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 > It's all about mini skirts and veils > Comments

It's all about mini skirts and veils : Comments

By Mirko Bagaric, published 27/10/2006

In truth, opposition to the face veil is all about Western prejudice, just as opposition to the mini skirt is all about Islamic prejudice.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 21
  7. 22
  8. 23
  9. All
Humans have evolved to have expressive faces. You can tell a lot about a person's emotional state just by looking at their face.

When a person seeks to have a conversatin with me in which their face is covered, but mine is not, they are putting me at a disadvantage. If we're using the phone then at least we're both in the same position.

Maybe I should start carrying a paper bag with me. If a veiled woman wants to talk to me, I'll put the bag over my head first. That will put us in the same position, and she would hardly be in a position to be offended.

Sylvia.
Posted by Sylvia Else, Friday, 27 October 2006 9:19:59 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 is almost criminal. A religous leader stands up and says rape and adultery are women's fault, and all you can say is 'Of course the comments by the Sheik are impertinent'.

That's it? If your daughter was gang-raped you'd say they were being impertient?

'face veils are so inoffensive they are ignored'.
No Mr. Bagaric they are a symbol of ownership and oppression, and to me equate exactly to the Nazi Yellow Star.

gw
'
Posted by gw, Friday, 27 October 2006 9:43:31 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
Get used to it for christs' sake - Sylvia Else - that goes for the rest of you as well! If you are offended by what others wear the problem resides in you.

There is little more to say on the matter.

Apart from this

Give it a while - maybe a decade - people will then be squealing about something else that offends their pathetic sensibilities - my guess is it might be the Melanesians - but hey! what would I know?

Once we were pissed off at the greeks and Italians for their "weird food", then it was the turn of the asians who were "taking over" and now its the turn of the hapless muslims all because some of their compatriots turned a few westerners into pink mist - this is turning into a pogrom
Posted by sneekeepete, Friday, 27 October 2006 9:50:36 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
I doubt that most Muslim women prefer to wear a total face covering, they wear it subject to their males wishes. They are not acting without duress of males or culture.

Western women have personal choice to wear as they please; this is hardly the case among Muslim women. The constant harping by Middle Eastern Muslim Immams and males that Western women are nothing more than a peice of meat put out for maurading animals [males] to eat hardly encourages personal choice in dress. It rather presents Muslim males as sexual perverts acting as maurading animals not able to restrain their sexual appetites.

Comments like this are both insulting to honourable Western women and to sexually restrained responsible Muslim men. Both these sections of our society deserve a public apology. The Immam is an insult to good people and is divisive to good attitudes in society.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 27 October 2006 9:52:05 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
Let's cut to the chase here.

The need for Muslims men to order their women to "cover up", is because; for hundreds of years these same men couldn't keep their penises to themselves.... and they'd use force on any woman who wouldn't give in! After any such woman was sexually abused (for her transgressions of the male laws) she would be accused of adultery and then stoned to death in the village centre - because she was using her feminine charms to "entice" men.

Barbaric ? ABSOLUTELY !!

Such are the wonderful foundations of modern Islam. Go figure for yourself.
Posted by Iluvatar, Friday, 27 October 2006 10:03:11 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
Debate over the veil should be separated from other issues regarding Islam and the treatment of women. The veil is offensive for reasons which are entirely unrelated to religion and philosophy.

It simply is not acceptable to go with one's face covered in an open society like ours. It is sinister and insulting to those who wish to communicate openly and freely with other members of the community.

No one would tolerate scores of people shopping, dining out, or using public transport with balaclavas on, and the veil should be viewed no differently.
Posted by Sancho, Friday, 27 October 2006 10:18:36 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
What nonsense! How could anyone say that the predictable and wholly legitimate reaction to another silly comment from Sheik Doolally “reveals and underlying racist core in Australia”?

Rather than attend one of his philosophy classes as he suggests, Mirko should be avoided like the plague. The man has flipped his lid. I used to agree with most of what he said, but times are sure a-changing.

It is not “absurd” to suggest that we “have the right to view the faces of those with whom we come into contact”. Faces are a means of recognition and, like it or not, judgement of people on first contact.

A person without a face does not exist. Comparing the face with other parts of the body, generally covered, shows just how far down the logic ladder Mirko has slipped. What other means of identification are there for driving licences, passports. And, how would Birko go identifying half a dozen Muslim women with covered faces at a police line-up?

Western and non-Muslim objections to covered faces have nothing to do with “intolerance to difference”. As for mixing more with different cultures, would anyone feel right having a friend whose face they had never seen?

Come on!
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 27 October 2006 10:38:16 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
"As for mixing more with different cultures, would anyone feel right having a friend whose face they had never seen?"

Actually I'm quite happy never having to ever see your face
Posted by Rainier, Friday, 27 October 2006 10:54:17 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
sneekeepete please don't misrepresent what I say. I did not say I was offended by full face veils.

However, for the reasons I've stated, I do object if someone wearing one wants to talk to me. Given that I do not as a rule carry a paper bag, such a person can either uncover their face, or accept that I will not be involved in a conversation with them.

Sylvia
Posted by Sylvia Else, Friday, 27 October 2006 11:03:06 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
Sancho,

The current issue is totally related to Islam and their view of female sexuality; as no leader of the KKK or any criminal leader is currently saying all men while in public must constantly wear face coverings, and to fail to do so is indecent sexual exposure. The issue is totally related to sexuality of women and Islam makes it so. The KKK and the like do it to hide identity, and they also do it by personal choice from their perverted superiority.

Islam sees woman as half a man given purely for mens sexual pleasure [women are lesser human beings; One man equals two women] as they believe Allah designed them to entice men into sin. Lewd men can be forgiven in Islam but women must be incarsarated or stoned to death and not ever forgiven [Sura 4: 18 - 19, 24: 2 - 10]. They cannot accept the equality of women as equal to men as the Quor'an emphatically teaches men are the superior creature. However it is totally insulting to good Muslim men who see women as equal and good Western women who have no evil intent in their dress choice. Muslim men who are sexually perverted see all women as for their sexual pleasure.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 27 October 2006 11:06:58 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
There is only one thing that is needed here

For these type of actions which are unaceptable in todays day and age and also this is Australia, where the rights of a person to dress as they like are a expressive freedom.
This freedom has be part of australian culture and we do not need someone to tell women they are meat. If these people think this badly of our culture then there is one thing to do.

Place these people in custody take all relevant information
Remove australian passport and remove australian citizenship
deny all future travel to australia
send back to own country of birth
sell all their properties for the treatment of rape crimes

This is australia and this we do not have to tolerate

Australian Peoples Party
email:swulrich@bigpond.net.au
Posted by tapp, Friday, 27 October 2006 11:30:23 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
Mirkos comments again show how out of touch many university Professors are with common sense. He concludes 'Westerners and Muslims both need to drop their small minded relativistic perspectives and embrace a more universal and tolerant disposition - national unity depends on it. It is the so called tolerance of Britian and France that has gone a long way in destroying their countries freedom.

