamations which they knew nobody would accept anymore in order to appeal to their customers. If Islam wants to survive, it had better learn how to sell the product.

Thank you for indirectly confirming that Muslims do indeed believe that the Koran is the literal word of God.

You can direct your second question at David Boaz. He is a Christian while I am a pagan. You know, one of those people that Allah said must be killed if they do not embrace Islam. So, since you obviously believe what Allah tells you, you can hardly be surprised at my hostility towards Muslims. I don’t want to appear unfriendly, but I tend to be a bit leery of people who profess that they want to kill me.

I am off the Hell with RObert. It should be fun. David will get to sit on a cloud singing hymns and hosannas, while you, Azilitz, can do whatever Muslims do in heaven. But Hell will have lots of hookers, gamblers, drunks, drug addicts, jazz players, US generals, rock stars, honky tonk pianists and people just like me. Hell is really going to swing.

Your assessment about the Renaissance was spot on. When the Western world stopped thinking through the constraints of religious dogma, we began a process whereby we powered ahead of those priest and mullah ridden societies that were stuck in a time warp. If Islam wishes to stay in the 13th Century, go right ahead. But please stay in your own countries. We like or beaches, beer and bikinis, and we would prefer it if backward thinking Muslims keep out of our faces.

Until any Muslim society has the nous to put a deep space probe into orbit, we in the west will regard Muslims as "a little people, a silly people, foolish, barbarous and cruel."
Posted by redneck, Sunday, 5 March 2006 7:09:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jamila, thank you for your article. I am not commenting about your article but the way it has been responded to. The highly vitriolic tone and righteousness of sentiments in replies to your article leave me saddened. I have no problem with reasoned debate. Unfortunately there is little to be found, there are few respectful and rational comments. These offer a glimmer of hope. They are such a minority of posts that one wonders about the people who live in Australia. How representative is this manner of our engagement with foreign concepts. I found it difficult to plow though so much invective. Surely it is possible to engage in debate without recourse to methods that are akin to what is being disagreed with.
Posted by dysphoricmaniac, Sunday, 5 March 2006 8:58:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dysphoricmaniac,

Looks like you're new here. Are you a proxy for Jamila?

So far we have not heard from her at all.

You may even be Jamila Hussain in disguise.

In case you are, here's my question:

When will you resign from your lecturer post, a vantage position which enables you to influence the impressionable and gullible students towards Islam?

It's not about vitriol and righteousness or otherwise. You have failed the very first test of being an intellect. I do not believe your tenure ought to last very long in a western institute of learning.
Posted by GZ Tan, Sunday, 5 March 2006 9:59:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apparently 'Today Tonight', Monday night 630 on 7 is profiling a mossie enjoying the benefits of sharia and the Aussie welfare system. He's got three houses and multiple wives.

It's typical TT stuff, they caught the bearded nutjob in the street and hit him with embarrasing questions. I used to do the same when working at the park

I know TT is not high end journalism but it's good to see a formerly untouchable subject finally seeing the light of day.

Other Monday night offerings include the Four Corners' take on the Cronulla 'riots'. That should be a gem.

dysphoricmaniac. You wonder what sort of people who live in Oz? They are people willing to take a stand where other countries will not.

The whole ideology of islam is such a joke it must be actively criticised. It wouldn't matter so much if it's practitioners just got on with life and were relatively harmless and weren't so given to violence, welfare fraud and crime.

Jamila can say what she wants but if she takes a stand then she has to be prepared to take the slings and arrows.

Keep it up Australia
Posted by CARNIFEX, Sunday, 5 March 2006 10:00:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spot on Redneck, my sentiments exactly.
Posted by chronicler, Sunday, 5 March 2006 10:16:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dysphoricmaniac

As you can see there is a plethora of posters who believe that vitriol constitutes debate.

On subject - I do not agree with all aspects of Sharia law anymore than I agree with a star chamber like the Lyons Forum. The latter is active in our government, the former isn't. Neither should be able to influence political decisions. However fundmentalist Christianity not only exists within our legal system but is influencing it.

We require constant vigilance against all religions controlling government and, therefore, our lives.
Posted by Scout, Sunday, 5 March 2006 10:24:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The reality of sharia is the majority of the west are saying NO...

Carniflex,
yeh thanks for that link, even tho he's dropped the nidual islam site, and is on this new soft core sharia speak, it's still pushing the same garbage, did you notice the last para? LOL
Posted by meredith, Sunday, 5 March 2006 1:23:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GZ Tan - I am not the author. You are correct, I am new to this forum.

Scout - thank you for your comments. I agree with you that fundamentalism of any persuasion is something to be very concerned about.
Posted by dysphoricmaniac, Sunday, 5 March 2006 1:49:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The vast lack of knowledge regarding Christianity is beginning to scare me more than the idiocy of Islam and its western adherants, the lefties.

People seem to have taken the time to read up on some Quran commentaries and/or shariah commentaries and history of Islam. Could I please beg you to read up on some of the underpinnings of our own culture: Christianity and its history.

The key misunderstanding, in my veiw, is that people seem to be equating all religions as institutions who espouse religious law. This is completely erroneous! Islam and Judaism espouse religious laws. Christianity does not espouse laws.

Christianity has always been, at an individual level, about following your own feelings when confronted with a moral situation. This 'following of ones feelings' is where the christian usually will say that they are guided by the Holy Spirit in their actions, as it is believed within christianity that the holy Spirit influences us towards noticing beauty (especially moral beauty).

At a institutional level, this has not always been the case (witness discussion of paul's letters above). But in seeing only this institutional side of the coin people are easily missing the fact that Christians, even in the time of Paul, were actively questioning, not only Paul's words, but all aspects of life. Christians have never all followed one set of laws, and in situations where majorities did, such as in medieval europe, any serious Christian (both at the time, and now) would be quick to condemn the institutional leadership if not the institution in whole.

I come back to the major point of this post, Christians do not have laws. Only traditions and beliefs. For a Christian any statement in the Bible (OT and NT, or as one poster incorrectly preffered to call them; the torah (should have been 'tanak'- torah is only part of OT) is not binding, at all, get it through your heads.

Christ came to write the law on our hearts, so we would do right without some binding and corrupting idea of religious law
Posted by fide mae, Sunday, 5 March 2006 1:50:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
redneck,

"I am off the Hell with RObert. It should be fun. David will get to sit on a cloud singing hymns and hosannas, while you, Azilitz, can do whatever Muslims do in heaven. But Hell will have lots of hookers, gamblers, drunks, drug addicts, jazz players, US generals, rock stars, honky tonk pianists and people just like me. Hell is really going to swing."

You might want to watch out, if BD, coach and crew are right most of those well tanned people you don't like are off to hell with us. Some of them might be a tinsy bit upset with you for some of the things you said about them. Hopefully we will all be into forgive and forget by then but don't bet on it.

Back to your post I'm not so sure that all of the christains have realised that the bible is not the literal word of God. I think that some are being pragmatic about regaining lost power. Just have a look at the continual push to get Genesis taken seriously, if you can't have creation science in the schools then push for intelligent design (and once that is in get it back to creationism I suspect).

I've read of a period in the Islamic worlds history (particularly in muslim Spain) when there was great scientific and cultural progress which died off in the 12th and 13th centuries as religious fundamentalism gained ground. We face some of the same risks in the west as christain fundamentalism seeks to regain its foothold and domination of our lives.

A few articles which I found to give a quick look at the issues are
- http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/10/14/34137/655 (if you read nothing else read this)
- http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/index.htm (I'm still working through this, seems to be similar views in part to many anti-muslims but does appear to try and put some context to the issues)
- http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2002/05/Article21.shtml
- http://www.iol.ie/~afifi/Articles/science.htm (the last two appear to be muslim authors and are mostly about issues facing muslim Science)

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 5 March 2006 2:42:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert, you only have one failed marriage? Just imagine having four wives nagging all at once and making demands all at once, it 'ud be enough to drive a bloke to drink.....except he is not allowed to drink on account of his religion. No wonder they are all a bit weird.
As for the bible and/or any other notable book, it is claimed they are God's words. I would want some proof before I swallowed that line.
Preferably from Himself.
Posted by mickijo, Sunday, 5 March 2006 2:52:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Maths and realities of Islamic Shariah law?

Did I read that correctly?

Let me see now. That would be:

The mid east tectonic rift zones, in the poor western rainfall shadow of the Himalays, that is the world's biggest geothermal OIL producing pressure cooker

Plus

First world nation deals that put most of the oil in western gas tanks at market price but where the OPEC vendor hoardes all the loot and keeps his people poor

Equals

A few really rich and powerless sheik dudes who are sneakier than a snake in the grass

Plus

Oh about ONE BILLION really pissed off people who under any other circumstance would be the salt of the earth.

Maths ... ya gotta love it!
Posted by KAEP, Sunday, 5 March 2006 3:08:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Damn it ,I missed the Mardi Gra,but did anyone see gays dancing erotically in the Hijab,or mad Mullahs masticating in the streets?

Did they have the usual send up of Catholic nuns?How about paedophile clergy hiding behind the glitter imported from Vietnam.I bet they won't go there because it's too close to home and no they'll be too scared to send up the Muslim clergy.Could there be a touch of hypocracy in their idealistic world that only lampoons safe and easy targets?

I'll have to watch the news tonight with bated breath,after the soccer of course.You won't have to stay up all night to see Dwight in flight.If the Central Coast pull this one off,there'll be a welling of respect in the eye of many a Sydneyite like myself for such an upset,since we in the land of OZ love an underdog.

But un the meanwhile,go Sydney FC!
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 5 March 2006 3:36:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jamila and the usual Jihadist posters didn't need to intervene in this thread because they have achieved their GOAL:

Muslims want us to talk about Sharia Law, research it, discuss it, massage it into our brains, and like the ‘Scouts’ of Australia start to warm up to it...

Muslims are relentless – they will chip away at our society UNTIL they institute their satanic religion on our continent. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

It is illogical to compare Islam with Christianity. As much as muslims would like us to believe it is just another “religion” – the two are absolutely irreconcilable at ANY level.

_____________

It is similarly illogical to argue with pagans about spiritual and moral views.

There is a systemic misunderstanding about Christianity and its role (or non-role) in secular states, especially in politics. We have seen the same arguments fired at Christians in many other debates on OLO.

Christianity is NOT a legal code or set of rules.

Moral standard is often misinterpreted by misguided people as EVIL against Freedom. E.g. homosexuality, abortion, same sex marriage, adultery, etc…

Pagans find it intolerable to accept "Black and White" rulings and “Absolutes”. They much prefer that everything be a more embracing “Shades of Grey”...

They chant: TRUTH is whatever is true to each individual...as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else...(yeah right RObert)

Tolerance is NOT a Christian term.

God does not tolerate evil but He allows it to exist by His Grace (until judgement day of course), His Love of all people (good and evil), and His Patience is infinite.

Christianity is about Freedom from religious bondage and laws. We are guided by the Holy Spirit in all our dealings.

Jesus' teachings could be condensed into one word: LOVE.

True Love (Agape) cannot co-exist with religion.
Posted by coach, Sunday, 5 March 2006 3:57:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
coach

Why can't "true love" and religion be married? I do not understand. Can you clarify please?

Thanks
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Sunday, 5 March 2006 5:46:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey, you have got a point there, RObert.

Looks like we had better get on because we are both going to Hell together. And it looks like David Boaz and Coach are a twosome for heaven. Maybe I should embrace Cristianity after all so I can go with David and Coach and get away from the Muslims when I die? But knowing Bronwyn and Scout, they will probably stuff heaven up by telling God He is a racist for not allowing Muslims to come into the Christian heaven too.
Posted by redneck, Sunday, 5 March 2006 7:47:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ROBERT, "Muslims in Spain".... yes.. all that enlightenment led to one of the most vicious, debauched, brutal, greedy slash and burn campaigns of outrageous human cruelty of all time, when they Attacked FRANCE.

REDNECK, maybe rough around the edges, but I pray that he like all here, will one day, sooner or later, come to know Christ as loving Lord and Merciful Savior. Mike Peel was a huge Bikie who lived a very hard life, and one day on a beach in California, God met with him, and changed his life. He spent years here in Australia with Truth and Liberation and Gods Squad bike club. The same can happen for Redneck and others.

DISPHORICMANIAC your post reminds me of the Muslims in Hamtramck Michigan, who could not understand why the non Muslims were outraged at the thought of being yelled at with "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet" 5 times a day by the loudspeaker at the mosque. "Whyyyy do they hate us so much"? they cried.. (The Muslims) well duh ! How would you like us to blast your eardrums with 'I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the father but by me" 5 times a day at a few hundred watts ?

The very fact that you don't 'get' why we are so hostile to Sharia and Islam is evidence about just how blind you are. You simply don't see how it impacts others.

FIDA.. very well said mate :)

BURNING WITCHES. context..context..context. In the social/spiritual theocratic institution of Israel, the idea of witchcraft was not only illegal, they KNEW it was and they KNEW the penalty. We do not live under Moscaic law.....

Romans8
"through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature,[b] God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering"
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 5 March 2006 8:21:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I finally said something wrong. Redneck's a pagan. My apologies.

Honestly, I want you to show me where I'm wrong-but so far that's the only time.

Mind you redneck is still calling me Moslem after I've told him many times I'm not. Not very quick on the uptake.

The Renaissance stretched from the 13th-16th Century, with the fall of Muslim Spain and the destruction of their libraries in 1492 marking the end of Muslim scientific flowering. You just sheered 300 years off by taking the earliest date.

But my point, apart from acknowledging a debt of gratitude to nonchristian and nonwestern societies for making possible the technology we have today, was the most technologically advanced have never stayed that way-it won't stay with the US. That's history. Who will be next? China perhaps?

Silly, barbarous and cruel? If you advocate attacking them in their own countries and torturing them, locking them up without charge or trial you are also silly, barbarous and cruel, redneck.

GZTan says, liar, futile, illogical, rant, rubbish, pointless, etc. and then says nothing to back up this as though simply insulting me is rational debate. Nothing intelligent to answer here nor in your post on 4187.

BD-I didn't mention that bit where young widows were instructed to marry because I didn't believe my eyes and thought I may have misunderstood it. Imagine telling widows they are wanton and break their pledge if they remarry and then tell them to remarry. What utter hypocrisy and how cruel. As though widows don't have enough grief without being typecast as wanton and gossipers. Paul gave this as the **reason** they weren't to be supported.

Paul could have said-I'm sorry we can't afford to support all widows and we hope the unfortunate young widows find solace in remarrying. But the fascinating thing it reveals BD is how you will turn yourself inside out trying to justify the unjustifiable.
Posted by Aziliz, Sunday, 5 March 2006 8:25:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BD-I do get it, you don't have to be good because christ is-that makes you better than everyone else and go to heaven. That's precisely what I object to. You think you aren't good in yourself but good by association with the 'good' christ. You don't have to be kind-caring-logical-reasonable-responsible for your actions towards others or good simply because you have Christ on your 'team'.

dysphoricmaniac-yes, it's even somewhat worse than parliament question time, don't you think? Yet, not much better, they govern the country.

There are many who've learned if they insult and bully enough others will give up. They do it because it works-many have left this list because of them.

Having served on a lot of committees and boards I have seen many who behave in similar ways--also in less direct ways to push out anyone who dissents to their views. If reasonable people give up, the unreasonable bullies dominate. Where the most valuable members of a committee because of their knowledge, talent, experience and reasonableness, withdraw because they don't like 'the politics'.

If reasonable people don't stand up to this you wind up having simple-minded bullies running the show.

Hey-Scout-good to see you back.

Fida Mae, if you don't follow the Biblical tenets, laws, suggestions or whatever you call them, you're cast into the pit to suffer for all eternity. The laws aren't mild little suggestions--if you don't follow them watch out for the Judgement day, you'll be tortured by scorpions for five months and that's just a taste(Read revelations).

You say the christians were questioning Paul! Paul lays curses on those who oppose him:

1Tim.1:20
1tim.2:17-18
2Tim.2:16-18/4:14-15
Galatians1:8-9

Constantine the Great started christianising the Roman Empire, the repression of other religions and 'heretical' christians followed. In the past 800 years we have struggled to get Christianity out of politics because its laws are too repressive and cruel. Your post is about what you wish christianity was rather than what it is-read the bible and follow up with a good book on christianity in politics from the reign of Constantine onwards.