How can you be more tolerant to a group of people who hate freedom, hate Jews and hate Christians. One day those on the left will wake up to the fact that they also hate you but are willing to embrace you while you appease them. Australia's flawed inmmigration rules are well over due for revision. I hope this becomes an election issue before its to late for my children and grandchildren.
Posted by runner, Friday, 27 October 2006 11:43:20 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
We need to get wise about this bloke. He hangs from the same tree as James McConvill and Andrew Fraser et al., swiping at low hanging fruit for his own publicity purposes.

You're being baited people: wake up to it.

The veil obviously impedes communication based on facial signals. It is obviously the right of a person to cover their face in public, all else being equal. And yes we should all "embrace a more universal and tolerant disposition". Opinions that end with comments like that are advertising puff pieces. Could you imagine anyone ending an opinion piece with a conclusion arguing that we should "rush into the arms of a more particular and intolerant mindset". For God's sake...

And for those of you who are not aware, this is the same guy who promotes torture as a useful means of interrogation. Think about it. You're being played with. This man has the intellectual integrity (the face is just another body part??), capacity for empathy (muffin tops??), grandiosity (all that the sheik and all our leaders need do is attend his philosopy class :) and talent for self-promotion that is a hallmark of these self-serving libertarian dills; that is, sweet fa.
Posted by amitarian, Friday, 27 October 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
Listen to all the hypocrites who post facelessly and anonymously on an internet forum that face-to-face contact is essential for society. Most of you have ALL your money in bank accounts held by people you've never seen, buy products from growers and manufacturers you've never met, use inventions and technology from people whose face you've never seen.

Many of you form your opinions and views based on what you read in books and newspapers, and what you hear on the radio: all from people you have no face-to-face contact and wouldn't know if you bumped into them on the street.

I assume that this is the last time you'll be writing a letter, making a phone call or posting on the internet then? While we're at it, I assume from now on you'll all leave the lights on in the bedroom too.

Mirko is completely correct in his analysis of the way people react to clothing. The Sheik's comments about women who don't wear the fail are lunatic and expose a deep-seated neurosis. As do the comments of those who are hysterical about women who choose to wear the veil.

How I long for the good old days when the only people who believed women were to blame for rape were judges, police, priests and most of their congregations...oh wait, many still do....
Posted by Mercurius, Friday, 27 October 2006 12:14:41 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
Leigh says: “Faces are a means of recognition and, like it or not, judgement of people on first contact.” Given that posters are invisible to you, Leigh, that may explain your lack of judgement, which your quote suggests is based on superficial judgements.

It doesn’t bother me that women cover their faces or wear mini skirts. However, it must be the woman’s choice and there must be no coercion. The low neck lines are a bit distracting as I spend more time averting my eyes than a heterosexual electrician in a gay bar fixing the disco globe.

Also, before you all use this as an excuse to jump on Muslims, I think you will find that western defence lawyers will use the same provocative dress nonsense as the sheik to in part create doubt about the victim in rape cases. What a cop out.

Leigh, it also follows from your quote that maybe wearing a veil is good thing in that one has to communicate and look into the woman's eyes before making any judgement. Maybe it may help certain people to see more than a pretty face and nice legs and engage with their intellect.

Having said that - it is kind of offensive to suggest a woman must hide her face because the Islamic powers-that-be thinks a person gets some sort of inappropriate message from her face. Most western men I know respect and trust women. We mostly all know and respect the boundaries. Mind you the domestic violence and rape figures are concerning.

Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali and other like-minded people seem to be projecting their own lack of respect for women onto us Australian men. The only person responsible in a rape case is the rapist. No excuses. That is my understanding of how Australian men and women particularly those frowned on as left-wing, feminists etc see it.
Posted by ronnie peters, Friday, 27 October 2006 1:13:11 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
Anitarian...*wow* :) quite a mouthful there, but well said mate.

Mercurious... one can always tell a 'post modernist/cultural-moral relativist' by their comments about 'its just a matter of opinion'...or the such like.

They are always blind to "Australian Culture" (even though they were born here. Birth does not guarantee awareness, because that depends on the social circles of ones upbringing and education.)

They usually say "this culture is as valid as that"... but in so doing, they avoid consideration of the reality of a prevailing culture based on the history and ethnicity of a country.
You did well in recognizing the diverse ethnic background of Irish,Scottish, English, Welsh in the beginnings of Australia, but they were already bound to a degree by a common culture as 'UK' which in turn led easily to the development of an 'Australian' culture.

KEY POINT in all this is tolerance and respect... (wow.. can't believe I used those words)... but for who ? Aah..THAT is the important point. FOR THE ESTABLISHED culture, thats what !

The guide should be: "Where there is a cultural clash between migrant culture and established culture, the established MUST prevail in all social intercourse"

Examples.

-Introductions. Aussie males will shake hands with Muslim males AND females.

-Language. English to be used in workplaces.

-Greetings.

Maori's who normally rub noses when greeting, will shake hands with Australians in Australia (who, if they respect Maori culture will rub NOSES with them in Kiwiland where it is practiced)

-Workplaces.

Veils will not be worn.(can be worn in the home)

-Emergency Services.

Formal uniform/Safety gear takes precedence over religious requirment for Turban/beard etc. Domestic violence is treated same for all.

-Industrial Work practices.

No time off for prayer except tea breaks and lunch times.

-Council Functions:

Food will be provided mainly according to Australian Culture. (special tables of Halal food are ok)

CONCLUSION "Established prevails, Newby unveils"
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 27 October 2006 1:39:42 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
Maybe we should be grateful that some religions advertise their members by the way they dress. Otherwise, how could we tell the good people from the bad ones?
We would have to resort to something like say, having them wear a little yellow star or compulsory armband.

How do the Americans deal with their Amish problem anyway? They despise the lifestyles of other citizens, live in enclaves and dress in strange ways too.

Actually, I see nothing sinister about showing humility and modesty and giving simple respect in return.
I'm more affronted by thugs wearing baseball caps
Posted by wobbles, Friday, 27 October 2006 1:51:17 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
A comment is made from the extreme end of the ideological spectrum. A cavalcade of responses comes from the other end, which appears to have come full circle in terms of intolerance.
As usual, both commentaries are completely wrong and ignore most of the key elements.

Firstly: Foolish to paint women as meat. For the grain of truth in his comments regarding immodestly dressed women leading men into temptation, he has completely ignored the need for men to demonstrate self restraint.

On the other hand it is not as if western women are allowed to wear 'whatever they want' as Bagaric indicates.