Great Robert! Fundamentalism vs. Rationality-exactly
Posted by Aziliz, Sunday, 5 March 2006 8:30:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
fide mae,

U wrote: "Christians do not have laws.... Christ came to write the law on our hearts... without... idea of religious law"

This provides a 'missing link' which had puzzled me for quite some time.

It's a 'missing link' for my assertion that Islam is a CARNAL religion (as opposed to being spiritual) - Islam is law-based, but Christianity is not...

For example, Muslim fundamentalists believe dying for Islam is a sure way to paradise. To die... involves a physical act... a carnal act... it comes from a perception of laws.

Now consider the spiritual side:

** Coach: "Jesus' teachings could be condensed into one word: LOVE."

** BD: "Jesus said: If a man so much as LOOKS at a woman with lust in his heart, he has ALREADY committed adultery with her."

Such spiritualism is what Muslims CANNOT grasp. Instead, they talk about peace and submission, something with distinct selfish undertones, something very carnal. They regard a woman who's not covered as being 'cheap'. If that woman is raped, well that'd be her own fault. They do not have the idea that 'lust equals adultery'.
Posted by GZ Tan, Sunday, 5 March 2006 11:12:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Aziliz... believe it or not, I'm kinda warming to you :)

I rather enjoy the fact that you are bringing 'difficult' passages to our notice and providing an opportunity to discuss them.

I wish I had the word allowance to address each point in detail.

I think your point about the widows deserves further comment, because you do raise an issue of Pauls seeming divided mindset on the situation of the young widows.

You should remember that Paul is writing a 'Pastoral' letter here.
Its worth remembering that in this 'tricky' area of male female relationships, Paul made a distinction (1 Corinthians) between his 'opinion' as a believer and 'commands from the Lord'. So, it looks to me that Paul is speaking in a more general 'management' mode here than 'commands of the Lord'.

Another important point in the form of a question:

"Who would know early Christian/Roman culture and social attitudes best...Paul who lived at the time, or Aziliz in 2005" ?

I think we both know the answer to that. So, his comments about the behavior of young widows are, on the balance of probabilities, more accurate than yours :)

You also said "Paul CURSED those who opposed him" as if Pauls ministry was something that arose purely out of his own head ..(?) you seem to have forgotten that Paul was judge, jury and executioner almost toward Christians and he met Christ on the road to Damascus, which turned his life around. He was called to be an Apostle, he didn't drag it out of a lucky dip at the local market me boy.

1Tim 1:20 "Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. 20Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme."

Did Paul 'curse' them ? what did they 'do' to incur this 'handing over to Satan' ? what does that actually mean ? What was the 'goal' ?

"to be taught"...... i.e. whatever it meant (probably simply put out of the Church) it was remedial.

cheers n regards
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 6 March 2006 6:41:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Have a look at this one. Really interesting

http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null

Puts the arguement over whose book has greater validity into prespective
Posted by jeremy29, Monday, 6 March 2006 9:06:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benjamin,

"Go and cry" ... indeed.

The other day I nearly cried too, listening to "I've Never Been To Me" (sang by Charlene) and many of my all-times favourites. I am always touched by beautiful music and melody. Not to mention dances, beautiful ballet dancers in graceful motion, etc...etc...

Imagine what the world is like today, had it an Islamic world from day one?

Such a thought would send shiver down the spine of sanity.

An Islamic world that is over-populated with 'walking deads', women covered in black shroud... filth-laden barren earth infested with Talibans, constantly on the lookout to safeguard Shariah laws ... Five times a day, loud prayers from innumerable Mosques would synchronise in an dreadful monotone of ....O Allahu Akbar... ..O Allahu Akbar...

It'd be a dark and grey world where the bright colour of flowers would be futile.. like throwing pearls to swine to be trampled upon.

No sweet melody, no ballet, no beauty.... a world which is ugly, ugly and just getting uglier.

Wake up, everyone, wake up !... Then the wonderful emotion coming from what's beautiful in our free world is turning into a great sense of anger.

An Anger that must be turned into actions, to purge the world of this evil plague of humanity called - ISLAM.
Posted by GZ Tan, Monday, 6 March 2006 10:37:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A Parallel Universe is the only explanation I can find to account for the opinions and words that are placed in my 'metaphorical mouth' by some posters here. Either that or they just don't read my posts in the first place.

Take Coach, (pleease take Coach) he writes:

>>Muslims want us to talk about Sharia Law, research it, discuss it, massage it into our brains, and .... the ‘scouts’ of Australia start to warm up to it...<<

Now apart from the inherent paranoia; apparently not discussing Sharia Law means it will go away. But he goes on to say the "scouts of Australia start to warm up to it" really? What have I posted to suggest this absurdity? I have stated over and over again that I am leery of fundamentalism of any stripe and on this very thread have stated that there is much about Sharia Law with which I disagree.

Now, redneck states to R0bert >>But knowing Bronwyn and Scout, they will probably stuff heaven up by telling God He is a racist for not allowing Muslims to come into the Christian heaven too.<<

I don't know how well you can follow a thread, but R0bert and I are pretty much in agreement on the impact of religious fundamentalism of both Islam and Christianity. So I guess you'll have to put up with Bronwyn, yours truly AND Robert insisting on equal rights. Sad but true we believe in equal rights for all human beings. BTW - from what I know about heaven - very hierarchical what with all those angels, arch-angels and having to praise the lord all the frigging time. Don't think I quite fit in there, hell is definitely THE place to be.

And besides - I AM NOT RELIGIOUS. Sorry about the capitals, but somehow the Parallel Universe posters (P.U.P's) think I'm gonna embrace Islam.

Not bloody likely - I find Christianity stultifying let alone Islam.

I favour a fair go for everyone. I favour debate, discussion and discourse and opposed to diatribe, denunciation and disrespect.

Do you P.U.poster's understand now?
Posted by Scout, Monday, 6 March 2006 11:29:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aziliz - "But my point, apart from acknowledging a debt of gratitude to nonchristian and nonwestern societies for making possible the technology we have today" were we also lucky to have the muslims in spain teaching good christians about holy wars, so that spanish christianity could go on to have there own holy wars (crusades)?

"You think you aren't good in yourself but good by association with the 'good' christ. You don't have to be kind-caring-logical-reasonable-responsible for your actions towards others or good simply because you have Christ on your 'team'." close aziliz, christians believe that it is not good works that get one into heaven, rather it is faith. BUT THAT FAITH IS KNOWN TO BE TRUE WHEN IT (THE FAITH) PRODUCES GOOD WORKS. Christians do good works, not to get into heaven, which is a rather lame reason, but because we see Christ in the poor and oppressed, thus we wish to acknowledge his love for us by showing our love for him.

I too would like to thank you for addressing Christianity and asking questions, rather than disparaging it simply because it is a religion. I also like your point about the bullying element, I have recently taken some time away from OLO as I felt the ridiculous (in my view) ideas of the left were pushing me towards a more radical right position than what I actually have reasoned my way through. I found that when this happened I was pushed towards a type of groupthink that I found to be unhelpful. It would be great if OLO would slow the posting process down so one could come back the next day, after some down time, before actually posting.
Posted by fide mae, Monday, 6 March 2006 11:44:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
coach, you wrote

"God does not tolerate evil but He allows it to exist by His Grace (until judgement day of course), His Love of all people (good and evil), and His Patience is infinite."

which was pretty much my understanding of christain teaching on the matter. What I don't get is how you and others then turn it into an attempt to enforce your rules now. If your God says "I'll deal with this later" why can't you accept his decision and get on with living your own life as well as you can rather than worrying so much about the choices others make?

"They chant: TRUTH is whatever is true to each individual...as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else...(yeah right RObert)" - can you point me to where I chanted that please. I'm quite happy to think that some things people hold to be true is a load of brown smelly stuff. What I might chant if I liked chanting is "Allow people to make their own choices (right or wrong) as long as those choices do not unreasonably hurt others". Not notably inconsistent with what you said God has decided on the matter even if it does not roll off the tongue smoothly.

mickijo, that might be a glass half full/half empty thing. There is always the possibility that the other wives might get sick of the one who does the most griping and whining and deal with it for you. I don't know how well it works, as BD said polygamy may not have brought happiness to OT types just lots of children (doesn't BD keep advocating for people to have more kids?). My point is that it is not mine or anybody elses business to tell others how to arrange their lives (between consenting adults). If someones God has an issue with the arrangements they make she can tell them in person at a convenient time.

scout, great post and I like the P.U.P theory, it explains some things much better than my theory of a few weeks ago.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 6 March 2006 12:37:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RObert: Sadly you joke about going to hell, you do this not knowing God, not knowing about Christianity, not knowing about the Bible and lastly you haven't a clue just what this hell is. Please bear with me and picture a number of children in a womb - how many doesn't matter. They whilst in this womb hear a voice from one that claims to be their father [I belive one can hear while in the womb, if I ever did I've forgotten] Anyhow this voice is telling these unborn how very soon he and they will be able to walk hand in hand along a beach and even paddle in the ocean. The voice continues [remember it is only a story to get a point across] if you do not want this then you will be stillborn and be permantly separated from me your father.
Now those who believe this voice though not quite knowing just what is in store for them are nevertheless excited, they have faith and believe. The others mock the voice - what's walking, what's a beach, what's hand in hand? It's a con they shout this father does not exist. We are quite comfortable here and we have been here forever and as we see it it will continue. And if this voice is telling us the truth then we would sooner be stillborn with our friends and we will have a ball separated from this father figure.
Not an intelligent decision which is made in total ignorance eh? You my friend are in danger of making a similar stupid decision based on absolute ignorance. numbat
Posted by numbat, Monday, 6 March 2006 2:32:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
numbat, firstly thanks for the tone of the post and the obvious concern. Posts like that make a much bigger impact than those posts of yours being discussed elsewhere.

My involvement in the "Hell" scenario was a response to rednecks fun inclusion of me in his post. Redneck and I don't often have much common ground here so when there is some it's nice to take a moment and enjoy it. I don't believe in hell and very few of the posts on these threads suggest that any of us take it seriously. Would christians behave the way they do if they really believed in a hell which they might be contributing to others going to because of their hatred? I doubt it. Rather we might see christains calling for mass immigration to bring the mission field closer to home, we'd see christains falling over backwards to communicate in a manner that was worth listening to (more like that last post of yours) than the constant bashing of the different. There does not seem to be much belief in hell around here.

To use your analogy the voice you talk about I hear telling the kids "you are no good, never have been, never will be, whatever you've got it's because of me, accept that and you'll be ok otherwise I'll reject you" (For all have sinned etc). Added to that there are a bunch of other voices out there, one is talking about five pillars and some easy steps to be sure of his approval, some about how I live my life and the clearest one is saying "find out for yourself".

No I don't really "hear voices" but I am confident based on the evidence available to me that the christain god is not one I want to hang around with, now or for eternity. I like the find out for yourself thing, it seems the best use of my life that I can make.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 6 March 2006 3:42:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, so you are not a Muslim, Azilitz? Sorry, I didn’t mean to insult you.

How you figure that that chucking the Moslems out what had been Celtic Spain destroyed all scientific research in the entire Muslim world is beyond me.

My prediction is that the Asian people will become the next world powers. They are not as stupid as white people because they have never embraced this multiculturalism BS. There is no Muslim immigration to countries like China, Taiwan, Korea or Japan so they don’t have a crime problem or a terrorism problem. I admire the social cohesion of Asians, and I am sorry that white people became so self centred and carried away with the concept of individualism that we forgot why social cohesion is important. The Asians are lot more racist than us and it does not worry them one bit. Within their own countries, their people’s welfare comes first. I admire that.

As for the West invading Muslim countries, I would prefer it if we just put up a fence between the Muslim world and ourselves and let them stone each other to death for all I care. It does not matter who is in charge over there, because the only thing that they have that we want is oil. So whoever is in charge, they will come to us to do business. Throughout history, the advanced societies of the world have had to thump some sense into barbarian skulls to make them think straight.

The Roman emperor Tiberius got it right when he pulled the Roman legions out of Germania. He could not see any profit in civilising the Germans. Tiberius said that the Germans were just not worth the trouble. I think that Tiberius woud say the same thing today about the Muslim and African worlds.
Posted by redneck, Monday, 6 March 2006 4:24:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kay,

"Why can't "true love" and religion be married? I do not understand. Can you clarify please?”

I'll try.

It depends on your understanding of the words “love” and “religion” I guess.

God IS love - Agape love: pure unselfish love (passion of the cross).

As opposed to "Phelia love” meaning fond of, brotherly love or mateship kind of love,

And "Eros love” which is: lust, erotic, sexual.

The word “Religion” to me suggests “Religiosity” = organised ritualistic system, church buildings/ cathedrals, hierarchy of priests/ ministers, a set of dos and don’ts to stay in line, etc… which in my mind is what most people’s perception/ experience of Christianity.

Christianity is a Relationship - being part of God's family a disciple of Jesus – learning to love as he does.

No amount of Religiousity: "law keeping," or "righteous acts," or " rituals," or "works" will ever make us good enough for God.

But when we have love we cannot hurt others or ourselves, nor can we disobey God’s laws.

Does that mean that we are now somehow lawless? Are God's Ten Commandments now abolished? Of course not, but we are motivated by love and not governed by “religion”.

Hope it was helpful Kay.

Scout,

Definitely not paranoia – anyone with more than one brain cell knows the threat of Islam IS REAL. Talking about it without much understanding its evil nature is the danger I was eluding to.

You are right about existing (true life is only found in jesus) on parallel spheres and universes...

RObert,

Hell is a true place. Believe it and prepare for it like Scout has (Except she probably thinks it’s one big party down there).

You said things like: “What business is it of mine how many people are involved in a marriage as long as they are consenting adults?”

If you really truly believe there is nothing wrong with that statement – then you are in bigger trouble than you can imagine.

Your decision to live on a different sphere from God is just the beginning of your descent to Hell.

Enjoy the slide.
Posted by coach, Monday, 6 March 2006 6:07:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not very far from Australia, Indonesia is the most populous predominantly Muslim nation on Earth. Apart from Aceh [and possibly a few other small isolated regions], Indonesia does not have Sharia law and neither the elected government, not the vast majority of the Indonesian people, want it.
Posted by Rex, Monday, 6 March 2006 6:23:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
coach

Thank you for your response. Most interesting reading. So, does a parent's unconditional love for a child amount to the same as God's love? And if a person believes as you do, if they do not go to Church, are they less Christian?

Do you think that God would forgive you for the horrible way that you generalise about all people of Muslim faith?

Gotta go
Cheers
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Monday, 6 March 2006 7:51:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't know if we can help all these teddy infected types that abound on this forum but let's try because it is better than seeing teddy wars. There isn't a teddy (god) out there and there never was ever one of these all powerful teddies. They do not exist so what many in here have is a teddy mind virus that manifests as a serious psychotic disorder.

Just believe in an infinite universe ........ always existed and will always exist, infinite in the three spatial directions, infinite in the macro and micro. Infinite here refers to a process needing assumptions only to understand and this point explains why assumptions and not absolutes are necessary for thinking.

For example neither empty space nor solid matter can exist because they are human idealisations ..... i.e. absolutes. The reality in an infinite universe can only be the continuum between ..... never being an absolute solid nor an absolute space that we call a vacuum. If there can be no true vacuum then it is reasonable to conclude that the NON-existence of the universe is an impossibility. If the universe is infinite and has always existed then what role could there ever be for a teddy if you wanted one?

We cannot ignore the imperfections produced by INFINITY so truth is a relative process, not an end point. Hope this helps and any legal system from a teddy as proposed by people here, is a nonsense.
Posted by Keiran, Monday, 6 March 2006 8:53:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The principles of the ultimate life and relationships are based in equally loving ones neighbour as onself and that love is based in forgivness and reconciliation as demonstrated by God and expressed by Christ. The sacrifising of onself for the benifit of the relationship, as a mother does for her child, or a husband for his wife.

Any laws are based in minimalist positions of what is acceptable. Love is based in maximum positions of what I can possibly give to enhance relationship not considering personal costs.

Essentially the practise of following Christ is not adherence to legal codes but is based in absolutes of what one can give in response to the love of Christ. Sharia as with Mosaic laws may resemble extinct National codes but are based in what is acceptable as a minimum.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 6 March 2006 11:49:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Keiran

You seem just as dogmatic in your atheism as we Godbotherers are in our belief. Well, nevermind, that's the great thing about free will, we can use it as we desire.

It surprises me though that your confidence in the meaninglessness of existence is not linked to an equally strong sense of despair and hopelessness, or.. a passionate goal of unending hedonism (maybe it is ?) but I sense you either haven't come to grips with the logical ramifications of your expressed position, or, you are just hiding them from us.

The Gospel is made known to you, that Christ died for our sin, that He rose on the 3rd day, according to the scriptures, that we should turn from our unbelief and waywardness, and believe in the good news -in Christ.

Its true that this is 'folly' to some. But for we who know Him, it is salvation.

John 9
18The Jews still did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they sent for the man's parents. 19"Is this your son?" they asked. "Is this the one you say was born blind? How is it that now he can see?"

20"We know he is our son," the parents answered, "and we know he was born blind. 21But how he can see now, or who opened his eyes, we don't know. Ask him. He is of age; he will speak for himself."

So they asked him again.......

25He replied, "Whether he(Jesus) is a sinner or not, I don't know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!"

Keiran, this is why the Faith grew from a small band of ordinary men and women to become virtually the faith of the world. Its easy to argue with ideas, about Gods existence or not etc.. but like the Blind man- He "knew" one thing...I was blind...but now I see.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 7 March 2006 4:50:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BD-The Visigoths invaded Spain setting up an aristocracy over the inhabitants.

After less than 200 years the Bishops of the Visigothic Roman-Catholic Church voted Roderigo King of Spain instead of the descendents of the previous king, Wittiza.

King Wittiza's relatives found refuge with many others fleeing Visigothic persecution in Ceauta in North Africa and Count Julian, Governer of Ceauta convinced, Musa Ibn Nusair (supplying him with ships) to invade Spain.

Roderigo was defeated in battle when two of his commanders betrayed him, taking their forces over to the other side.

Many Spanish saw the moslems as liberators as most were Arian Christians who were being persecuted for their faith-the Moslems were more tolerant than Roman Catholics.

The invaders were a combined Arab and Berber force. The Arabs, more powerful gave the Berbers marginal land along the buffer zone between them and the Visigoths in the North.

The Berbers dissatisfied soon started battles with the Arabic Governor.

The South-of-France at the time was a group of smaller kingdoms-their language and culture related to Northern Spain more than Northern France. The Moslems invaded some of these Kingdoms.

It wasn't a united Islamic force against a united Christian force. One example, there was a battle where Christian count Eudo-of-Aquitaine joined forces with the Berber Emir-Munuza against the Franks but made peace with the Franks because Al-Andulusian Moslems defeated his moslem ally.

Was the moslem invasion of 'France' by the moslems the most barbaric War? No, the most barbaric war was the Albigensian Crusade. During this the Franks slaughtered one third of the South of France, wiping out entire cities, every man, woman and child-the most ruthless, carnal and obscene massacre of christians, by christians.

The Visigoths won back their lands from the Berbers, the united Al-Andalusian Emirate broke down with civil war into smaller kingdoms weakening itself. Many Arabs returned to defend Bagdad against the invading Mongols-Bagdad fell. Slowly the Moslem enclaves in Spain fell one by one.

Fide-Mae, a gracious christian, a welcome change.

The truth is all wars were holy wars back then fought under the protection of their God
Posted by Aziliz, Tuesday, 7 March 2006 7:55:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To all the P.U.P's.

Its OK - your belief system is the only correct path. The rest of us, no matter how well we conduct our lives, are doomed.

Now can we actually have a discussion now? Or are the P.U.P's gonna continue with the my religion is bigger than yours game?

Back to topic. Much of Sharia Law is compatible with our system and some isn't. Some Muslims want it introduced. Most do not. For Australian law to work we need separation from religion and politics. We do not have that right now with think tanks like the Lyons Forum. This is very bad and causing divisions and alienation of many Australians, be they Christian, atheist, Muslim or whatever.

We need laws that treat everyone equally.

Therefore, introduction of Sharia law would be a big mistake, just as much as Christians running the whole show is a massive mistake.

Christians do not represent all Australians any more than any other religion.

I am aware that every religious person thinks that their way is the only way - this is very sad. Just look at the angst it causes on these forums.
Posted by Scout, Tuesday, 7 March 2006 7:57:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Constantine the Great-the first Christian Roman Emperor, is claimed to have won a war because he fought under a christian symbol-the first christian war.

War was the norm everywhere-borders were flexible and constantly changed with the fortunes of battle and Empires were greatly admired and aspired to as well as hated. Christians inherited the Roman Empire after all.

Indo-Europeans constantly invaded the Middle East. The Persians,the Medes,the Scyths,the Hittites, the Philistines,the Luwians,the Ionians, the Greeks,the Romans,etc. The Indo-Europeans invaded Europe as well which was inhabited by other darker races, like Etruscans,-Raetians,-Ligurians,-Iberians,-Basques,-Siculans and other races obscure to us today. The Canaanites also had many colonies around the mediterranean. Invasion was the norm-the moslems were neither unique nor first there.

The crusades were predominantly led by the Roman Catholic Franks (a Germanic Confederation of tribes) with the approval of the Pope-not the Spanish.

BD:The *context*: Jamila said "...is similar to attributing the burning of witches in past times to the teachings of Christianity." Those Bible quotes *were* used to justify torturing and executing witches. The NT denounces witches as hellbound and our ancestors unlike the people on this list actually thought they were supposed to read the bible and do what it said(even the OT). They would consider the OLO Christians heretics (meaning someone who chooses for themselves-apt description I would say).

BD-I'm not convinced, bigotry is bigotry. How can *all* young widows be wanton gossips. Imagine going to the funeral where a woman is crying over the death of her husband leaving her with small children to bring up on her own and call her wanton and a gossip simply because she's young?

If a woman is left with small children and no means to support herself she may desperately search for another man to marry and she may resort to begging and prostitution if nothing else is available to her. Not wantonness but a woman who doesn't want to watch her children starve.

GZTan-You need anger management and conflict resolution classes and I genuinely mean that with compassion and not as an insult.

Redneck-out of space-next post. ;)
Posted by Aziliz, Tuesday, 7 March 2006 8:00:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GZ Tan,

You missed the point yet again Mr Intellect.
The examples I gave was to show that I can practice my choices as a Muslim without conflict with Australian laws or values.

Whether the inheritance rules we follow makes sense to you is irrelevant. The point is it is perfectly legal. People can make a will to a pet or a cat and its still legal.

The same goes for not putting my savings into an interest earning account. At best you can call it stupid but it is legal.

Coachy,

Poor theology and poor logic. Ideally people compare apples to apples.
If you think poorly of women rights and inheritance in the Quran, then what do you think of woman rights in the Bible? for a starter there isn’t any.
If you are so keen on comparisons then compare apples to apples and don’t compare Holy scripture revealed 14 centuries ago with secular system that just emerged the last 50 years.

Hi Scout,

Whats a PUP?
Posted by Fellow_Human, Tuesday, 7 March 2006 8:01:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Redneck,

"...Asian...world powers..."

Ordinary Asians will never enjoy the fruit of 'world power'. There are too many problems. My only fear is China may align with the devils (Islamic states) just so she can muscle up on the west.

"...Asian ...not as stupid as white...they...never embraced..multiculturalism..."

Not many want to live in Asia in the first place. Most places are screwed up.
Asians tend to be inward-looking. Multiculturalism is not a good fit.
Actually many educated Asians migrants here are wondering why Australian government is so STUPID to allow in so many migrants and refugees, especially those that do not integrate.

"...admire the social cohesion of Asians...white people self-centred...individualism..."

Asians only appear socially cohesive on the outside, due to shyness (inward-looking) and need to prove themselves. Inside is much selfishness and narrow-mindedness. Those who overly skew towards shyness turn to Islam (ie. Malays) or boxed in by an ideology (eg. N.Korea). Those overly skew towards proving themselves can exhibit excellence, also unimaginable atrocities (eg. Japanese in WW2).

Even being 'individualistic', westerners often engage and enjoy open inter-personal communication. Communication between Asians are is lacking, tend to be narrow-minded.

"...Asians are lot more racist than us..."

True. In Malaysia racism is known as 'positive discrimination'. I advise white Aussies to feel less guilty as being racist. Aussies are definitely on moral high-ground, and in fact risk being taken advantage of due to your 'fair-go' ethos. Most Asians understand being racist can be a necessary evil- a matter of self preservation. They attack you for politicical reason (because you take racism seriously, silly).

I believe the white-Australia policy was important then and should be returned in some forms. Humans are fallible. Influx of too many migrants no doubt will stretch one's tolerance towards others and bring up ugliness in people.

Still, even if I were not to come to Australia due to 'racist' policies, I would not wish this land be infested with this evil plague called ISLAM in any form. At least I'd be able to come for a holiday, in a land of the free, especially free from Islam.
Posted by GZ Tan, Tuesday, 7 March 2006 8:17:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
this post was meant to follow my previous, but OLO had me wait a day, sorry if no longer relevant, I will read the posts that have been posted since asap.

"Fida Mae, if you don't follow the Biblical tenets, laws, suggestions or whatever you call them, you're cast into the pit to suffer for all eternity. " actually this is a pretty sad view of christianity. Note that Christ said "no one comes to the father but through me", not through the church and its established norms (paul was establishing norms in his letters, norms which have subsequently been questioned). So salvation is available to anyone who is good, and is willing to accept Christ at the judgement, after meeting him i presume. As I said in my previous post, we have no laws in christianity, the only 'suggestion' which needs to be followed is to accept the Holy Spirit's inspiration, which means we are led towards the path of beauty rather than inanity. Perhaps Paul was being led towards the most beautiful path there was AT THE TIME, after all we don't know what was happening. Remember there were other leaders in the Christian community whose letters were not passed down, do you think they all would have come to the same conclusions?

Paul lays curses you say, obviously for opposing his ideas, so you must agree there were varying veiwpoints at the time and on these issues, a pity none of the alternative teachings were handed down.

Thanks for the discussion az
Posted by fide mae, Tuesday, 7 March 2006 9:08:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout.. you want a discussion ..ok.."your wrong" :)

You said "Christians no more represent Australians than any other religion"

This is not correct. You can argue with the ABS if you like. If you just consider 'Cultural' Christians, i.e. those who would identify with a particular tradition or other.. they represent around 69% if I'm reading it right.

So, based on your view, we DO have a very solid democratic right to influence and shape the legal cultural social fabric/texture of Australia.

Sharia law is a non starter. Its totally irrelevant. To the extent that it complies with the ruling legal regime, it doesn't matter if they agree.. we already have such laws, and where Sharia disagrees with our laws (Interest, burial, religious apostacy, alchohol and tobacco etc) it simply has no consideration whatsoever. So, overall, this is kind of a useless discussion.

What Sharia DOES represent though is the struggle of a civilization against babarity. (just for the record. 'we' are the civilization :)

So, because of the degree of threat to our way of life and freedom, the 'mine is better than yours' discussion is very relevant.

GZ

you touched on a rather scarey hypothesis, of China snuggling up to the Oil States for its own economic benefit and our detriment.
The demand for Gas (presumably from China) has impacted the market so much that the price has gone up by around 20% in just the past months !

As I've said 'ad-nauseum' wars are fought over resources not religion.

AZILIZ I truly feel you are grasping at straws on the 'widows' thing.
Pauls reference to the 'wanton' younger ones is a justification for excluding them from a PARTICULAR category of support, which is not INTENDED for young women who have extended familes. The idea that a sister in Christ would be neglected to the point of begging or hooking is out of character with every syllable he wrote and with common church practice including ours. (we have young single mums)

The use of O.T. to burn witches was not correctly interpreting the Bible, plain and simple.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 7 March 2006 11:11:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fellow Human raises an interesting point about integration/assimilation. Without participating in modern financial arrangements, aren&#8217;t the Muslim community setting themselves up for a situation where generation after generation they slowly get poorer and poorer relative to the wider community?

Just so it is clear what I am saying, by missing out on the capital gains (above interest and inflation) available when a loan is invested, after generations will (or has) this not lead to a ghettoising of the community? And won&#8217;t a lack of financial understanding, lead Muslims to just blame the wider society as they notice themselves falling behind?

I guess what GZ is having apoplexy over is the difference in values evidenced by your willingness to follow a law that is supposedly instituted directly by your god. The fact you are willing to acknowledge laws from a god, would logically mean you are less likely to accept laws instituted by mere humans. Fellow Human, would you be willing to contravene your religious laws, if they did conflict with Australian civil laws? If not, then I would argue that you should probably be denied citizenship. What are your thoughts on this, do you think you could accept Australian laws that contradict your religious laws?

Doesn&#8217;t the pledge of allegiance explicitly say that citizens MUST accept and honour democratic principles, the foremost of which is laws made by its citizens and not religious authorities? How do you reconcile your religious obligation to disdain secular laws with your citizenship which requires you to honour secular laws?

Thanks for continuing to post to this forum, it would be pointless to discuss these issues without a Muslim participating.

Ps. Regarding you statement &#8211; &#8220;If you think poorly of women rights and inheritance in the Quran, then what do you think of woman rights in the Bible? for a starter there isn&#8217;t any.&#8221; I would point out that we are told not to make distinctions between races, sexes, castes etc &#8216;there is neither Jew nor gentile, man nor women&#8230;. All are one in Christ Jesus&#8221;. Ran out of room for more.
Posted by fide mae, Tuesday, 7 March 2006 11:49:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Fellow_Human

P.U.P's are posters from a Parallel Universe. They read an entirely different meaning into my posts to what I have written.

Boaz David

On the last census roughly 68% of Australians identified as being Christian. See my post:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4161#32202

However, just like Muslims, Christians are not a single homogenous group. DUH!

Many Christians believe in evolution, in women's sovereignty over their bodies, in freedom to worship whatever set of beliefs anyone chooses, in tolerance, many Christians are not paranoid about other religions and believe in separation of Church and state, many Australians write in census forms that they are Christians even when they have never even read a bible. Many Christians are Catholics, Protestant, Anglican or practise Buddhism and hold completely different views to you BD.

These are the diverse groups that are part of the rainbow population of Australia - they are no more a single representation of an Aussie than I am - 6th generation Anglo/Celtic. We are all Australian and much, much more.

However, a star chamber which calls itself the Lyons Forum has control of our government. These are Christians who believe in a very fundamental version of Christianity. They are making decisions which affect all Australians. They tried to control medical procedures for women, they want all Australians to comply within a very narrow definition of values. Their values are not necessarily your values (unless you are willing to admit that you agree with every single decision made by the Howard government, I know from your posts you don't).

Out of the 68% of 'christian' Australians - what percentage actually practise this religion? If you asked my mother - she would tell you she is a Baptist. Then ask when she last attended church, then ask if she believes in the virgin birth, Jesus' resurrection. She would answer "2 years ago - last funeral she attended, no and no".

You want to believe you represent 68% Boaz? In your dreams. But I appreciate that you are trying to communicate with me as opposed to lecture.

Gotta love OLO :o)
Posted by Scout, Tuesday, 7 March 2006 12:10:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fellow_Human,

You've done it AGAIN !!

But honestly I'm sick of pointing out your errors in logical reasoning terms. Aziliz is a whole lot better than you !

My conclusion: When someone becomes a Muslim, his intellect spirals downwards. The more stupid he becomes, the better he gets as a Muslim, until a point he will not be able to extricate himself.

(Would someone also agree with me that stupid people become Muslims in the first place?)

Sorry for yet another abuse... had to get this off my chest.

fide mae makes a good point: "Thanks for continuing to post...would be pointless to discuss...without a Muslim participating."

So FH listen good, I've given up on you. But do answer fide mae's queries please. Thanks.
Posted by GZ Tan, Tuesday, 7 March 2006 12:56:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
fide mae, I suspect that most of the christains posting on this site have a different view of some fundamentals of christainity than views you have posted.

You could check with Coach and BD if I'll get a chance to accept Jesus at judgement once I've seen him. I'll be very surprised if they say yes.

Likewise most fundy christains regard the bible as a lot more than a set of guidelines even if they think that their salvation is by faith. Again check with coach and BD if rules from God override human government laws when a conflict occurs. In my time as a christain there was plenty of celebration of the hidden church in countries where the government interfered in the official church. Support for "Gods Smuggler" who was famous for smuggling bibles into countries illegally, missionaries going into countries on visa's that were not about missionary work, etc. Most of the christians I have known clearly believe that Gods law overrides human law when there is a conflict.