When was the last time you saw a bare breasted woman walking through a shopping mall, aside from the occasional discrete breastfeeding?
Breastfeeding aside, are women oppressed if they are told to cover up their chest?

How about this - people are told to remove bicycle helmets when walking into banks. I can only assume that muslim women aren't permitted to wear veils for the same reasons. Is this discrimination?

We're asking women to cover up a part of their bodies. Think about that. Do women feel oppressed by this? Those I've asked have said no. Perhaps we should be asking if the veil is a form of oppression. We say people aren't allowed to disrobe, but can we then say they shouldn't be allowed to cover up? So are we only allowed to play by western rules? If somebody wants to cover their face (outside a bank) why on earth should we stop them?

CONTINUED
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 27 October 2006 2:08:22 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
Western standards say no breasts on display. Muslim society feels a certain way about faces. Both societies have laws in place.
Believe it or not, most muslim women wear veils out of choice, as western men and women cover their genitals.

This is not a simple issue. Western society has standards of dress too. This is an issue of what level is permissible. To ban the veil is akin to forcing people to wear it... or perhaps like forcing women to cover their chest?

In any case, I wish people would stop and consider the issue fully before screeching one way or the other.

Amitarian - if you're going to quote people directly, get it right. You use the word intolerance. Bagaric used the word tolerance. As far as I can see your interpretation of this article is nothing short of totally haywire. Did you actually read it?
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 27 October 2006 2:08:55 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
BD - you go to great pains to put your point of vie across and clearly a lot of thought - that is a good thing - few posters work as hard as you - but when we get to "established prevails, newby unveils" kind of assertion -

aren't we just mimicking the kind of cultural tyranny we condemn in places like Saudi Arabia?

And Sylvia I dont think I misrepresented you at all - I think you just dress up your intolerance as some sort absurd standard of conduct you arbitrarily impose on other people if they want to engage engage in social intercourse with you.

I can see this thread batting 100 by early next week -

These things can only end in tears - they always do

tracking back the history of harrasing the hajib or bothering the burqua - the wearing of those alluring ensembles was once simply labled un australian, people were worried becuase it looked unusual and different - the crticism now days has now escalated in keeping with our rising levels of paranoia about Islam

now it is labled an affront or a challenge to established norms - it is a political statemen; soon it will be described as an act of aggression and a threat - if it hasnt already been described as such.

A great deal of this stems from our Western leaders who have a vested interest in keeping the pot of intolerance towards Islam boiling in order to partialy justify there phoney war on terror - they need to kindle the fires under our sense of patriotism - and nothing brings out patriots like the smell of a new enemy - and Muslims are the enemy of the week at present - so what they wear, how they speak etc etc all become fair game.
Posted by sneekeepete, Friday, 27 October 2006 3:05:44 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
Mirko, I agree that Muslim women should be free to wear the veil or not as they choose, but not with your attempt at moral equivalence or accusations of “double standards”. The Sheik is no less free to criticise white Australians’ western dress standards than white Australians are to criticise the veil. The huge difference in Hilali’s comments is that they appeared to say that such dress standards invited assault. If a white male Christian religious or political leader argued that wearing the veil invited physical or sexual attacks on Muslim women, the response would (rightly) be just as furioius.
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 27 October 2006 3:15:42 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
I find it very strange that people find muslim women wearing veils as offensive? It is a persons individual choice to wear what they think is suitable for them based on their personal preferences. I myself would never walk around in the mid-riffs and mini skirts that some people walk around in today....but that is my choice, and I have nothing against those women who do.

It is simply their choice. To be offended by what others choose to wear is just being petty and a waste of time.

I think the comment the sheik has made is ridiculous and insulting to women, but people seem to forget that comments like this have been made plenty of times before by non-muslims as well. And are all these catholics and others forgetting the attire that nuns wear? I am not religious, so I don't understand the reasons behind why nuns wear what they do, but they must be covered from head to toe for some reason?
Posted by CoogeeGal, Friday, 27 October 2006 3:46:21 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
I don't have a problem with beards, headscarves, turbans or crucifixes these are public expressions of a private religion.

Covering your face in an official function such as teaching does strike a raw nerve. People who wear hoods, masks and veils such as executioners, kkk clansmen and the like all have something very sinister about them. If people want to leave the house with their face covered that is well and good but if you enter someone elses property then I think they can request that you reveal your face.

You could say that it is a religous tradition but our legal system is full with compromises to suit the majority. If Arnhemlanders visited the city in the "10 canoes" traditional dress they would be requested to adjust their clothing too.

What if we started a "return to Eden with the latter day Adam" church, would we accept a fig leave (sinners only) as acceptable dress?
Posted by gusi, Friday, 27 October 2006 3:52:51 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
It isn't quite like that - mini-skirt versus face-veil is simplistic. I lived/worked in a few muslim countries over some years. While there, my wife didn't leave the house in a mini-skirt - or even in short sleeves. As they say, when in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Sadly, the intro above is an imperfect portrayal of an intensly complex problem. No Churches were allowed there - but we have mosques here. Importing or owning a Bible over there was fraught: have a Koran here, if you wish. The real issue is whether women are people or chattels. In Qatar (which had a per-capita GDP 150% that of Australia) live births per female were 6.3 compared to 2.5 here. Later (I don't have current numbers) it was more like 5.8 - 1.8. Qatari women and female children went into the sea to "swim" clothed to wrist and ankle. Children had bare faces, but women had leather visors under their head-covering. It may have improved now, but there were NO women university graduates - NOT ONE, EVER - in a country where education, including tertiary education at foreign universities, was free. Actually, girls hardly went to school at all. No Dad would have had it otherwise, I suspect. Domestic accomodation was essentually divided into two. The (several) wives and the girl-children were out the back. Dad and the older boys were in the front. Females served meals to males, but didn't eat with them. While a chap was limited to four wives at the time, he could have more in the longer term. Say "talaq, talaq, talaq" and a wife is divorced and sent back to her family. Hence, Osama (long may he live in peace) was the first son of old bin Laden's tenth wife; overall, he was 17th of 52 siblings. Things are different over there.

This attempt to demonstrate a kind of parity between greco-roman/judeo-christian attitudes to women with those in traditional muslim countries only diminishes our appreciation of the vast differences.
Posted by fosbob, Friday, 27 October 2006 4:05:35 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
Hi Mirko Bagaric, Mercurius and all:

Here's the full transcript of the sick sheik's speech:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20653032-601,00.html

Sheik says:

1) Those atheists, people of the book (Christians and Jews), where will they end up? In Surfers Paradise? On the Gold Coast?

"Where will they end up? In hell. And not part-time. For eternity. They are the worst in God's creation.

Any atheists/jews/christians.. please note that we are going to hell for eternity.