So please check with some of your fellow christains and see if what you ask of FH applies to them as well. I'll be very surprised if you get a clear answer from any of the Fundies that human law overrides what they believe God requires of them when a conflict occurs.

Good point recently about becoming entrenched in a position because of the debate, it is something that those of us who want to learn and contribute must always watch out for.

coach, maybe you could explain your mandate to interfere in other peoples domestic arrangements. Keeping in mind that your God has apparently chosen to leave the issue until judgement day and that s/he does not appear to speak clearly against polygamy in the old or new testament.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 7 March 2006 3:29:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout,

Illogical as ever - sorry.

>>However, a star chamber which calls itself the Lyons Forum has control of our government. These are Christians who believe in a very fundamental version of Christianity.<<

What is in your view of "fundamental Christianity"?

As far as I'm guessing there must be some catholics, anglicans, baptists, nominals, etc... in that group that seems to be irritating your spheres.

Fellow_Human,

Just for the sake of keeping you here longer on OLO - Apples with apples he? Nice try little fellow - wanting to be counted as part of the fruit basket now?

In Christianity men and women are equal. So the state law is just fine by me. At least it can always be amended when necessary - not stuck in the seventh century like some.

PS Your cousin Mohammad from Brisy did a good job on Today Tonight Monday. The resemblance is striking; except he seems to have a better grip on Aussie laws and women’s rights than you.

fide mae,

Very goog points - I was waiting for someone to raise the issue of "citizenship" and disloyalty to the law of the land.

The majority of Muslims in Australia have very little regard or respect to their Australian Identity. They love the benefits of our generosity – but their sole loyalty will always be to their own mother land and ultimatly the“Ummah” of Islam.

Common Johnny Howard – you started to show some Testosterone last year regarding immigration laws reforms – or are we getting too close to the next election?
.
Posted by coach, Tuesday, 7 March 2006 3:51:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In the persuit of proper legal systems and being a responsible individual, one sees a need here to spray some liberal doses of disinfectant on all these absolutes, bits of perceived magic and miracles.

In the real world what we may possess is a will to truth because there is nothing more necessary than this process. For many people especially those uninfected there is this will to not allow ourselves to be deceived and for many it is also the will not to deceive. However, truth, like everything else, for we human beings can only be relative because truth is only truth in relation to things that are untrue.
e.g.
If there were no lies, everything would be true, and therefore truth would not exist. Good couldn't exist without evil, because without evil to compare it to, everything would be good, so nothing would be good. It's the same idea as far as truth is concerned. For truth to exist, something must be proven false. For instance, It's truth that the earth revolves around the sun. However, if it was not stated false that the sun revolves around the earth, the first statement could not be concidered true. Inversely, without believing the first statement true, one could not concider the second statement untrue.

Let's then look into one such "absolute truth" from BD i.e. Christ died for our sins. Ignoring supposed theological entities and absolutes we may see that Jesus was a good bloke who didn't die from the crucifixion but was patched up by some friends and went to live to a ripe old age in Kashmir. Of course he told his mates he would come back some day to pay a visit but he never did so.

Surely one does not want to be deceived under the supposition that it is injurious to be deceived?
Posted by Keiran, Tuesday, 7 March 2006 4:34:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fide Mae,

You based your posting on a number of assumptions.
Muslims can and do invest in VC (Venture capital) type of model such as property funds, industry specific funds like mining or similar provided that is a socially responsible investment (ie gambling for example is not an industry we can invest in). the return on investment in these funds is much higher than the fixed interest anyway.

“How do you reconcile your religious obligation to disdain secular laws with your citizenship which requires you to honour secular laws?”

There is no conflict between Australian secular value and religious values and that is what I was trying to point to “Analyse this GZ Tan” Apologies to Robert De Niro. Australian secular values are the framework of the society that I accept and live in. I don’t judge or discriminate against others. Religion is a personal practice between the individual and God if he chose to believe in God. Many of my friends are of other religious beliefs or just straight atheists (sorry Rick!) but they are still my friends.

GZ Tan,

Becoming an intellect starts from respecting others and its usually earnt by others even who don’t believe in what you believe. Philo & Alchemist for example are true intellects even if we don’t share the same beliefs.

I noticed you & Coach (Mr & Mrs Intellects) would like to congratulate each other about how smart you are and all who disagree with you are not that smart.
Can I suggest anger management, serious councelling and an IQ test?

Coachy,

My question to you was clear and you failed miserably by using the clichets. The problem with "keep up or shut up" is you can't keep up but you never shut up!
Here is a challenge: can you allocate the next 10 postings telling us whats good about your faith without throwing mud on others?
Is it too hard Mr "God Is Love"?
Posted by Fellow_Human, Tuesday, 7 March 2006 4:45:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Would one like to answer?

If a devout Muslim has become a citizen of Australia and has divorced two wives under Australian law and lives seperated on a dissability pension under Australian Law, and all receive taxpayer assistance to maintain three seperate houses and families. Also his two wives and seven children are supported by Australian legal benifits. Then under shari'ah laws he still remains married and practises cungical rights under shari'ah law:

Under whose law is he condemned as he divorced both wives under Australian laws? Under shari'ah he maintains his rights and responsibilities towards his shari'ah legal wives. This is an example of coexistence of both laws.

Can we endorse that both systems coexist?
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 7 March 2006 6:50:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fellow_Human,

You asked a question – to which YOU gave the answer:

“If you think poorly of women rights and inheritance in the Quran, then what do you think of woman rights in the Bible? for a starter there isn’t any.”

I however gave you my opinion on that:

“In Christianity men and women are equal. So the state law is just fine by me. At least it can always be amended when necessary - not stuck in the seventh century like some.”

Now you are running out arguments about how women are really mistreated in islam, so you decide to go for the usual personal attacks – we all have figured you out here – so nothing’s new.

I don’t need 10 posts to explain Christianity. The answer to that you again have provided:

“God IS Love”.(full stop!)

What about Allah? Could you honestly say the same about your god?

Oooops I forgot "it" is unknowable (non-person not male nor female, right?) – just fear him, believe his prophet, and hope his angels will be in a good mood on judgement day.

The reason why you perceive my description of your so called “religion” as mud throwing is that it is the truth.

Truth hurts. You have never condemned anything I said about any aspect of islam.

You cannot honestly defend accusations about your prophet.

You cannot hide the verses and interpretations of your “holy” book.

You cannot dismiss any allegation I and others made about you and your fellow muslims.

BUT you have the audacity to challenge me to show (you) what’s good about Christianity.

I could have taken the bate – besides we’ve done it here ad nauseam.

The fact is you don’t really WANT to know, because to explain Christianity is to further expose your ‘religion” as a total fraud.

You can’t handle the truth my friend and you are a hypocrite.

How’s that for saying it as it is…err.. mud throwing?
Posted by coach, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 7:16:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GZTan-7 sentences of pure abuse-0 facts. Come on GZ, You can do it, just try

harder-like giving up cigarettes or alcohol. Better luck next time.

BD-you see straws--I see three brass monkeys.

By your own statement you're happy with ALL young widows being branded wanton.

You make the assumption the widows had other means of support through extended family. Christianity was very divisive--there are many documented cases where families abandoned their christian converts. Paul was so early it's beyond possible but extremely probable some young widow's extended families would have cast them out for being christian.

Then there would be young widows who couldn't depend on extended family

because of their death, disability, poverty or even just selfishness. You haven't explained anything except that it's alright to abuse, generalise and villify.

Hooking is extremely common in cultures where a widow/abandoned wife or wife of an invalid has no means of support and restrictions on what work they can do-they didn't have a pension back then or assisted education, etc. Prostitution was very common in Rome. As I said, given no other means of support mothers have regularly turned to prostitution and it's not unlikely to be one of the behaviours Paul is referring to when he says "wanton".

To say the christian community wouldn't allow that flies in the face of what Paul is saying--he's instructing the christian community not to be supportive because young widows are sl*ts.

As I said, "Paul could have said-I'm sorry we can't afford to support all widows and we hope the unfortunate young widows find solace in remarrying."

If you can turn black white and white black--let's just agree to disagree.

Fide Mae-so you don't agree with the bible? But the Bible was the document the Church was supposed to use to guide Christians. Read the Dei Verbum? The Church says every word in the Bible is Truth.

So you only follow you own inner intuitions as inspired by the Holy Spirit?

They burnt people at the stake for that--called them heretics.Cont...
Posted by Aziliz, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 8:24:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK--So can we get rid of the Bible now? It's too barbaric. Let's not call it the Word of God. But extract what is worthwhile and chuck the rest. What do you say? How about we write a new Bible--one more intuned with today?

After all it's an awful influence--let's remember there are Christians that are pro Armageddon and really believe War and torture as the solution to todays problems and that doesn't conflict with the Bible.

Christians have a wide range of very repressive and hateful beliefs towards others they justify from the Bible. What are we to do with them? Especially, if they say--"But we follow the Bible--you don't".

What if we get a wave of fundamentalists? There are many christians on OLO that point out the awful things in the Koran and insist Moslems follow it--what should we do with the Christians who are silly enough to believe in the Bible literally? And what if they begin to grow and become dominant? How awful. Christians who believe the Bible!

Fide Mae--are you sure your beliefs are representative of most christians?

Coach--men and women are equal? You gave your opinion on that? You didn't read my post on this?--scroll back to the one with all the bible quotes about the inferiority of women. Are you anti the Bible too?

"We all have figured" I do hope you are not including me! When was this conversation that "we all" got together and made this agreement? Is there a secret second forum going on here just for the christians? Or do you just infer that from others posts?

Your post to Fellow Human? 11 insults, an opinion and 2 facts-the line about you mud-throwing-now that was a fact. God is Love? Then why are christians less loving than others? I really don't understand how you can say that and not try to be loving. Does God do it all for you and then you don't have to?

I am trying to work this out.
Posted by Aziliz, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 8:27:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fellow_Human,

Bad news! I'm back from anger management.

You have been evasive, deceptive and muddled in your mind ALL ALONG.

Exercising a free-choice 'legally', where you bank money and whether you write a will to your pet has NOTHING to do with the issues.

The issues are:
1. Australian secular laws and Islamic Shariah laws coexist - NO
2. Conflict between secular laws and Islamic Shariah laws - YES

In Australia, there is NO Shariah Law. It is not recognised by the Parliament, not recognised by Australians. It does not even exist and cannot be EXERCISED.

Shariah Laws only exist in the minds of Muslims within their secret turf.

Many Muslims do not even recognise Australian laws. When a Muslim rapes a girl, he claims it is the girl's fault (ie. her immorality under Islam) and plead ignorance of Australian laws (ie. he's not guilty under Islamic laws).

Polygamy under Islamic laws directly conflicts with Australian laws. But Muslims circumvent Australian laws by practising polygamy secretly, privately. They then tell lies to Centrelink and thoroughly ABUSE the social welfare system.

The fact that they are able to circumvent Australian Laws is a BIG WORRY. Circumvention in no way imply coexistence of the laws. Social benefit rort by Muslims who flaunt Australian Laws should be investigated and addressed as a matter of urgency.

All Laws...(ie. legal, judicial boundary) have a boundary. Hence they are either mutually exclusive, partially exclusive or inclusive.

Shariah laws enbedded within Australia laws - FALSE
Islam accepts secular laws - FALSE
Secular laws and Islamic laws are compatible- FALSE

The laws are mutually exclusive. Nobody can be legal subject to two different laws in Australia.

Philo: "Can we endorse that both systems coexist?"

Do not use the term 'system' please, as it is vague and suggest a way of life rather than a clearly defined legal boundary. There can be a million and one different 'systems' in Australia, But only one set of Australian Law. You're muddying the water and hoodwinked by FH's deception.

Aziliz,
How am I doing?
Posted by GZ Tan, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 8:33:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GZ_Tan, hope you enjoyed the classes, time seemed to pass quickly.

"Social benefit rort by Muslims who flaunt Australian Laws should be investigated and addressed as a matter of urgency."

Agreed but why limit it to just muslims? Could also check on those asians who have done the same (not to mention the flouting of our fishing laws).

Could also have a look at my anglo ex who seems to stay within the letter of the law but not the intent with her manipulation of child residency arrangements to maximise benefits and minimise work. It's not just muslims who disregard the letter and/or intent of our laws and the system we have in place to help the needy.

We have a wider problem with welfare misuse in that many in the community regard welfare in it's various forms as a legitimate alternative to paid employment rather than as a last ditch protection against an inablility to support themselves.

coach, a lot of focus on FH's question answering but not much answering from you. I'll try again with the first and ask a copuple that I was hoping fide mae would ask you.
- please explain your mandate to intefer in other peoples lives given that your god has allowed people to have free will until judgement day.
- Do I get a chance to accept Jesus after I've seen him or is time up the moment I die? (yes/no answer will be fine)
- Do Gods laws override human laws when and if a perceived conflict occurs? (yes/no answer will be fine)

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 9:00:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Aziliz.
I'm going to stick with the widows thing, like a good doggy with a bone :)
Because I think we can venture into productive and fruitful dialogue on this one issue.

Let me complement you though, on your breadth of reading. Your summary of the events in Spain was very good and quite accurate. I think we probably read the same article.
Back to wanton widows :)
Ok.. what you are missing is the 'big picture'... yes, you are splitting straws in your effort to see those monkeys mate.. lets take a deep breath and try to get in touch with what Paul is saying here.

You seem to be hung up on the word 'wanton', perhaps a better translation might have been 'more prone to physical temptation' due to their young and productive age. Paul alludes to this very real part of life, which I'm sure (unless you have castrated yourself like Augustine) you are aware of, just like me.

The next point I'd make, is that the idea of a young women who has been lets say divorced by an unbelieving husband, and experienced rejection by his family, and perhaps does not have much of a family of her own... would be left to beg or hook is ludicrous considering the many exortations to love the family of God first and foremost.
We have such women in our own fellowship...

Back on Topic.

The problem with Sharia law, is that while it is quite possible to follow it at a personal level, this does not change the fundamental issue of it being the Law of an Islamic State, and one cannot separate Sharia into segments, like being a bit pregnant. The goal or focus of Sharia is 'submission' (i.e. "Islam") in the context of an Islamic state.

Call to Christ.

I hope and pray you will open the door of your heart to Jesus, Son of God and God the Son, Lord and Saviour. I call on you to do this, in His name and enter forgiveness and new life.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 9:05:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

Marriage and divorce for Muslims is based on intent & announcement:
a)I intend to marry this woman and b) announce to people (as witnesses) that I took this woman as a wife. A divorce for Muslims is a divorce (legal and religious). I think you are applying the Christian model of ‘civil & church’ divorce being separate procedures.

Here is the question: under Australian laws today a man can have multiple de factos (whether married to one of them or not) and can technically have a child with everyone of them provided he supports them. This is actually a real issue because in a secular model everything is based on logic and consent. The question is this: what happens if an Australian (non-Muslim) reached an agreement with 2, 3 or even 5 adult women to be married to all of them under civil laws based on their consent. How can you stop them without pulling the religious card?

GZ Tan,

You need anger management part two “Analyse that”.
You failed again to substantiate your statements of True & False.
Here is where we can agree/ Disagree with your statements:
- Should we not apply Shariah laws in Australia on the basis that a secular state should not accommodate religious beliefs of individuals or groups YES/TRUE.
- Should the criteria be on the basis of conflict of alignment with Australian laws: NO/FALSE.

Coach,

Maybe a step by step guide will help:
- Coach claims that Quran teachings on women rights & inheritence (all part 4) is less than the Christian teachings.
- FH (ie me) asks him to point me to the women rights section in the Bible (not opinions by a bunch of people developed last 50 years).
- Coach failed to provide anything but his personal opinion.
By the way, the Quran claims the great wisdom of creation is to for us to get to know each other (Letaarafu: google it). While according to you its Armageddon and splitting the world into good and evil. War & blood is eminent your teachings. Where is the Love in Armageddon?
Posted by Fellow_Human, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 9:15:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
F_Human: It's tiresome reading your pathetic letters where you are trying to defend the un or indefensable that is pagan islam.
You ask where is love, what does a moslem know about love? Or is a moslem male showing love when he brutally murders his sister/cousin et-al who has been suspected of seeing an unbeliever.
Look at any islamic nation - would you like to reside in any one of them? If not corrupt total dictatorships then they are quassi-dictatorships.
When reading your letters always in the back of my mind is - "al-taqiyya". So you are not completely trustworthy my heathen friend.
In closing you like many other God bashers are getting religion mixed up with Christianity. When you attack the Bible you do it out of ignorance. numbat
Posted by numbat, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 10:10:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert, "Do I get a chance to accept Jesus after I've seen him or is time up the moment I die? (yes/no answer will be fine)" - If you have lived your life to a standard acceptable to God (not any church or belief system) then yes. Not if you promulgate ridiculous views (in my view, but maybe not God's), which may leave me out of this meeting for all I know.