2) Who commits the crimes of theft? The man or the woman? The man. That's why the man was mentioned before the woman when it comes to theft because his responsibility is providing.

Wow.. what a logic.

3) "But when it comes to adultery, it's 90 per cent the women's responsibility. Why? Because a woman possesses the weapon of seduction. It is she who takes off her clothes, shortens them, flirts, puts on make-up and powder and takes to the streets, God protect us, dallying. It's she who shortens, raises and lowers. Then it's a look, then a smile, then a conversation, a greeting, then a conversation, then a date, then a meeting, then a crime, then Long Bay jail. (laughs).

"Then you get a judge, who has no mercy, and he gives you 65 years.

Weapon of Seduction? So, his wife, his sister, his daughter all have Weapons of Seduction..

In other words, he is referring to Sydney gang rapes... He seems to say that the Lebanese rapists noticed the Aussie girls who have lowered, raised their dresses and involved in a conversation and 'they' did a crime i.e rape.. And finally judge gave them 65 yrs jail sentence as punishment.

Note: He is referring to Aussie non-muslim women who were raped; not muslim women.

(contd
Posted by obozo, Friday, 27 October 2006 4:38:32 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
..

4) Woman compared to a kilo of meat

If you take a kilo of meat, and you don't put it in the fridge or in the pot or in the kitchen but you leave it on a plate in the backyard, and then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats eat the meat, you're crazy. Isn't this true?

"If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.

"If the meat was covered, the cats wouldn't roam around it. If the meat is inside the fridge, they won't get it.

"If the meat was in the fridge and it (the cat) smelled it, it can bang its head as much as it wants, but it's no use.

So, women are meat and "WE" (males) have to keep them in Fridges. Fridges refer to Hijabs/Jijabs/Kababs etc..

So, the sheik instructs the Aussie non-muslim girls to be kept in "Fridges" lest Muslim male cats prey upon them.

Meow! Meow! Meow! Meow! Meow! Meow!

(contd.
Posted by obozo, Friday, 27 October 2006 4:43:54 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
Don't you love the spin that Mirko puts on it.The usual racist tags for white anglos who don't conform to his way of thinking.When Mirko has one of his children bashed or experiences the throb of his heart as he wonders if the snapped handle of the knife deeply embedded in his back will end his life,then maybe the taste of reality will sharpen his senses and cognitive powers.

Any one who has been indocrinated with religious hatred from and early age ,will not listen to any logic ,no matter how sweet the words that eminate from Mirko's mouth.There are a large portion of the Muslim community who think exactly like Sheik Hilali.It was revealled today that he won't be deposed because it will divide the Muslim community.Those at the Lakemba Mosque have revealled that there are many who think exactly like him.He wasn't taken out of context or mis-understood.He was caught out revealling his true self.

If the alarm bells weren't ringing before in Australia,there should be now a deafening din of outrage over the Sheik's degrading sexist and racial remarks.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 27 October 2006 6:17:05 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
Professor Bagaric

Nothing to do with prejudice. Everything to do with power and pride, for those who wear either. In the case of the veil, the power and pride of being better than thou in sexual "purity"--especially in a Western milieu--and the power and pride of being sexually attractive.

For the real issue of Hilaly see--http://www.con.observationdeck.org
Posted by Themistocles, Friday, 27 October 2006 6:24:34 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
Professor Bagaric

Nothing to do with prejudice. Everything to do with power and pride, for those who wear either. In the case of the veil, the power and pride of being better than thou in sexual "purity"--especially in a Western milieu--and in the case of the mini, the power and pride of being sexually attractive.

For the real issue of Hilaly see--http://www.con.observationdeck.org
Posted by Themistocles, Friday, 27 October 2006 6:35:35 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
"The fury that was sparked when a Sheik criticised the former is in sharp contrast to community approval questioning the appropriateness of the face veil. This reveals an underlying racist core in Australia."

And this guy runs a philosophy class - no really!

Does the author really believe that the outcry would be any different if the person making the remarks was a WASP?

Does he think that the outcry in this country would be any less if we found that the senior leader of the Anglican church came out publicly in support of the KKK?

It's not about race, it's about views which are in complete contradiction to values held strongly by most of the community.

It's about someone who appears to be very influential in his religious community expressing views which might help the gullible excuse the inexcusable.

I really don't give a rats about head coverings as long as those who were them support the rights of others to make their own clothing choices, perhaps they could sign Sylvia's petition on clothing optional beaches. I'm also left wondering why motorbike riders have to take off helmets in banks.

It's not about race, it's about views which are a threat to community safety.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 27 October 2006 6:38:58 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, you're wrong mate.

While the veil is an intricate part of 99% of women's lives, the mini-skirt is worn by only a small number of women in their twenties.

The fact that you can say this shows racism towards our culture, which is why Muslims so often say Australian culture is just alcohol and sex before marriage.

They say this because they must reconcile the fact that their way of life is so immoral that they have had to live in a western civilised nation.

Look at their leaders, they have the personalities of filthy corrupt used car salesman. They are mostly racists, bigots, and today we've seen that ALL Lebanese Muslims who rang Arab radio station 2ME (funded by us dumb infidels) support Hilali's comments, while those of Christian Lebanese heritage and non-Arabic Muslims were against it.

The head of the station said this.

The non-Arabic Muslims were only against it because mosques are bitterly divided on ethnic lines, so they only like leaders of their own race.

Muslim leader Tom Zreika said on 2GB that most of the Lebanese Muslim Association's board agree with Hilali, and the President of the Muslim Women's Network blamed the media and said he was taken out of context.

Almost all Muslims at Lakemba mosque today agree with his comments, so unless there are protests within the next few days from the Muslim public, I believe it's fair to say that most Muslims are misoginistic people who don't care if infidel women are pack raped.

In a way this is good because it sums up what many of us have been saying for years, being called bigots for exposing bigotry!

Those vile leftists who protect these rednecks from criticism should be forced to live among them.

I am astonished how little honour they all have too, lying to our faces about mistranslation, what animals.

ALL IMMIGRATION FROM THIRD WORLD CULTURES MUST HALT IMMEDIATELY.

AUSTRALIANS ARE SICK OF REDNECK CULTURES.
Posted by Benjamin, Friday, 27 October 2006 8:59:03 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
"It is simply a Western convention that we tend to expose our faces."

Rubbish. It is also a custom in China, South East Asia, the Aborigines,
the Native Americans, the Polynesians, Melanesians, in fact everywhere but the Islamic world and even there it is a minority who wear veils.

This is not to say that it is necessarily a bad thing but it is the custom of the greater part of the world to leave the face uncovered.
Posted by logic, Friday, 27 October 2006 9:18:14 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
If men only commit rape because of the way women are dressed how do you explain the case of the retarded handicapped girl who was sexually assualted and the video was posted on the internet in recent days. This girl certainly wasn't dressed provocatively

It should be pointed out to Mufti Shiek what’s his name, that if men cant handle the way women are dressed then perhaps they shouldn’t be allowed out into the streets. Or maybe they could wear dark blinkers or something. After all its their handicap not womens. Im sure women would find no problem living in a city of women.

Mirko says that more tolerance has led to a greater acceptance of homosexuality. No war have ever been fought over homosexuality but plenty of wars have been fought between religious tribes and other tribes, therein lies the danger with the Muslims.

How dare this muslim Shiek? come here and tell us how we should dress. Notice that the priests of any religion always try to gain control of the women and their fertililty because they want more and more children to increase their followers and so increase their wealth which they obtain by donations.
Every religion in history has done this even the pope who still preaches non contraception to his followers but the people in the West have woken up to this and refuse to go along with it as one day the Muslims will too. They are just a couple of centuries behind the West in waking up to the power games that the priests play.

People in the West still have their bible and God but they long ago refused to let the priests dictate to them. It was the priests who eventually had to bow to the wishes of the people if they wanted any one in their churches. Do the muslims ever ask who the hell are these muslim clerics. They let these men tell them how to live and they don’t even know them from a bar of soap.
Posted by sharkfin, Friday, 27 October 2006 9:44:34 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
RELIGOUS VILIFICATION......

Yep.. I challenge the Sheik to come to Victoria and repeat what he said about "People of the book....
-going to hell"
-Not for a weekend
-they are the WORST in all creation. <-- this is the vilification.

Here we have a specific religous group..NAMED and then 'MARGINALIZED' and then HELD UP TO PUBLIC RIDICULE and is he inciting HATE towards us ? hmmm I don't know how else to interpret "they are the WORST in creation"

All of which are illegal in Victoria under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act of 2001. Refer section 8.

SNEEKY... thanx for your encouraging words mate. Let me try to answer about 'cultural tyrany'. I guess my conclusion was a 'sound bite' style.. aimed at getting something into heads and staying there.

I would not call it 'cultural tyrany', but cultural assertiveness.
Tyrany is usually associated with ruthless and brutal enforcement. Assertiveness would be better connected to improved immigration policy and simply fine tuning the law.

I will now make an assertion: "Full face veils are not socially or culturally acceptable in Australia."
Let me try to support this.

1/ As a social experiment, I once dressed all in black, with combat boots, trousers tucked in, looking every part the 'extreme/militia' type. I received LOTS of critical/worried scrutiny from passers by, but more so from security people who thought all manner of things.

Just imagine if I had taken my experiement a further step and wore some swastika's on my arm... wow.. I cannot imagine I'd be allowed into a terrorism trial. Nor..could I walk past a synagogue without hasty police attention. Bottom line.. the symbolism of such attire is not acceptable.
2/ The Burka is symbolic of atrocities perpetrated by Mohamed similar to those of the Nazi's.(against JEWS I might add)
3/ The Burka is the most 'extreme' symbol of Fundamental Islam.

CONCLUSON. Burkahs are not acceptable and should be prohibited, by law, as should Swastika's.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 28 October 2006 6:03:28 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
BOAZ_David,

Re not getting away with wearing swastikas. You would likely not even get away with wearing them to a 'come in bad taste party', would you?

Fortunately, I do not live in Victoria. If I did, I fear that what I had done by way of oxymoronizing certain unnamed Islamic clerics before this latest idiocy by my esteemed fellow citizen, the Sheik of Allawah and Lakemba, may have been classified as 'serious ridicule'? I would value your opinion. What I did can be viewed at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=134#3547 . It is the last post. Have I dropped Sylvia right in it? She shouldn't have to become a bag girl.

Incidentally, I have always understood that the Sydney suburb of Allawah was named shortly after WWI as a sort of salute to our Turkish opponents in that war, commemorating the war-cry that doubtless many old diggers had heard. This clown could take a leaf out of Mustafa Kemal's book so far as magnanimity is concerned. Then again, I have read somewhere that the Turks are regarded within the rest of the Islamic world as "the scum of Mohammedanism". Perhaps that explains why Turkey and Australia, at the national level, get on so well and show such regard for one another. Does anyone know for sure about the naming of Allawah? And can there be such a thing as 'serious ridicule'?
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Saturday, 28 October 2006 7:17:43 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
Obozo, I didn’t need a blow-by-blow breakdown of the Sheik’s speech. It’s not hard to understand what he was saying. But thanks anyway.

The thing is, I’ve lived my whole life surrounded by Christians who tell me I’m going to hell. So the fact that a Muslim cleric also says it really doesn’t bother me.

I’ve also grown up in a culture surrounded by plenty of men and women, some of them judges, police, teachers, priests and their followers; who also believe women are responsible if they get raped. So the fact that a Muslim cleric also says it really doesn’t bother me.

And I’ve heard plenty of stuff from radical feminists who tell me that because I’m a man I’m just an animal with no control over my urges. So the fact that a Muslim cleric also says it really doesn’t bother me.

The more interesting question is: why does it bother you so much?

Anybody who believes what the Sheik was saying is just plain wrong. And, if we are to apply logic and consistency, then all the vicious epithets you’ve been hurling at the Sheik apply equally to anybody else, of whatever background, who share those views.

From the scenes at the Lakemba mosque, it looks like he has an entourage of a few hundred people who are rallying in some kind of personality cult, like we’ve seen in so many weird Christian sects in this country. If the cameras and reporters went away, the cult would be finished.

And I think Benjamin was being unintentionally funny when he said that “Australians are sick of redneck cultures.” I know I am.

Benjamin keeps asking whether we can now generalise the attitudes of the Sheik to all Muslims. It’s clear Benjamin really wants to. “Can we, can we, can we hate them all now, can we?” he (figuratively) asks.