FH "Muslims can and do invest in VC type of model such as property funds, industry specific funds like mining, provided that is a socially responsible investment" - but you need the money to invest, my post pointed out that you will not be able to borrow the money with the intention of the capital gains outwaying the interest and inflation. another point on a similar vein is that of you chequing account. If you have $100000 in it, it will only be worth $97000 after a year (inflation), accounts with interest account for this by paying larger interest rates the more you invest.

FH- I am rather disappointed you did not answer my question regarding which law would take precedence, islamic or australian secular? This attitude of only answering what suits, although found in all posters, can easily lead to the assumption you are answering in what you believe to be an acceptable way (to the wider community), what people commonly term spin, and which the muslim community is charged of more and more. It would greatly help the veiw of those on OLO if you were willing to answer all question, not just spin your way out of it.

Claiming there are no conflict between Shariah and secular is not reasonable. What if a caliphate was formed covering most or all of the muslim world and the caliph called for Jihad (which would be a legal jihad under shariah, not like the current one). would you accept the call to fight against australia in this situation? if not how can you claim to follow shariah, if so how can you claim to be australian?
Posted by fide mae, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 10:19:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo: Then the man is a cheater and deserves whatever he gets for defrauding the welfare system and making a mockery of the Islamic conception of marriage. Plain and simple.

Many of the scholars I have spoken to accept that a divorce is both legal and Islamic at the same time. In fact, some even encouraged women in troublesome situations to seek a common law divorce because it affords them the rights and protections that their husband and communities conception of 'Islamic marriage' did not! Don't tarnish everyone with the same brush.

What is the real issue? When I got married, I went to a government registered marriage celebrant, who happened to be a Muslim Shaykh. We filled in the forms and signed the contracts, and did the Islamic ceremony (which really just amounts to the same plus some dogma), and all was both perfectly legal and Islamic.

Marriage is a contractual obligation between 2 people, and can be treated as such. If there is a dispute on the contract, that is what courts and other procedures are for.

Scamming the system is just that, scamming the system. I am interested in your response to F_H, however.
Posted by dawood, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 10:56:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Claiming there are no conflict between Shariah and secular is not reasonable. What if a caliphate was formed covering most or all of the muslim world and the caliph called for Jihad (which would be a legal jihad under shariah, not like the current one). would you accept the call to fight against australia in this situation? if not how can you claim to follow shariah, if so how can you claim to be australian?"

--- Following "Shariah" does not mean we follow the blind whims of just anyone. It is a well known position in mainstream Islam that if someone was born here, or becomes a citizen here (or anywhere), they accept the contractual obligation to follow the laws of the land in response to being given specific rights under the constitution.

One of these may be to disagree with government policies, or even to be a contientous objector when it comes down to it.

What makes this any different from anyone else who may be anti-government or anti-war at any given time? Just the fact that this operates from an initial religious basis instead of secular humanism?

Common sense and Islamic law both state that specific people are not responsible for what they have no hand in. Someone calling for 'jihad', with which you mean war (with all its connotations) does not mean we have to blindly obey the call; especially if we think it is an unjust one, or for the wrong reasons. Just the same as the anti-war movement spoke out against Iraq, they did not blindly obey their leaders, and thought it was for the wrong reasons. Whats the difference? Are we Muslims really so braindead that we follow every whim of government or religious leaders, no matter what nonsense they speak?
Posted by dawood, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 11:04:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What does our expert Anglo-Irish convert say to the notion of 'reversion.'

What if she changes her mind and say, wants to embrace a Hindu perspective? What does Sharia law say about this type of religious freedom? A fundamental human right, like freedom of religion, what says Sharia on this point?

Here endeth the so called 'experts' credibility... when in Rome, perhaps?
Posted by Reality Check, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 1:07:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How can you stop them without pulling the religious card?

I have no problems pulling the religious card, after all we are a secular society, sorry islam you looses on that one, just ask any Aussie .
Posted by meredith, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 1:13:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fellow_Human,

I'd go for anger management part two if you would go check your IQ level.

I don't need to substantiate my statements to you. People already know enough to form a judgement whether my statements are true/false.

R0bert,

U wrote: "...why limit it to just muslims? Could also check on those asians...".
U wrote: "...disregard... our laws and the system...to help the needy."

ALL rorts should be investigated, not limited to just Muslims. But:-

1.. What issues are we talking here? Not about asians or fishing laws, I hope?

2.. Rorting from Muslims origins from a religious faith. It's not a straight-forward law and order issue. If not nibbed in the bud, it may be uncontrollable. An Asian keeping multiple 'wives' is rare. Would you waste time and resources to check whether I have two wives?

3.. It's not about 'helping the needy'. Muslims are taking advantage of the system to breed like rabbits. (eg. Keysar Trad had 9 children in 2002. Anyone knows how many he now has?). It is DANGEROUS that our social welfare system encourages high breeding rates of the very same people who will in future threaten our freedom and democracy. Our time is running out... the Islamic plague is growing in magnitude with the number of rabbits. Hence the URGENCY to address such rorts NOW.

You may think your anglo ex is rorting the system but I'd rather think there is priority elsewhere.

dawood,

U wrote: "What is the real issue?"
Did you consider my post?

U wrote: "Common sense...does not mean we have to blindly obey..."
Islam is law-based, it claims the 'complete' literal word of Allah. Hence there is no room for your 'common sense' interpretation, which may actually makes you an 'idol-worshipper'. What kind of Islam you believe in? Is there a 'common-sense' Islam?
Posted by GZ Tan, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 3:59:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fide Mae,

Thanks for your patience.
Muslims are not allowed to call for invasion of other nations (whether Muslims or non-Muslims) since the Quran rejects transgression. Muslims can fight other Muslim nations who transgresses (like the first gulf war scenario when all Muslim nations fought Iraq).A Muslim leader as you claim ordering the invasion or aggression on another nation cannot be obeyed and would be immediately discredited for conflicting with the Quran. If God tells us ‘shall not transgress’ it means no mere mortal can break this law.

If Australia is being attacked by another country (Muslim or non-Muslim) I will defend it. Clear and simple and I don’t think any Australian Muslim is confused about that.

Your financial question is about wealth creation from borrowed capital versus re-investing your own savings. As a Muslim I chose the later because its safer and inline with what I practise. As mentioned above, If you claim that Australia is secular and should not have any religious factor in its legal system is an acceptable point of view.

Dawood,

Good posting and agree with your view on both.

Reality Check,

The Quran states there is no compulsion in religion and that faith is a matter of choice.
The death penalty is substantiated only by hadith in Shiite and wahhabi references and is in direct conflict with the Quran and the prophet and caliphates behaviour. Even when I examined early precedents during and post the time of the prophet, the apostate’s wars were waged on those who stopped paying the poor dues (ie today’s equivalent of tax evasion) not because they changed their religion. Except for a couple of countries, apostate penalty is not enforced.

GZ Tan,

“Islam has no room for common sense”

Huh? Now this is comic books material. There are no supernatural miracles in Islam and the Quran is the only scripture I am aware of that every few verses ask people to think and/ or reason.
Islam for us is about common sense.
Posted by Fellow_Human, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 5:00:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fellow_Human,

We examine the revealed word of God - both holistically and thematically - by ‘inspiration’ and ‘interpretation' under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The Bible teaches the full equality of men and women from Creation, to Eternal Redemption.

They were both created in God’s image, and “together” they blew this perfect relationship and became imperfect (sinful).

The decadent state of the world is the direct result of this “fall out” with God. What we call ORIGINAL SIN – [which was abolished in the Qur’an replacing it with some truncated stories...]

Paul’s letter to the Galatians in Chapter 3:

26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus,

27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Key word of course: “In Christ”

__________

"There is no compulsion in religion" ?

Wasn’t that verse abrogated (overridden) by many subsequent verses such as 9:73 "O Prophet! Struggle against the unbelievers and hypocrites and be harsh with them"?

If so why do you still use it here?
__________

RObert,

Strange questions coming from an ex-Christian – but here goes:

Q1:- please explain your mandate to intefer in other peoples lives given that your god has allowed people to have free will until judgement day.

God has clearly revealed His plan for humanity: His Son Jesus.

Your free will decision to accept or reject Jesus is the definite factor deciding your eternal destiny. They will be NO second chance.

Q2:- Do I get a chance to accept Jesus after I've seen him or is time up the moment I die? (yes/no answer will be fine)

No – it will be too late, since you’ve had ample chance to know him but refused to believe.

Q3:- Do Gods laws override human laws when and if a perceived conflict occurs? (yes/no answer will be fine)

It depends on what you call God's laws and the “perceived conflict” I guess.
Posted by coach, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 5:45:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
coach, can't see any relation to your answer to question 1 and the question. I'm trying to find out why you think it is OK for society to intefer in domestic arrangements between consenting adults for example polygamy. You yourself said that god allows people free choice now and will address things he's unhappy about later so I don't see how you can justify attempts to enforce what you percieve to be his will on others now. Add in that the bible does not speak against polygamy clearly anyway except for church elders and that both David (a man after Gods heart) and Solomon (supposedly one of the wisest men ever to live) both practiced it.

The other questions were to try and show fida mae that her views on christainity are not universal (I suspect that you are more mainstream than her - scary thought).

She suggested that we would have a chance to choose after seeing Jesus. Not the gospel I remember and I think that your answer would be the one given by most active christains.

Both fide mae and you have made a big deal about muslims possibly having a conflict of interest between the Quran and secular law. FH tells us that he has not spotted anything that he considers a conflict in Australia.

It was always my understanding as a christain that Gods law over-rode mans laws where a clear conflict ocurred and that seemed to be fairly mainstream teaching. Not a lot of issue with that in modern Australia but the communist block seemed to raise some cases.

If a theoretical conflict between Islamic laws and Australian law is such a cause for concern then the same applies to christains who believe that Gods law is a higher authority and to those of us who might choose to disobey a law if it went against our values to strongly (Nazi Germany). The issue that fide mae and you are giving FH such a hard time about is one that if push came to shove could apply to most of us.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 10:38:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In my example I was generalising a case of comparisons of: whose laws prevail? If the Muslim families were actually devout Muslims and disrespected Australian laws to take advantage of the infidel State and laws so they could practise shari'ah in their own way in a Western society. I believe their view of shari'ah would prevail above Australian laws. Though according to Australian laws they had observed it legally but not adhered to the spirit of the Australian laws.

To examine how shari'ah actually works in reality; I after reading the Qur'an and leading Muslim scholars, I believe the Taliban were actually interpreting both most correctly. Any other variation is merely interpreted for social convenience. In Islam gods laws as prescribed by the Koran must not be changed by any man. This was the problem Mohamet had with the Jews, as they both agreed upon their strict monotheistic views.

______________________

From the demonstration of Jesus attitudes he gave two principles upon which to interpret all laws: Devotion to the Creator, and devoted love to ones neighbour. Unless laws reflect the best wisdom available to demonstrate these principles then we are not moving in the direction of God. There are no eternal absolutes in any laws that govern nations or groups, not even Mosaic, Talmud, Shari'ah or Australian. The only judgment a Christian can make on a law is: does the wisdom and spirit of the law enhance the principles announced by Jesus Christ? Does it provide repentance, forgiveness and full reconciliation so that true love prevails.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 10:41:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To understand the principles as set down by Jesus Christ to interpret divine laws i.e.
1. Love God with all your heart, mind and body
2. Love your neighbour equally as you love yourself

Note he disregarded ritual laws by gathering grain to eat on the Sabbath, healing a sich man on the Sabbath. He did not sanction ritual prayers or fastings as the Judaisers practised as he saw prayers and fasting as a private matter of the heart and not legal ritual or dogma enforced by National religious leaders. It was this attitude that got him into trouble with the Jewish laws. He said render to Caesar what Caesar requires [eg pay your taxes] and to God what is rightfully His [that is the devotion of your life to demonstrate care and service to others]. He taught the government of God is not invested in human laws of governing people but in personal conscience and heart demonstrating devotion to God and others. He said, "The kingdom of God is within your hearts."

Shari'ah as with the Torah laws are not the absolutes of divine law as it violates the capacity of the human mind and spirit with absolute devotion to choose how one serves God. Both are based in religious ritual expected by others and not in personal choice that demonstrates the love of ones heart.

To understand how shari'ah would be applied in Australia we would see the behaviour as demonstrated by Muslims at the Lakemba Mosque as they are the most vocal about their religion. The vocal voice of an opinion is how the followers will be expected to respond in applying shari'ah.
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 9 March 2006 6:51:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fellow Human

I understand from my Muslim friends that Shariah law is mostly compatible with Australian law, however I would like to know why it is such an issue. Has it become topical simply because of the current wave of disparaging all things Islam? Or would the majority of Muslims like to see Shariah become the dominant form of law in Australia? I would like to say that there are some aspects about Shariah I think are very good - no interest on loans for example - that would make such a difference to my mortgage!

The reason I raise this as a concern to you, is because Christians are doing exactly that; enforcing their religious-based beliefs as a part of Australian governmental policy. An easy example of this was the TGA versus pollie approval of a medication.

Wouldn't the goal for any religion be the dominance of its beliefs over that of others?

It looks appalling to a unreligious person such as myself. Last night on the 7.30 Report the emotional abuse meted out by a sub-group of the Presbyterian Church in Camberwell called the "Fellowship" was brought to light. Apparently any members who had the temerity to question anything that the Fellowship had to say about their interpretation of the bible were ostracised and told that they must be followers of satan. Primitive stuff.

Look at the phenomenal abuse I receive when I criticise Christians and defend the right of religious belief of Muslims.

The real shame is that as a society we could pick the best aspects from both Shariah and Christianity - discarding the bad.

Boaz David

- when you ask me for a response and I find the time & courtesy to reply. I would appreciate some kind of answer. If you were merely being rhetorical, please indicate such, so that I do not waste my valuable time on you!
Posted by Scout, Thursday, 9 March 2006 9:13:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

U wrote: "...other variation...merely interpreted for social convenience."

Yes, I've always believed Talibans are TRUE adherents of Islam. FH and many are mere 'idol-worshippers' in Islam, here to enjoy good livings under secular laws.
.

Fellow_Human,

Your lies are getting bigger and more blazon by the days.

U wrote: "The Quran states there is no compulsion in religion...."
U wrote: "The death penalty is...in direct conflict with the Quran..."

Now go to http://www.islam-qa.com/
Then select English... then search for Question# 34830 (Ruling on physical jihad)
(Here's the link http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&QR=34830 )

Quote_1: "Physical jihad is the pinnacle of Islam"

Quote_2: "And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allaah), then certainly, Allaah is All-Seer of what they do"

Quote_3: "...some of the Muslims are embarrassed to quote the verses and ahaadeeth on jihad in front of their kaafir friends. Their faces turn red because they are too shy to mention the rulings on the jizyah, slavery and killing prisoners of war. They wish that they could erase these verses and ahaadeeth from the Qur'aan and Sunnah so that they would not be criticized by this world with its backward principles despite its claims to be civilized. If they cannot erase them then they try to misinterpret them and distort their meanings so that they suit the whims and desires of their masters....the enemies of Islam."

Note the words MISINTERPRET and DISTORT.

FH, when you exercise 'common sense' and 'reason' in Islam, what you do is MISINTERPRET and DISTORT the verses to DECEIVE us. Because you are too shy to mention the rulings on killing in Islam.

(Does your face turn red each time you lie to us on this forum?)
.

R0bert,

U wrote: "...Gods law is a higher authority..."

I gather you didn't appreciate Fide Mae's post. I quote in part: "Christians do not have laws....Christ came to write the law on our hearts...without...idea of religious law"
Posted by GZ Tan, Thursday, 9 March 2006 9:39:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BD-We must both like bones**sigh**:

1.I think that's your translation BD. 'More prone to'-a nice way of softening the blow.

I wouldn't compare Women's and men's sex drives--men on average are definitely more wanton. Also physiologically women's sex drives decrease when their children are young. Add to that, even in this culture where sex isn't taboo-the opposite, I know many (not all!) young sole mothers who have given up sex for the sake of their children. No other 'young and virile' group has a greater tendency to this--how much more in a society where it was taboo.

Being alone makes them more vulnerable-but not just to sex outside marriage,in most cases their number one focus is on their children--if they believe having a new father for them is a good solution, are they wrong?

2.Either way, young widows being 'more prone to' is given as the reason **the christian fellowship is not to support them**, you say 'of course they will' when Paul says 'no don't'-all young widows-no exceptions. If your church is different it doesn't follow Paul's advice. I commend them for that.

3.Paul condemns them if they remarry: 'having condemnation, because they have rejected their first pledge' then tells them to remarry. What hypocrisy. They need support, their children need support. At the time of their greatest hardship and greatest grief all Paul can talk about is 'wanton' 'idle-gossips' and 'don't give them any money' and 'they are bad people if they remarry'.

Point 2&3 I've brought up before, you haven't addressed them properly.

GZTan-paragraph breakdown:

1.Humorous joke(Good)
2.Blatant abuse(abuse)
3.Hijacking-ignoring what FH says was in answer to another post on that *issue*.(abuse)
4.Statement and straw man/hijack
5.Fact if referring to solely Australian law and thereby enforceability.(okay)
6.Insult(abuse)
7.Has happened with the individual only-gross generalisation(abuse). The 'ie' is fact.
8.Fact. Nonfact, not recognised under our law. Gross generalisation-not all moslems.(abuse)
9.Bigotted, Anglo-Saxons/others also abuse Centrelink with serial monogamy&bigamy--leaving unsupported children.(abuse)
10.Vague statement
11.Straw man facts-answering your own questions.
12.Partial truth.
13.Quote
14.One fact among vague statements and some insults.

cont...
Posted by Aziliz, Thursday, 9 March 2006 10:09:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
7 abusive paragraphs out of 14. You are getting much better and some of the abusive paragraphs were mixed up with partial or full facts. 5 facts and a few partial facts-an approvement on none.

Keep trying you are getting there but watch out for generalisations (ie all moslems) and bigotry (blaiming moslems for it-if others do it too) and your habit of hijacking and strawmanning, ie pretending you're answering what other people are saying when you're actually making up what they say and then answering it yourself. If you want to say something new that's fine just don't pretend it answers someone else. But keep trying-you can do it. Now you are beating numbat he's much worse than you :)

You did argue what's official law when others are arguing about how a persons private preference can fit with the law. As pointed out in other posts Moslems or anyone else, can choose to live their life under a set of rules that submit to our laws but not identical to them. There's a lot of room for choice in our legal system. christians do it. Roman Catholicism doesn't recognise divorce, abortion or contraception which is all legal under Australian Law.

Fide, your not answering my post to you--so why blame FH for not? I was genuine about wanting a new Bible. I think it a great idea.

GZTan second post-on's enough-okay?.

Philo-Christianity has some really beautiful laws, sayings, passages,etc.-but they're mixed up with others that are downright abusive, fear-mongering and cruel.

I've learnt from this list that many of Christians:

-attack Moslem scripture insisting all moslems follow it precisely (even confusing Shia and Sunni scripture) and then when faults are pointed out in their scripture insist they don't follow it.

-emphasise the beautiful passages in their own scripture and ignore the ugly, then emphasise the ugly passages in Islamic scripture and ignore the beautiful.

-use the word love a lot but are the most abusive, hateful and paranoid towards others.

-like having an enemy to attack and don't acknowledge common ground.
Posted by Aziliz, Thursday, 9 March 2006 10:10:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Coach,

Ok, so the there is nothing in the Bible that compares to the Quran (Chapter4) on women rights & inheritance. So please put the paper sword down and accept me as I am.

“No compulsion in religion’ is an eternal directive given to the Prophet Mohamed when a Christian man (with two children) chose to become Muslim and asked the prophet about the two boys. The Quran came clear and the two children remained on the Christian faith. Christians 1400 years ago lived and still live in Muslim countries until today so the verse couldn’t possibly be abrogated it. Sounds you don’t think much anyway.

Philo,

Being devout means you practice your religion and respect others including the law of the land. If a Muslim marries two women in Australia he simply broke the law and Australian laws apply. System rorts is illegal and unethical for anyone. Clear and simple.

Numbat,

Islam bashers on these forums who claim to be Jesus followers tend to use the Quran as a reference and why it is not ‘as good as the bible’. Having studied both, I am simply asking them to prove their claim when they do claim so. I never initiate comparisons but I only respond to attacks from the “Jihad Jesus” members on this forum.

As a Muslim I can’t bash Judaism, Jews, Christianity, Mosaic laws or Jesus followers as its all part of my faith

Hi Scout,

As mentioned to JimmyJ, Australian Muslims only know of a Melbourne based Imam with a 100 audience who is interested in applying Shariah laws on Muslims. I don’t know or haven’t seen anything on Australian Muslims website, blogs or mosques. It’s a puzzle that only Peter Costello can answer.

GZ Tan,

You picked a Jihadist site using 8th century literal interpretation and what do you expect?

Your comment is a bad joke like this one: a man caught his wife cheating him on a sopha, so he wrote a letter to the president to ban sophas! Maybe according to you the man is an ‘intellect’.

Aziliz,

Always good refreshing insights..
Posted by Fellow_Human, Thursday, 9 March 2006 10:52:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout: If I may try to answer your question (I am interested in F_H's response as well).

What most people do not seem to be doing, is seeing "shariah" as what it actually is - a corpus of legal principles and legal pronouncements made by scholars throught the ages on various issues. Instead, it is demonized as a rigid and unchanging tradition, of which it is actually the exact opposite.

Personally, I do not see why all this "shariah" stuff is getting so much press. I know of no one who keeps harping on about it - apart from islamophobes and worse - my Shaykhs and teachers do not even harp on about it as much! A few imams with handfuls of followers like to shout and rant, but they are sidelined by everyone else who thinks they are complete bonkers.

When shariah is mentioned by most everyday Muslims, it is in terms of a universal and almost utopiac reference to receiving justice and rights - for everyone. Most likely though, it is in reference to the 5 pillars of Islam. If justice and rights are available here, then why do Muslims need to worry about anything else? We have freedom to practise the major pillars of our religion, and most of the minor ones too - who can complain? If other groups have certain aspects of personal law that can be from their tradition, why not ours too? It is this issue, I think, which confuses many.

It is not about domination, but about seeking justice and giving rights to those who do not have them. Right now, I would much rather a secular/humanist government than any type of "Islamic" alternative. I am sure many other Muslims agree with me. You guys just hear the shouts of a few, but we have to deal with their points of view internally. They make a loud, incomprehensible racket, divorced from the heritage mentioned above, making everyday Muslims like us and specialists in the Islamic tradition sick.
Posted by dawood, Thursday, 9 March 2006 11:45:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aziliz
I commend you for many astute observations on "Christians" behavior and attitude. Quite a few are spot on.

But, back to our shared 'bone' :)

I cannot commend you though, for your stubborn clinging to 'black/white' understanding of the position of young widows in the Church.
You are also guilty of 'strawman-ing' :)

Please keep in mind that the 'list' of those for whom the Church was to take responsibility in the CONTEXT was a very specific list for particular people of Godly life and lengthy service. It is equivalent to our own mission retirement home where former misho's can be looked after if they don't have other resources.

Young widows were not eligable for THAT list, this does NOT mean they were to be viewed with disdain or neglected or whatever in the normal course of church life. You not seeing the real situation here. Paul is not saying 'don't look after them in any way' So, I have addressed that point.

I did address point 3 "Condemnation" I countered "What kind of condemnation" and expect you to research this further urself.
Using the 'compare scripture with scripture' method to flesh it out.
Your claim of Paul being hypocritical is more a comment on your own desire to impose an understanding of your own choice. *Think*...'If' they were 'condemned' in they way YOU are suggesting, they would not be in Church, but they are, so clearly Paul had a different kind of 'condemnation' in mind than you are seeking to PUT there :)

Didn't you see the 'Keep Out' sign on Pauls forehead ?

Keep up the good posts, while they may be aggressivly critical, they are also valuable.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 9 March 2006 12:24:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fellow_Human,

U wrote: "You picked a Jihadist site using 8th century literal interpretation and what do you expect?"

1... 8th century?? It's Muslims in modern secular societies in our 21th century that have lost touch with Mohammed's era. The Talibans are the TRUE Muslims. Not you 'common-sense' Muslims. That Jihadist web site is probably more contemporary than any of your favourite Islamic web sites.

2... Literal Interpretation?? Precisely and consistently what is required in Islam. You 'common-sense' Muslims will be judged as 'idol-worshippers' for misinterpretation and distortion of verses in Quran.

3... Expectation?? I expect truth and dangers to be revealed: On one-side 'common-sense' Muslims present a soft and harmless image of Islam. On the other side, their Jihadist counterparts (the TRUE Muslims) are sharpening their knives, lay in waiting to destroy our freedom and democracy.
.

dawood,

U wrote: "I would much rather a secular/humanist government than any type of Islamic alternative..."

Whether Muslims can live with us under secular laws is NOT a true test of Islam moderation and tolerance.

One of the true tests of Islam moderation and tolerance is: Can an Islamic state ever organically become a secular state?

The answer is an emphatic NO.

An Islamic state CANNOT and will NEVER turn into a secular state. It is impossible.

Therefore, while there is still time, please teach Muslims to have less children and have only one wife. Otherwise, more Islamic babies will turn this place into an Islamic state in future. You do not want that for your descendants, do you?
.

Aziliz,
Thanks for your critique. You're not your usual ranting self. What's wrong with you? :)
Posted by GZ Tan, Thursday, 9 March 2006 4:40:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dawood,

Well articulated.

Hi Scout,

Shariah is based on two elements a) prevention before correction and b) Punishment equates the offence (or of the same nature) for safer & better society. When I studied Shariah law along with French commercial laws at Egyptian university at uni back in 1989, we were given a case where a guy arrested for repeat graffiti offences was sentenced by a judge to ‘3 years of cleaning others graffiti’.

Islamic history shows Caliph Omar (3rd Leader after the prophet) suspended Shariah laws during the time of drought & famine for the fear of punishing a thief who could be stealing to eat or feed his kids. It tells you a lot about common sense in interpretation.

A recent example showed most Australians surveyed on msn website after the death penalty given to a drug smuggler actually supported the sentence. Even though the majority of voter can’t be Muslims, what they perceived as ‘fair & just’ sentence is exactly what a Shariah judge would apply.

Legal systems are on conceptual spectrum from extreme right to extreme left and hence the possibility of a conflict is practically inexistent. Societies tend to bounce from hard to soft to hard over time. Some prefer to live in a legally soft environment and adapt to high crime and social problems while others would prefer stricter social and criminal justice laws.

To summarise:

- Shariah laws are actually concepts & ideology of preventive criminal & social justice system.
- It cannot be in conflict with any laws because it the end of the spectrum of existing laws.
- It is opened for any society to implement (including non-Muslims). Similar to my example above, if an Aussie judge decided to punish a graffiti offender by sentencing him to clean graffiti, he already applied Shariah law.

GZ Tan,

Many and majority of Muslims practice moderate Islam as I happen to live in Muslim countries for 29 years. Modern and moderate Islamic thinkers are in fact a majority but the backward hateful ones usually have more press.

Peace
Posted by Fellow_Human, Thursday, 9 March 2006 5:17:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fellow_Human,

(1)...You wrote: "...Caliph Omar...suspended Shariah laws during...drought & famine.....common sense..."

What common-sense?

Make no mistake, it is WRONG, CRUEL and EVIL to cut off hand(s) of any person.

1...Caliph Omar was not showing common-sense mercy. He was FORCED to suspend the laws during a crisis.
2...Common-sense means: He should NEVER had chopped off hands of thieves IN THE FIRST PLACE.
3...That drought & famine proved that Sharia laws were unjust, foolish, evil and not practical.
4...Those whose hands had been cut off, how could they feed their children, especially when a drought came?
5...Shariah laws... Allah... are most....CRUEL and STUPID.

(2)...You wrote: "...Australians surveyed on msn website...death penalty...to a drug smuggler....perceived as fair & just;...exactly what a Shariah judge would apply."

1...I do not believe in death penalty for drug smuggling. It's UNJUST and EVIL.
2...A majority support DOES NOT mean it is fair and just. It simply means more people agree with it. That's all.
3...A Shariah judge would DEFINITELY apply a death penalty. Hence another proof that Shariah laws are not common-sense laws and they are inherently unjust and evil.

(3)...You wrote: "Some prefer....legally soft environment...others would prefer stricter social and criminal justice laws."

What common-sense is this? If I live in an Islamic state which practises Shariah laws, do you think I have a democratic choice, or even a choice?

(4)...You wrote: "...majority of Muslims practice moderate Islam...."

NOT TRUE. Most people live a simple life, they work, do the chore, try staying out of troubles if possible. Muslims ordinariness does NOT mean they are PRACTISING moderate Islam.

In fact many ordinary Muslims, 'moderate' Muslims are quite prepared to show solidarity with extremists. Who do you think are those violent anti-cartoon protestors on the streets? Many of them are just ordinary 'moderate' Muslims.

If the entire population of a country is Muslims, believe me, there would be NO freedom and democracy, EVEN IF all the Muslims are moderates.

The bottomline: When it comes to safeguarding freedom and democracy, we cannot trust a Muslim, not a single one.

In Islam there is no common-sense, only twisted minds.
Posted by GZ Tan, Friday, 10 March 2006 9:53:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GZ Tan,

“The Talibans are the TRUE Muslims. Not you 'common-sense' Muslims”

There are only two people I met who can make this statement.
- Radical Islamists who chose to ignore the context and spirituality of Islamic teachings and replaced it with literalism, AH GAzali and abboragtions.
- Christian Taliban drumming for Armageddon and take it as a self fulfilling prophecy: war is eminent ‘tell me when to realese the nukes Jesus’…if its not communism its Muslims, then Jews, then Chinese, then turn on each other…A sincere bunch of sick puppies.

Even though both are as bad, I found it much easier to knock sense into an Islamist radical than into your mob.

PS: the cartoons happened last year and I saw them in Cairo on the news last year. The recent riots are politically motivated. Mainstream Muslims like me cannot possibly hold the Danes responsible for an action of arrogance and stupidity committed by few. And no I was not the least offended I believe who insults God or one of his prophet will be judged fairly so its not really my ‘earthly’ problem.

Here are a bunch of examples of ‘existing’ Shariah laws (Islamic finance) in Australia:
- Commbank ‘equity mate’ is an Islamic housing concept. Go sue them!
- The cheque (Sakk in Arabic) is Islamic finance and so is the debt writing contracts with witnessing process is also Islamic (Quran part 2). Go sue P Costello as well! Its great there was no patents at the time otherwise you will be paying a fee to Muslims for every cheque or contract you write.

Peace,
Posted by Fellow_Human, Friday, 10 March 2006 11:03:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BD-I say again: I'm not arguing about Paul/the christians having a list helping a narrow range of people (see I agree with you here and always have).

But "Paul could have said-I'm sorry we can't afford to support all widows and we hope the unfortunate young widows find solace in remarrying."-third time. If you prefer "we are reserving our support for only special cases" without bagging young widow.

I can't find in your posts your question "What kind of condemnation?"-please find it for me. It's not there.

You did address 'condemnation':

BD"Paul is speaking about condemnation due to 'promiscuous' behavior"

In other words you agree totally with me that it's condemnation.

The word 'condemnation' wasn't my word it was Paul's(well the English Translation)-if you want to argue he meant a kind, caring sort of condemnation then go right ahead-but it was his word. He applied his condemnation to widows remarrying. He also abused young widows for being wanton and idle gossipers as well (which is a form of condemning too). That's quite enough for me.

I didn't say Paul said they were being being condemned for all eternity(ie going to hell):

BD"the kind of 'condemnation' he speaks of is not the eternal kind"

I didn't say nor suggest he said they couldn't be in the Church as you say:

BD"'If' they were 'condemned' in they way YOU are suggesting, they would not be in Church, but they are, so clearly Paul had a different kind of 'condemnation' in mind than you are seeking to PUT there"

You're pretending I suggested that(strawman).

He impuned their good character, said they didn't deserve support *because of it* and then says they 'have condemnation' for doing what he then instructs them to do. FULL STOP. That's enough for me.

If I was strawmanning then be more specific-where?