But no Benjamin, we can’t generalise; because the evidence as reported in interviews, letters and newspapers today is that most Australian Muslims don’t agree with the Sheik. Some clearly do, but most don’t. Sorry to disappoint you.
Posted by Mercurius, Saturday, 28 October 2006 8:08:47 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
Muslim women must conform to the father or husbands wish and live their life relative to his interpretation of the Koran. Women who assert themselves in any way in Muslim society are severely punished. Not only can there be an immediate divorce, they can not be divorced and have all the "rights" of marriage denied them and be kept from society, literally locked in a room. No other Muslim in that community will speak her name for fear of giving offense. Veiling the face isn't about social values. It is about women not being socially visible. You don't have to recognize or treat with any dignity, or respect that which isn't there.
If veiling the face or cloaking the body was a valuable tool for Islamic society it would be the men who covered their faces and cloaked their bodies. However Muslim men demand an open face in all communication so to show that nothing is hidden and deception is not intended.
Democracy is anathema to Islam.
Muslim men don't rape because their sexually frustrated by Islamic social conventions. They rape women in the democratic countries they have immigrated to because the women there are equals and that can not be left unchallenged and these women must be dominated.
Rape is still about power and not about sex.
Perhaps Muslims could split the difference and wear the veil with a mini skirt. :-)
Posted by aqvarivs, Saturday, 28 October 2006 9:36:44 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
Hey, a friend on YouTube directed me to this site after one of my comments. My opinion on this low life are his an idiot. How can he compare meat to woman? You cannot blame RAPE and ABUSE solely on the women fault it is us men who must control our selves. Its not the women’s fault for wanting to look attractive. Men must learn to control themselves and here in Australia women have as much rights as we do. If they decide to wear what they want men like this so called Sheikh should respect that and if no respect is given and comments like this continue on I believe he should be extradited. Me being Lebanese and from a Catholic decent find this very abusive and without women I believe us men would not survive. It is them who prepare food for us and look after our little kids and do our shopping. They play as much part in our everyday life as the next person and maybe even more.

Yours Sincerely,
kroniic
Posted by kroniic, Saturday, 28 October 2006 10:32:48 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
Mercurious,

To say I must be being funny about saying we Australian-Australians are sick of redneck cultures shows you believe non-whites aren't capable of racism. If you can't swallow that think of them as hairy heads (as opposed to skin heads).

Open your eyes, discrimination on the basis of race is a way of life for these people, um...heard of sectarian violence in Iraq?

You also say that if the cameras went away it would be over, this shows that YOU DON"T want to see many of these people (read my earlier post, where the head of Arabic Radio says most agree with Hilali, also read Tanveer Ahmed's comments in the Australian today about how most Muslim males (he's a Muslim, I know your type think only one of their own is allowed to criticise their backward culture) see white women as whores.

Confused? What to do, a Muslim says many Muslims are rednecks?

I don't believe all Muslims are rednecks, but I do believe if there are no protests to have him removed by the Muslim public, that one can say this shows support, as we've already seen.

It's people like you, who refuse to condemn the "ethnic other" for anything (because you don't see them as equals like you do say Cardinal Pell, if he said it - you'd be screaming for cameras from the whole world over mate) that have caused these issues.

One day there will be treason trials for those who support rednecks, look forward to seeing you there.

BOAZ,

Look at my earlier post, the racist Muslim Youth Councillor's name was Fadhi Rahman. Don't let SKHAN, who must have a screw loose to think we are racist if we want signs in English, think your wrong about it.

Are there any Muslim leaders who aren't on par with the characters of vile conmen? How could Hilali say this at a religious festival?

What do the likes of Mercurious think of the fact that not one of the 500 people present during his RACE HATE speech, left?

Are they bigots?
Posted by Benjamin, Saturday, 28 October 2006 10:58:57 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
While picking table grapes in several vineyards in Emerald Qld, I made my own head & face veil for heat & sun protection. Oh, yes, was laughed at & called the Turk's wife.

With global warming & the need for women to work longer I can see more women taking up the face veil as well as other suitable attire, in future years, both on and off the job.
Posted by ELIDA, Saturday, 28 October 2006 11:14:40 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
But it is not about such simple things as veils and miniskirts, is it Professor Bagaric ? For starters the girl wearing the veil could have her genitals butchered at any moment as a precursor to an arranged marriage.

Fortunately the girl wearing the miniskirt usually only suffers some embarrassment at the unwelcome glances of admirers. Although she would much prefer that religious bigots did not seek to rationalise a physical attack on her by some sociopath out for sexual gratification.

Whilst on this subject it is interesting how the feminists would castigate some men for wolf whistling an attractive girl, but they defend ethnic customs that brutalise women and the young (of both genders). Both genders because the mutilation of boys’ penises through ritual circumcision is just as offensive, though not as invasive, as the genital mutilation of girls.

Readers would probably be aware of the current news story concerning a 13 year old boy who ‘cannot be a Jew’ until even more of his foreskin is removed. He has been ‘cut’ once already. Let’s see, that would make the score: Religious Control Freaks 2, Bleeding Confused Boy 0.

So Prof Bagaric, as an educated man you would be fully aware that it is a smart trick to keep stirring the pot about veils, wouldn’t you? After all, veils are a much-needed diversion from discussion of the deeper problems of multiculturalism that result in differences in the liberal freedom and status of Muslim girls and women when compared with their Australian counterparts.

I can see why multiculturalists would prefer to talk about veils than loss of rights.

We need to sit down and talk about the pros and cons of multiculturalism and the rule of law in a secular nation. It is not acceptable that some people have lesser rights than others in a democracy as a result of (claimed) cultural imperatives that advantage the few at the expense of the many.
Posted by Cornflower, Saturday, 28 October 2006 12:37:26 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
Typical of Howard, Goward, and Costello blathering on about the sanctity of our women when they fully support the ongoing US bombing in Iraq which is causing the deaths and maiming of thousands of innocent men, women, and children. The moral vacuum in Canberra continues unabated.
Posted by aspro, Saturday, 28 October 2006 2:35:59 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
Cornflower

I have to comment on the statement about a 13 year old boy who ‘cannot be a Jew’ until even more of his foreskin is removed. As one born into an old Australian Jewish familly who attended a mainstream Anglo-orthodox Synagogue until I got sick of it, I must say I had never heard of such a ridiculous thing.

It must have been in one of the odd extremist groups. I do not know of any Jews who would consider someone not Jewish because of the extent of the circumcision, indeed any who would not heap scorn on the Rabbi concerned. In fact the boy celebrated his Bar Mitzvah in a reform Synagogue and probably could have done so in most orthodox Synagogues if his parents had made the right choice in the first place.

The boy will be considered Jewish by most other Jews. The only ones that wont will be from that strange group and he will never want to associate with them.
Posted by logic, Saturday, 28 October 2006 2:58:58 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
Mercurius,

Well if you dont need a blow-by-blow account of sick sheik's holy preaching[actually it's a word-by-word], just close your eyes and skip the post.

I am sure you are bothered by christians/jews and that's why you often complained about that but I am surprised that you are not bothered about sheik's shake.

Anyways, if you are happy with sheik's take, why should I bother with you? And I am a hypocrite in your sight. Enjoy!
Posted by obozo, Saturday, 28 October 2006 7:58:55 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
TurnLeftthenRight - so very true.

I don't like Muslims trying to denounce his views in the media. Why should they have to? To avoid the dumber-than-thou Australian public thinking all Muslims are the same? That's probably going to happen anyway. So why bother?

When the Pope made his comments did anyone say "deport him"? Did ordinary, everyday Catholics appear on Channel Ten saying they denounce the Pope's views? Or that they agree with him? No.
When the cartoons were published what did people say to the bad reaction from the Muslim world?
"Freedom of speech"
What did they say about the Pope?
Freedom of speech.