Strawman "a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted". That's what you're doing. This is a sham argument because you pretend I say things that I don't so you can easily refute it and then you ignore what I really say.
Posted by Aziliz, Friday, 10 March 2006 11:49:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not my usual ranting self? Gee GZ-I'm trying-how about my go at BD-was that ranty enough? ;)

Your posts are improving-the cut and paste of quotes to make sure you are addressing the other persons post is a good idea-you are eliminating the strawmanning. There are still some unneccessary digs in the earlier post-you would look more rational and less inflammatory if you didn't say them and you would still be getting your point across-but getting much better... the most recent one better still-although it broke down in the last few lines. You make some strong statements without backing them up. If you are going to define what a true muslim is then you need to explain why that is justified and if you are going to say fundamental muslims are the majority you need to say where your statistics come from.

Rather than making milder, more moderate interpretations of inflammatory passages in either the Koran or the Bible I would rewrite the originals-even write a whole new book. There's always a danger someone will take the obviously violent/bigotted passages literally or not notice the nuances more moderate people see in other passages.

But lets forget the dead books for a moment and look at what people and governments are really doing today:

The American Civil Liberties Union is taking Rumsfeld et al to court to sue him for torture and abuse-Rumsfeld is claiming that government officials are immune from prosecution. ACLU would have also gone after Bush but he is definitely immune from prosecution as a President.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/23379res20060306.html

They had Karpinski and two of the US guards from abu ghraib on Dateline last night, more pieces in the jigsaw puzzle damning the people up the chain of command.

Now how many Abu Ghraib type POW prisons do the Moslems have in the western Allied countries, torturing WASPs? And how many muslim countries have invaded and occupied Western Countries recently
Posted by Aziliz, Friday, 10 March 2006 12:00:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dawood & Fellow Human

Many thanks for your considered responses. I need to reflect upon what you have written and do some more research myself. I don't see why there needs to be any conflict so long as there is separation of church and state.

For example, FH you stated that Shariah was seen to be done when the death penalty was applied to Aussie drug smuggler. Well I am one of the many Australians who oppose the death penalty under any circumstances. It is not a deterrent and is regressive. Would rather the worst criminals receive life sentences where they have no other options than to reflect upon their misdeeds.

Australia doesn't have the death penalty and I hope that we never reintroduce it - is this a problem for you? How does that comply with Shariah law?

Also I understand that, as with some Christian groups, many Muslims do not believe in abortion. Like many other Australians, I believe in women having sovereignty over their bodies; their fertility. In Australia women can access legal and safe abortion. How does this fit with Shariah law? Many Christians get very aggressive and abusive on this topic. Would Muslims be the same?

I am sure there are many other areas where there is incompatability, but does any of it need to be the huge problem the media & certain pollies are making it out to be? If Australia remains tolerant of all its citizens to practise their beliefs on the proviso that these beliefs do not interfere with the freedom and rights of others, then what is the problem?
Posted by Scout, Friday, 10 March 2006 12:36:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am confused with the sharia. From a debate in Europe to try and describe the reason for [their words]"A moslem rape epidemic is sweeping over Europe and over many other nations hosts to immigrants from the islamic world."
Quote by Dudrun Eussner, a journalist specialising, among others, in Iranian philology and has worked in moslem nations: "The high percentage of gang-raping is due to the cowardliness of the young moslem men, in France named 'les jeunes'- the youngsters. As their religion is never appreciating the individuum, as such but only as part of the ummah, the 'les jeunes' are not strong enough on their own so they are acting as representatives of the ummah - fighting unbelievers, disobedient and unveiled women. [my words: by gang raping them]
This is consented to by the families. You said in mentioning your friend the retired Police Chief: parents of the rapists children don't understand why their children were arrested. This is showing their close attachment to islamic law, the sharia. In the midst of our western society they are living according to their law" end of quote.
This sharia is a lot broader than our moslems have let on - but of course "al-taqiyya" or lie and placate the stupid gullible unbeliever.
article from <frontPageMag.com> Numbat
Posted by numbat, Friday, 10 March 2006 1:33:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, and it must be very stressful living in a paranoid world where you believe everyone (or should I say, just Muslims) lies through their front teeth, and actually mean the opposite of what they say. May Gods Face shine upon you, as an old Jewish friend of mine used to say.

Scout: Islam has always had the principle of abortion enshrined within its concept of law, even from the earliest times. Most traditional schools of law have allowed it up until at least the 100-day period, and even later if the mothers life or health is in danger. I am actually pro-abortion and pro-contraception, but the same cannot be said for everyone, of course! This is due to various differences within the Islamic tradition itself, including how culture is involved in the expression of Islam.
Posted by dawood, Friday, 10 March 2006 3:08:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examples of the effects of shari'ah are the pre-cursers shari'ah laws introduced into Victoria's laws where [1] religious vilification laws have closed religious debate and [2] the exclusive use of Muslim women of Public swimming pools. The latter has now been introduced in the Villawood pool in Sydney.

Because of this attitude Muslims have toward women breeds in Muslim males that any females swimming in public places are sexually and morally loose and fair game to rape or have sex with. ie. the backless, strapless clad are exciting Muslim males to rape.

The Cronulla riots were triggered off because this became a problem near the showers on Cronulla beach by muslim males acosting young girls. The fact is they would not dare accost a muslim girl observing virginity according to shari'ah, but viewed non-muslim girls as sexually loose. This is evidence that the two attitudes toward woman cannot co-exist. Rape by Muslim males in Western countries is at epedimic proportions. The attitudes of males attending the Lakemba mosque in Sydney is a prime example that women are lesser beings. Many have several wives under shari'ah [one registered under Australian law] or concubines [defacto] by whom they have children.

It is pointless observing comparative laws on paper, it is more important on how they are applied in reality. Note how women are treated in Muslim countries where shari'ah is used when a woman is accused of fornication or adultery.

The two attitudes toward woman cannot co-exist as it is a disadvantage to a non-muslim woman.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 10 March 2006 3:11:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fellow_Human,

You wrote: "Radical Islamists...ignore... spirituality of Islamic teachings..."

SPIRITUALITY??

The Talibans know best. Islam is a CARNAL religion, NOT spiritual AT ALL.

Look at those Islamic pillars (ya, and think of 5 physical construction objects). They are ALL earthy qualities (or should I say quantities).

Pillar_1..Faith...Oneness of God...Muhammad..-> Blind faith
Pillar_2..daily prayers..-> Physical activity
Pillar_3..almsgiving.. -> Physical activity
Pillar_4..fasting..-> Physical activity
Pillar_5..pilgrimage..-> Physical activity

What's spiritual about those Islam pillars?

Worst, none will guarantee a place in paradise. There's always another distraction and exception somewhere in Qu'ran.

Mohammed said, "Whoever guarantees me (the chastity of) what is between his legs (i.e. his private parts), and what is between his jaws (i.e., his tongue), I guarantee him Paradise." (Sahih Bukhari 8.799)

Honestly, if Mohammed is here today, whispering those words in your ears, would you really believe him?

In fact in Islam, a Muslim is NEVER assured of paradise. The ONLY 100% quarantee to paradise is...(drum beats please).....

- TO DIE FOR ISLAM.

Once you're dead, you're already in paradise. Therefore there can be no more earthly requirements to fullfill, no more uncertainty and distraction. As a martyr, you are now ready to consummate virgins offered to you.

But really?

Unfortunately, in Islam, even paradise is actually quite a physical place.

I quote from a study: "In the Qur'an (and the Hadith), Paradise is a very physical place with many physical delights, including food, shade and fair maidens, all of which evoke many fond imageries to the Arab living in the harsh desert, and influenced many a Muslim to fight for Islam. Many Muslims have been adamant about the physical pleasures of Paradise."

Also: "In Islam, man and women remain married in Paradise. Man also have the privilege of many fair maidens, but there is no mention of an analogous reward for women."

Spirituality?? Is this a joke?
.

Aziliz,

Sorry, I have to say your BD debate is a dog's breakfast, meaningless point-scoring, totally unfocused.

Also, I've never regarded Paul's teachings as important. Paul was just another man. I won't waste time reading into details of his teachings. Cheers...
Posted by GZ Tan, Friday, 10 March 2006 8:17:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AZ - "The American Civil Liberties Union is taking Rumsfeld et al to court to sue him for torture and abuse-Rumsfeld is claiming that government officials are immune from prosecution" this is actually the biggest positive argument for democracy, and hopefully it will be taken as such in the middle east. What other system allows it top officials to be charged and tried? And the president can be charged in the senate, which will no doubt happen if Rumsfeld et al are found guilty.

FH - I have never really been that worried about the tiny numbers of muslims in this country and or there beliefs about shariah. b4 everyone accosts me on this, I would point out that it is our system that produces moderate islam, which will no doubt lead to no islam at all in future generations. I understand what you are saying with regards to muslims not addressing/understanding the historical use of the laws and the ideas behind them, after all it is clear not many christians understand anything about the history and interpretation of their holy book. I do not accept that moderate islam is the majority of Islam though. Surely you would agree that it is nominal muslims who are in the majority, ie, those who understand little at all about their faith, and probably cannot read arabic, so have no idea what is in the Qoran (these are found outside arab countries and iran; ie indonesia). The next block would definitely be the radical/fundamentalist groups who are all in arab countries (salafist, wahabi etc). Lastly is your own group of moderates, who are attested in all the books I have read on the subject to be a tiny fragment (thousands).

about my financial questions, do you accept that large proportions of the money made in australia each year are from borrowed funds? If not then I can see why you are haveing trouble understanding me. If muslims cannot borrow, and make money of the borrowed money, then they will fall behind economically. Do you accept this?
Posted by fide mae, Saturday, 11 March 2006 12:19:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have moved from ranting to dog's breakfast-I expected nothing less (or should I say more?) from you GZ.

I think your post a dog's breakfast too ;)

1.No definition of what you think spirituality is.

2.Calling practices nonspiritual that are considered spiritual when christians do it.

3.No justification/defence of why you think there is no spiritual dimension to the so-called 'physical activities'

4.No christian spiritual practices to clarify your position.

And the christian guarantee of going to heaven no matter how awful you are as long as you believe in christ really makes heaven an awful place. You think that is an advantage--nuts. When you are up their with all the christian serial murderers, rapists and torturers just know that I'm relieved I'm not.

Fide Mae-ah, actually the case is being tried in Germany because it couldn't be brought to justice in America. I guess that's still a democracy but unfortunately Australia prefers to model itself on the US. Odds on the US refuses to acknowledge the power of the court and that will be the end of it--just like they do with everything else. So much for American democracy. As America's little lap dog we are guilty by association.
Posted by Aziliz, Saturday, 11 March 2006 3:05:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aziliz:I'm full of hate and possibly mental - have you been reading my mail? All I did was to copy what I had read on the net about pagan islam. By the way you did not refute what I said I notice you just attacked the messenger - well done!
its not easy being: You really got to the nub of what I wrote, clever you eh? You must be a well educated person. Just what did you high-light oh! yes spelling errors wasn't it? Again well done and keep up the good work of in-depth criticism. numbat
Posted by numbat, Saturday, 11 March 2006 3:38:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Numbat-I can't work out what you are talking about. Did I say something that offended you? Can you point me to the post?
Posted by Aziliz, Saturday, 11 March 2006 7:57:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aziliz,

Sorry, I did meant to be humorous with that dog's breakfast comment etc... I guess I was too fired up to articulate that.
Still I don't think BD is interested to be bogged down in that manner of ranty debate. Neither am I interested to analyse those point-scorings, especially a debate about Paul is a complete turn-off for me. I have noticed people spend (ie. waste) too much time discussing Paul.

To answer your points:
1... I initiated the challenge so FH can argue Islam spirituality. (I don't have to reveal my 'definition'. This is purely tactical.)
2... I am targeting Islam alone. Not comparing religions. Christianity ( or any other religion) is irrelevant.
3... It is for FH (or anyone) to argue the spiritual dimension of those physical activities. I will then refute them with reasons. I don't play a match and be a referee at the same time.
4... This is irrelevant (same as point 2). I didn't even define spirituality and hence have no reason to reference Christian spiritual practices.

U wrote: "And the christian guarantee of going to heaven no matter how awful you are..."

I am aware you have some misconceptions. But I'm not your typical christian and I'm not here to preach.

Actually your point is most accurate about Islam in its carnality. In Islam, no matter how awful one is, presumably one goes to paradise when one died for Islam. A very attractive motivation for suicide bombers. Precisely the point I was making.

I have noticed many people are not here on weekends. So they do have a life, unlike you and I :(

Perhaps FH tries to convert people to Islam during his weekend socials. I hope he always encounters a GZ Tan in his crowds and hence fails abysmally always.
Posted by GZ Tan, Saturday, 11 March 2006 7:57:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aziliz: You or another said that I was full of hate and possibly mental. What others may think of me is their problem not mine. If you did not make the above comments then I tender my humble apologies - fair dinkum! If you did make those comments then my answering remarks remain. numbat
Posted by numbat, Sunday, 12 March 2006 2:20:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

“Because of this attitude Muslims have toward women breeds in Muslim males that any females swimming in public places are sexually and morally loose”.
For once I agree its a problem among Arab Lebanese community I have seen in Australia. It is not ‘Muslims’ related because I never witnessed it in Turkish, Indonesian, Indian or Anglo Muslims but rather bad manners and parenting.
Islam teaches good manners for men starts from not staring at a female. The staring & eye feasting is a true anti-Islamic behaviour.
If you want to talk about “Muslims’ then in Muslim countries staring and spitting on a female is a sexual harassment and the punishment is anything from shaving heads to 6 months lock up. Gang raping in Muslim countries is penalised by death or 25 years prison sentence. Child rapists never survive in jails in any Muslim countries because other inmates ‘terminate them’.

Hi Scout,

I was mainly giving you examples on applicability of Shariah laws. I don’t hold it against you in fact I believe its safer option than death penalty in today’s legal environment. I do support the death penalty with obvious cases where there is no doubt like repetitive drug smuggling, gang rape, child rape, etc..
Many Mystic Muslims (Sufis) like my father would be scared of supporting a death penalty because of the ‘what if he is innocent’ scenario. I take your position to be against the death penalty as kindness of heart. You are a better human being than I am I guess.

GZ Tan,

Islamic pillars are all spiritual and physical. Interesting that you attack my faith and even with blatant arrogance explaining it to others but then when a Muslim explains his faith ‘he is trying to convert people’.
Read my posting to coach today it might be relevant to your ‘challenge’.

Fide Mae,

My point is there are many ways you can build wealth with borrowing being one of them. My assets are from investing my own savings, share trading and IT & business consulting. I never borrowed and I don’t feel disadvantaged.
Posted by Fellow_Human, Monday, 13 March 2006 10:15:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
FH,

"Islamic pillars are all spiritual and physical..."

NOT TRUE. Let's look at those pillars again:

Pillar_1 .. Faith ...Oneness of God...Muhammad..-> Blind faith
Pillar_2 .. daily prayers ..-> Physical activity
Pillar_3 .. almsgiving .. -> Physical activity
Pillar_4 .. fasting ..-> Physical activity
Pillar_5 .. pilgrimage ..-> Physical activity

Leave aside Pillar_1 for a moment, the physical aspect of pillars 2-5 is antecedent and is in fact a pre-condition for the 'spiritual' aspect.

For example: Pillar_3 (almsgiving)- Two physical (non-spiritual) things are needed before almsgiving is possible- 'wealth' of the giver and a 'recipient'. Without these physical pre-conditions, the final 'spiritual' aspect cannot be fullfilled.

Consider this statement: "FH gives to XX because YY told him to do so".

The action of giving to XX has a spiritual dimension only if YY is a spiritual entity. Otherwise this is purely an earthly extortion.

What's the implication?

On their own, Islam pillars 2-5 do not have ANY spiritual dimension.
They depend on Pillar_1 (BLIND FAITH) for spiritualism.

In other words, 4 out of 5 Islam pillars are actually NOTHING more than earthly pillars, put togther in Islam by the con-man (Mohammed) as a semblance of a credible 'spiritual package'.

Mohammed could easily have added a couple more pillars to Islam and Muslims won't know the difference.

So, how about my proposal of a new pillar for Islam, the SIXTH pillar of Islam:-

PILLAR 6 of Islam: All Muslims must sweep the floor 10 times a day.