I say let him be. Not only are we responding to his comments via the infiltration from the media (which is so biased it's not even funny anymore) but Australia is overreacting. Sure his comments seem abhorrent - but you can choose to interpret them as you wish.

Some may look at what he's saying to be that women who are undressed are more powerful than men because men cannot help themselves and women are calling the shots. Either way I'm not really offended personally because he's just another person with another view.
So why all the hoopla over it? Why the call to deport anyone who seems "Un-Australian"?

Also, clearly the hijab and the veil is a topic people know nothing about. Let’s look at context shall we? During civil war in Saudi Arabia, women could not leave their homes without the threat of being raped by the soldiers. As a way of protecting the women Mohammed told them to cover themselves up so the men would not approach them.

His intentions were quite nice actually. Maybe the Sheik learnt a different Islam to the rest of us people who are actually educated about Islam (although you can’t blame him. It’s a pretty exclusive group in the minority. membership: 8).

Nice article professor. A much needed breath of fresh air.
Posted by fleurette, Saturday, 28 October 2006 9:58:54 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
fleurette

You are in fact right. However we cannot deport the Pope, who has never even lived here, or the Sheik who is an Australian citizen. But he did you must admit damn most of the his fellow countrymen to Hell which is a bit over the top.

It is not a perfect world and Australians of the Islamic faith would be well advised to dissasociate themselves from his viewpoint. This is not the same as denouncing his views, it is a matter of saying he does not belong to us. Rightly or wrongly Islam is facing a lot of criticism as a result of the actions of a few and the Sheik did an enormous amount of damage.
Posted by logic, Saturday, 28 October 2006 11:08:07 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
Gee BOAZ,
For somebody who claims to be religious, you seem to be constantly seething with anger.

If burkhas are like swastikas then what are yarmulks, saris, kilts and turbans supposed to be like? Maybe we should all be wearing identical Mao jackets to minimise the possibility of visual offence.

Religion is not what causes the problem - it's ignorance and intolerance.
Posted by rache, Sunday, 29 October 2006 1:57:27 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, I believe any human being is capable of racism, including you. Unfortunately, you didn’t get the irony and the unintentional humour of screaming to the world that you’re sick of redneck cultures. And you still don’t get it, which goes beyond being funny into just being sad.

It’s a logical fallacy, and quite mischievous of you, to suggest that because I point out the racist element amongst Australians, I therefore believe other people aren't capable of racism.

Every single one of us is capable of racism. And the only way to reduce racism is to start with the person whose actions, ideas an opinions you can actually affect: your own.

Your cries of treason are rhetorical overreach. You will see from my posts in other articles on this forum that I have described the Sheik as, amongst other things, a lunatic, a nutbag and a crank. So, not guilty, your honour.

The thing is, I would use the same adjectives to describe the former Governor-General, and anybody, of whatever background, including many police, judges and priests over the years, who espoused beliefs that are substantially the same as what the Sheik said. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

And so, contrary to your claim, I judge all people by the same standards - and no lesser or greater condemnation applies. I don’t actually see an “ethnic other” (as you suggest) to which different standards should apply. Yet some people have the hide to call me a relativist, when it is they who carry on about “ethnicity” and “others” and “cultural standards”. What I see is human beings, all of us.

So Benjamin, if you are any harsher in your criticism of the Sheik than you are of people from other backgrounds who believe the same things as he (and there are many who do, and they say so in good English), then it’s fair to ask whether racism or religious prejudice is driving your condemnation that much harder.
Posted by Mercurius, Sunday, 29 October 2006 7:33:21 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
Dear Rache
again..."passion" is being confused with 'anger'. I do feel the odd spike of anger.. perhaps righteous indignation ?.. but the spike usually passes and I seek to point out big picture things rather than blather on about how much I hate someone. I find holding hate in one's heart is a very debilitating thing.
You need to distinguish between my on line persona where I passionately advance issues which to me are of historic social importance for our nation, and how I am in person. I would have to say that of all my acquaintances at my gym, the man toward whom I have the greatest affection is an Iranian Muslim. (but he is quickly learning to be an 'ocker' :)

You mentioned the'problem' is Intolerance etc.. let me illustrate what the real problem is.. and ultimately to which I am reacting in my posts.

HILAYLI and the Dark side of MultiCulturalist POLITICS.

1/ He was an illegal immigrant/visa overstayer.
2/ He had links to extremist Islamic organizations.
BUT.....

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20658333-601,00.html

["Keating, then federal treasurer, and McLeay, an influential backbencher from his party's Right faction, made no bones about their belief that Hilali should stay and lobbied on his behalf.
They were under pressure from the growing local Muslim community in their neighbouring western Sydney seats of Blaxland and Grayndler.
The Lakemba mosque where Hilali was the spiritual leader was in McLeay's electorate."]

COMMENT.
So, here in living color, we see how my oft stated mantra "One seat can decide a countries future" is fulfilled before our eyes. You also see, how one seat can effect the flavor of immigration policy, and how the agenda of ONE minority ethnic/religious community can translate into actual country effecting policy.
So, I defend my position as being "politically astute and aware" rather than 'intolerant'

P.S. I always value your criticism.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 29 October 2006 8:11:37 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
errr...I have a problem: Firstly, lets separate the fact from media managed frenzy seeking al-Hilali dismissed as leader and replaced, I wonder who is on the sideline being preped for the job, preped by whom?

al-Hilali in arabic sermon compared scantily dressed women inviting risk of rape to cat being attracted to meat on the street: so from women's raging comments on this site it appears that this comment is so offensive that a reasonable discussion is not possible...

Now fact is our sexual behaviour is based on 'women giving 'signals' that she is in want of sexual pleasure and when men respond she has her choice, eg the night club industry is based on this premise...

So firstly how does a woman like a man to differentiate a scantily clad woman, one who is dressed like this because she is interested in some sex to a woman who wants to 'just feel feminine' and all other possible reasons for such dressing...by talking and discussing the matter. Interested its on, if not then no...move on. Forcing the issue is rape, after consensual sex claiming it as rape is fraud

I think the fundamental issue here is the right to sexual expression, here I agree that women need less society inhibitions and restrictions this which forces a lot of sexual activity into the hidden, as it is they have enough on their plate with their own sexual experience depended a lot on mans performance at time...

Sam
Posted by Sam said, Sunday, 29 October 2006 8:24:38 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
Mercurious,

No, I still don't get what you mean. Sad? You're just not clear, no need to insult.

The only thing I can imagine is that you think Australians are rednecks, probably even me, although I ask you to show anything I've said which can be seen that way.

You also didn't (couldn't?) answer me when I said that, far from your comment that I WANT to see all Muslims as being rednecks, your comments proved that you really do want to see the opposite.

If not, what could possibly be the real reason behind wanting the camera's to forget about it now? Even though this is likely the worse thing a leader in Australia has EVER, yes ever, said about women.

I believe that you think this because you believe the "rednecks will have a field day" perhaps?

Although suggestion of a backlash is unwarranted, since, after these sort of issues, as well as Muslim terrorist attacks overseas, it is churches, not mosques, that are attacked, burnt, and shot at in Australia.

I can list about twenty if you'd like.

There is no backlash after their leaders make comments about the west, just as there won't be this time. We don't think of Muslims as one big heard, like say, most Muslims around the world thought of the Danish after a few cartoonists at one newspaper mocked their prophet.

However, if you read my earlier post, you would know that MOST Lebanese Muslims must support him, as all interviewees said.

Even the ones the media are saying has condemned him have only half condemned him, with comments that he was taken out of context, or the media are focusing too much on it.

See how much our media go out of their way to make them look good, by saying the sheik apologised when he didn't, and saying this or that Muslim leader is a moderate?

And you also didn't answer if you thought this means that many within, a large percentage, the Islamic community must be bigots.....
Posted by Benjamin, Sunday, 29 October 2006 10:46:51 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
Mercurius, I agree with your comments that the sheik is not the only person that has made such comments before. Certainly others (non-muslim) in Australian society have made similar statements. However, I think the biggest problem at the moment is that the sheik is considered the muslim's leader in this country. Imagine the uproar if the head of the Catholic or Uniting church in australia said the same thing. They might not get quite as much airplay, but the public backlash would be just a strong.

Women in this country have a democratic right to dress as they please. Men (and other women) have the democratic right to think that women who exercise their right to dress scantily are whores (or whatever other terminology you want to use). They dont however have the right to physically impose themselves on these women (either as assault or sexual assault). However, women who choose to put their sexual assets on display, hardly have the right to be offended if someone else finds their manner of dress offensive and comments as such. If you think that all Australians are readily accepting of scantily dressed women, take a bunch of country people (real country people, not people from the Hunter Valley) down to Sydney for a weekend. Its quite amusing!
Posted by Country Gal, Sunday, 29 October 2006 12:02:27 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
...Also, anyone who attends that mosque (if they refuse to remove him) is a bigot too, right?

Your point about how you DO believe people are equal, then you think like me, and have just condemned the morality of most Muslims.

You can't accept Sharia's position on women, non-Muslims, homosexuals, and apostates, if you claim to value human rights.

Do you know how many Muslims disagree with a literal interpretation of Sharia?

Less than 1%.

It's hard, given we've been brought up to think only whites are racist, and other cultures backward practices are off limits for criticism, but they must be thought of as humans, not disabled children.

Accepting that, if there are no protests to remove him by the Muslim community, it IS fair to generalise to an extent that the % of rednecks is high.

No, I don't WANT to see that, it simply is reality.

Funny how you see rednecks in our society, which allows others to live here, that considers all people equal under the law, is tolerant, as opposed to cultures where non-Muslims are dirt who are subjugated, where Palestinians are kept in barbed wire camps for 50 yrs because the populations are so racist they don't want them in their society as equals. And they claim to care about Palestinians?

Do you know that we fund their entire state? Not Muslims, us.

Don't you read Amnesty International reports into the treatment of non-Muslims in Islamic nations?

Also, your point about we have to do the same if someone else says it is laughable. People like you ONLY attack those who are white.

We attack skinheads even though experts say only 500 members in Australia, and ZERO impact on our daily lives.

Yet, gangs of hairyheads bash "skips" on a regular basis, sexually harass women and aren't condemned by the left. In fact, they try to hide it by playing it down, like your "too many camera's" comment.

Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?
Posted by Benjamin, Sunday, 29 October 2006 12:21:22 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
"This reveals an underlying racist core in Australia."

Veils do not belong in Australia, have never been a part of Western culture and hopefully never will be. Your remark reveals your own 'underlying racist core' in your arrogant assumption that Australians are 'racists' because they refuse to accept your cultural and religious baggage.

"the comments by the Sheik are impertinent"

Being likened to cats meat is 'impertinent'? Your choice of this word demonstrates how little understanding you have.

Australians are not obliged to accept alien customs (like veils, genital mutilation and 7th century attitudes to women) without question. Anyone who believes that they have the right to come here and inflict their cultural baggage onto us should perhaps question their own 'racism'.

" .. opposition to the face veil is all about Western prejudice, just as opposition to the mini skirt is all about Islamic prejudice."

One vital fact you have left out. Muslims have chosen to live in Western countries, not the reverse. There is no obligation upon us to accept 'Islamic prejudice' or so-called 'religious leaders' who sympathise with rapists - so long as Australian women are the victims, of course!
Posted by dee, Sunday, 29 October 2006 1:26:17 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
Benjamin. Your conjectures about what I think and believe are baseless. Even though I stated very clearly that I think all people are capable of racism, you persist in asserting that I hold some sort of chip on my shoulder for Australians. I don't. This renders your entire line of argument null and void.

Yes Benjamin, a lot of churches and synagogues have been attacked in Australia. Do you have evidence of what was the background of who attacked them, or are you making a prejudicial assumption? If I were a police officer investigating, I'd would try to approach the search for suspects without any preconceived notions of who they might be, since that could lead me into dead-ends in my search for the perpetrators.

I also know of three mosques not far from me that have been burnt and graffitied. Indiscriminate attacks on religious buildings would tend to support the point I have been making all along, which is that you can find bigots and racists in any group.

Of course I don't accept Sharia law, Benjamin. I'm not a Muslim. I would've thought that point was so obvious it didn't need to be mentioned.

I haven't been brought up to think only whites are racist. What a muddle-headed concept that would be. And what do you mean, "people like [me] ONLY attack people who are white"? Did you read my posts here and in the other articles? Did you see what I've said about the Sheik? What is a "people like me" exactly, Benjamin? I'm not a "people" I'm a person. Your comments reveal a tendency to view groups of people (including "people like me") as monolothic, and acting in some sort of groupthink. You suggest we should treat others as human beings, not children, but you don't even credit others with the ability to think for themselves.

And obviously I'm in no position to judge whether or not I'm a hypocrite. What an impertinent question. Other readers can make their own judgements about that.
Posted by Mercurius, Sunday, 29 October 2006 4:50:18 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
Dee is the classic example of a person who fears Islam without really understanding why.

"Veils do not belong in Australia, have never been a part of Western culture and hopefully never will be." --> Western culture is diverse. There is no one culture in the west. That is such an outdated and prehistoric, pre enlightened way of thinking - that the West represents one ideology - it doesn't. It represents many.
In the same way that the