Oh ya !! Now you have it, the new SIXTH pillar of Islam, which represents the daily cleansing of Muslim's inner soul by chasing away the devil ten times a day. Sounds very spiritual, doesn't it?

Some radical Muslims are suggesting a Jihadist sixth pillar. Won't you think sweeping the floor makes for a more-humanely acceptable sixth pillar?

Boy oh boy... If not for the fact that Islam is so vile, one can always have a good laugh at such a stupid carnal religion...

chuckle...chuckle... :D

(Go find out why u should leave Islam - http://www.faithfreedom.org )
Posted by GZ Tan, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 6:18:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Fellow Human

Thanks for your thoughts. The primary reason for my questions to you and Dawood - was not so much for my personal edification (although your posts are very helpful) but because I was trying to open the thread up a little more.

My discussions with Muslim friends and acquaintances have revealed similar variation of views as you and Dawood. I really appreciate your observations regarding issues such as the death penalty where we may differ but at least we can talk in a civilised manner.

No doubt, from the following description you will recognise some of the posters to OLO.

An excerpt from an article on John Mark ministries.

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/864.htm

The extract is as follows:

"When God becomes a drug

Uncompromising judgmental attitudes.

The need to control, to be perfect, and to feel superior often lead to religious addiction. Religion offers a new sense of identity and feelings of control and self-worth. Yet it is a false sense of self-worth based on putting down, humiliating, or even persecuting others who do not share your beliefs or follow rules as rigidly. .....

So much of religious addiction is built on fantasy ..... that being religious makes you a better person. ......... religious addicts must create the fantasy that others are somehow bad, inferior, or evil in order to maintain a sense of superiority. So they fear anything that poses a threat to this fantasy- driven sense of self-respect. They preach bigotry and hatred based on race, religion, or political persuasion, unable to recognize the abusiveness and hypocrisy. .......... Projecting all of your self-hatred onto others, you judge them as harshly as you judge yourself -- always pronouncing on others the same guilty verdict you secretly impose on yourself...................When you feel compelled to force your family and friends to follow your beliefs -- and become angry and hostile when they choose not to accept them -- you are not practicing healthy religion."

We must pity them they are just addicts.
Posted by Scout, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 7:04:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout: This is why this whole Muslim conspiracy thing is laughable... apart from major things, people disagree over many others, so there is no way anyone could be a coordinated 5th column attack force set to crush "free world values" and the like.

I just feel it is very sad (and alarming!) that Muslims are not seen as authoritative enough in their own religious tradition to speak on the values they were brought up with; and for those who have knowledge, about Shariah and so on. if we can't speak about what we actually believe, then who can? It is mind boggling.
Posted by dawood, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 9:35:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dawood,

Poor reasoning on your part.

Islam does NOT require a coordinated attack force to crush free world values. The innocent and very natural human activity- Muslims having more babies, will spell the end of freedom and democracy in times to come.

Who's stopping you from telling us what you actually believe??

Though sincere as you may be, what convinces you that Muslims really know what they believe in? The truth ??

Muslims (and their naive sympathisers) are manifestly inadequate in their ability to think logically. That's why I asserted earlier there is no such thing as a Muslim intellect.

logic + facts --> truth

Muslim 'intellectualism' simply does not cut it. So how do you expect to get remotely close to the truth?

Instead of feeling sorry for your lots, I suggest a bit of lateral thinking and access this web site for your entertainment (if not enlightenment):-

http://www.faithfreedom.org

.
Posted by GZ Tan, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:10:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout,

Very good article. Religions can only provide framework for people to be better humans. To take religion as a ‘user manual’ make us loose the wisdom of it.

Dawood,

Agree.
I am amazed of how Islam bashers love to explain what Islam is and isn’t and get offended when a Muslim explains his faith. I can never think of myself explaining someone’s else religion. In fact many times I asked Philo about Christian theology to help me understand it better. I am not sure if its arrogance, religious impotence, or just pure hate.

GZ Tan,

Any idea why is your ‘freedom of faith organisations’ never allow Muslims to contribute? Practicing what you preach is a good starting point.
If you can’t see the spirituality in the 5 pillars of Islam, can I suggest a good DVD called “Shallow Hal”? Its about a spiritual guy like you. Islam is here to stay you can accept it or keep denying it until one of your kids becomes Muslim.
Posted by Fellow_Human, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 3:01:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
fellow_human: As a so called [by you]"islam-basher" I hope I am just letting this forum know what I have read regards pagan islam. Have just read an article by Dr. Wafa Sultan [an ex-moslem] some of her comments are as follows. quote: "I believe our people are hostages to our own beliefs and teachings".
"We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a Church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people"
In the debate, she questioned the religious teachings that prompt young people to commit suicide in the name of god. "Why does a young moslem man, in the prime of life, with a full life ahead, go and blow himself up?" she asked. "In our countries
, religion is the sole source of education and is the only spring from which that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched"
The other guest on this programme was a professor of religious studies, Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouli, asked, "Are you a heretic?" He then said there was no point in rebuking or debating her because she had blaphemed against islam, the prophet mohamad and the koran. Dr.Sultan took those words as a formal fatwa, since then she has received numerous death threats.
No one can leave this pagan islamic religion eh? No one can think for themselves eh? All must be totally obedient to this death-loving pagan religion eh? numbat
Posted by numbat, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 6:07:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ifran

How about some mutual repsect? I'll learn to spell your name... if you learn the concept of manners and boudries as understood in secular Modernity and curtail to Australias resounding NO to non secular islam and it's religious law.

Deal?
Posted by meredith, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 7:23:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout,
This is a good description of the nature of a religious Cult. It is worthwile studying the life and attitudes of the founders of religions to see if or how they desired the control of others minds. Perhaps begin first with the leaders of the two major religions to see if any of them come under this "drug".
________________________

Quote, "When God becomes a drug

Uncompromising judgmental attitudes.

The need to control, to be perfect, and to feel superior often lead to religious addiction. Religion offers a new sense of identity and feelings of control and self-worth. Yet it is a false sense of self-worth based on putting down, humiliating, or even persecuting others who do not share your beliefs or follow rules as rigidly. .....

So much of religious addiction is built on fantasy ..... that being religious makes you a better person. ......... religious addicts must create the fantasy that others are somehow bad, inferior, or evil in order to maintain a sense of superiority. So they fear anything that poses a threat to this fantasy- driven sense of self-respect. They preach bigotry and hatred based on race, religion, or political persuasion, unable to recognize the abusiveness and hypocrisy. .......... Projecting all of your self-hatred onto others, you judge them as harshly as you judge yourself -- always pronouncing on others the same guilty verdict you secretly impose on yourself...................When you feel compelled to force your family and friends to follow your beliefs -- and become angry and hostile when they choose not to accept them -- you are not practicing healthy religion."
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 7:32:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PC is religious it's based on New Age Religion, it's commited alot of human rights breaches in its unrealistic and selfish idealism.

Sure you can wake up feeling like u are the "nice guy"... but now the racist card, due to deceitful over use by the PC, is dead what about people who really need it?

Why is being a victim nut job so good for people? Bigger dole checks?

You PCers have a lot to answer for
Posted by meredith, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 7:39:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Quote, "Islam: Cult or Religion?
Faith Freedom, By Ali Sina
"Islam is known as the second largest religion. The very fact that 1.2 billion people call themselves Muslims vests Islam with the mantel of legitimacy and confirms the claim that it is a religion. But is it?
Can 1.2 billion people be wrong? Well, in logic we have something called "argumentum ad numerum". It states that something is true if a lot of people believe in it. But argumentum ad numerum is a logical fallacy. Truth cannot be established by the consensus of the majority. In fact many arguments have been proven to be false, even though everyone in the world once accepted them as true. For example, not until a few centuries ago everyone believed that the Earth is flat and is at the centre of the universe. Despite that common belief both geocentricity and the idea of the flat Earth were false. A false belief does not become true even if everyone thinks they are true.
Therefore, not only 1.2 billion people, but the entire mankind can be wrong. As Bertrand Russell said: “The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” (Source)
After shattering the myth of argumentum ad numerum, let us put Islam under scrutiny and see whether it is a religion or a cult.........."
He then lists the characteristics of a cult and compares Islam to this list."

At http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina50218.htm
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 8:28:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is an outage!! I feel Muslims are after my 9-year-old daughter... as FH wrote to me : "....until one of your kids becomes Muslim."

Did anyone tell FH I have a 9-year old? I fear for my little girl.

You can take a man away from a mountain but you can NEVER take the Mohammed out of a Muslim man.

Mohammed said: "And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah alone...."

In a similar vein, FH said (paraphrased): "Islam is here to stay (ie. I will fight you GZ until you believe)... keep denying it (ie. nothing you GZ can do)... until one of your kids becomes Muslim (ie. your 9 year old daughter will be mine.)"

FH, I do not believe in SHARIAH LAWS so I'll spare you the death penalty even if you touch my little one. But if I have my way, your punishment will include surgical grafting of a piece of pig skin (tatooed with words "Pigs are Beautiful") onto your body, to be followed by application of a thick layer of pork fat ointment on your body.

Talking about pigs, actually I had some bacon for dinner last night. Why don't you try some ham and bacon for a change?

No ?? Does Allah forbid Muslims to even get close to pigs?
Don't be silly. How did Allah created pigs in the first place?

Actually, pigs are VERY important to Islam. A true moderation in Islam will no less requires a recognition that pigs are also lovely creatures of God.

I think a campaign to 'cuddle-a-pig-a-day' among the Muslims would be necessary to promote Islam moderation and change Muslims prejudice. NOTHING LESS WILL DO.

chuckle...chuckle... :D

I'm going nut for laughing at such a vile religion founded by a pedophile.

Last but not least, a reminder to FH to not go near my daughter !! Remember my threat of a pig-skin graft.

( To find out why you should leave the CULT called Islam:- http://www.faithfreedom.org )
Posted by GZ Tan, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 6:34:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo

The excerpt I quoted from was written by a Christian, however religious addiction, as you have pointed out, may apply to any faith. I agree entirely.

However, I notice you seem to have missed the raison d'etre of my post which is this:

Many Christian posters to OLO exhibit all of the symptons of religious addiction.

1. That their belief is the only truth
2. Abuse of others who disagree
3. Denigration of other faiths

If you had bothered to read the entire article instead of merely rephrasing what I had written, then perhaps you would understand my point.

As a result of these posters addiction, it is virtually impossible to have any meaningful dialogue with any of them. I can effectively communicate with R0bert, Fellow Human, Dawood, Rex, Shonga, Brownwyn and others. These people, though diverse in background, share one thing in common - they do not engage in constant rhetoric of their beliefs nor do they denigrate others. They respond to questions and try to give considered answers.

Philo - do you find posts from the likes of Coach, Numbat, Kactuz unnecessarily abusive? If you don't, I can only assume that you approve of their divisive methods. In which case, you do not care if someone exhibits symptoms of religious addiction if they are Christian.

BTW - I acknowledge, Philo, that this time you have made a response to a post of mine without recourse to personal insult. Congratulations.
Posted by Scout, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 8:26:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

The puzzle for me reading for those writers was not about not about their shallow or lack of understanding of Islam or their intellectula dishonesty (Like Boaz David sometimes). The puzzle I can't figure out is why do they still call themselves "Ali" , "Irshad" , "Salman".
I would have thought the first thing they do after 'seeing the light' is to change their names into more fluffy stuff like Madonna, Michael Jackson and Russell Crowe.

Also, your 'freedom to bash Muslims' websites never give the 'freedom' to Muslims to defend or discuss their faith. Even new Anglo Muslims like Dawood was shocked to see the 'freedom' in action.

GZ Tan,

I am trying to think of what type of person will use the hysterical upper case and use things like 'chukles chukles'! I can only think of my daughter's age kids on msn...please refrain from using LOL and PMSL...

BRB..I mean...Peace,
Posted by Fellow_Human, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 12:03:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I always found gammon steaks and bacon to taste a little too sickly sweet for my tastes, but my Dad still eats his bacon sarnies for breakfast every day. Chinese roast pork (char siu) tastes much better, but I prefer the roast duck.

Just because we can't consume things from pigs does not mean that we believe they should be eradicated from the face of the earth, or even that they are necessarily vile creatures. I have no idea where you get your ideas on Islam from, certainly not those who are educated in their religious tradition.

I remember seeing the young child of one of my friends so happy to touch all the animals at a "kid's farm", including the pigs, which he didn't expect to be hairy. This was at the Easter Show last year, and I am sure the same will happen this year too. Plenty of Muslims around enjoying time with their families, and also plenty giving their kids the experience of the farm animals the same as everyone else.
Posted by dawood, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 1:01:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
F_H and those of the same ilk: We who write and comment on what we read on various web sights. We who comment on what we read in the print media/TV. We who comment on what a mad mullah says are islamic bashers. Strange that you never answer what is said but brush them of as moslem persecution - you poor dears.
As I stated on the other forum I see/read what most islamic nations have - brutality, dictatorship, massive corruption, death, squalid misogynistic life style etc, Even the quaint custom many pagan nations have that whenever the young son passes wind for the first time :-) out come the kalashnikovs and magazines of bullets are sent heaven wards - civilised behaviour? I DO NOT WANT AUSTRALIA TO GO THAT WAY! Until you mob arrived we were not doing too bad at all.
You complain - well that's the pagan moslem way eh complain at how badly you are treated by right wing fervent Christians. That I call you pagans well by Bible definition you are pagans or if you prefer heathens. Remember there's no 70 perpetual virgins and 32 perpetual untouched boys with bottoms like peaches for you my pagan friends. guess who - Yes your friend - numbat
Posted by numbat, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 4:07:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fellow_Human,
In identifying Cults it's their control over the minds of followers, and threats if one leaves the fold. It's the charisma, obsessive ideas and dynamics of a leader that entices weak and uninformed people into the following, and it's this type of character trait that controls others minds.

It's the tribal elders who protect the tribe eg Hammas. Others outside the tribe who want to think differently to the tribal elders eg Israel are fair game for terrorising or death.

A friend told me, a son of a Russian Orthodox man recently beat his 21 year old son to a pulp and excommunicated him from the family because he chose to attend a Christian church other than Orthodox. This is the nature of cultish beliefs, the individual has no right to think for himself or question the religion.

When reading the Qur'an clear attitudes of obsession emerge in the writer and all the definitions of cult are evident. He denies history for a theological rant to establish his position. Persons questioning the beliefs or denying the beliefs are in danger of death. These attitudes pervade most of Islam today.
___________________________
Indonesia: Morality War

Moral crusaders focus on females

The Age, Karuni Rompies, March 11 2006

"LILIS Lindawati finished waitressing at 8pm and was waiting for a bus, she says, when the men in brown shirts came. Five jumped from the back of a ute and forced her into a nearby van.

The three-month-pregnant mother of two was about to become another casualty of Indonesia's escalating morality war. Her crime: she was female, alone and wearing make-up. A tube of lipstick sealed her fate.This week, on International Women's Day, thousands of Indonesian women demonstrated against the morality crusade. Several regional administrations, including Tangerang,have introduced by-laws reflecting Islamic sharia law. A proposed national anti-pornography law will ban public kissing and any clothing considered alluring. Baring a navel would earn a jail term. Moderate Muslim organisations support the changes, but intellectuals, feminists and artists are beginning to mobilise against what they believe is a plan to reshape Indonesia."

At: http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2006/03/10/1141701696120.html
Posted by Philo, Friday, 17 March 2006 5:56:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Indonesia is touted as a tolerant democratic Muslim Nation - Is this the type of law we in Australia want?

Couple arrested in Aceh for breaking Islamic law
ABC News, 15 March 2006

"A former leading member of the Aceh separatist movement, GAM, and a French aid worker have been arrested for breaking the province's strict Islamic law prohibiting unrelated men and women being alone together. Amni bin Ahmad Marzuki who was one of the GAM peace negotiators, faces up to nine strokes of the cane and a fine if convicted by the Bandah Aceh Sharia Court. Police said the pair were caught together in a parked car at around midnight on Monday night by local residents who handed them over to the police. Aceh has adopted partial Islamic law and religious police patrol the streets enforcing a strict moral code. Marzuki and four other negotiators were jailed by Indonesia for up to 15 years after the collapse of initial peace talks in 2003 but were released last August after a peace agreement was signed. The woman who was not identified will not be tried because she is not a Muslim."

At: http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1592159.ht
Posted by Philo, Friday, 17 March 2006 6:00:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 28
  7. 29
  8. 30
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy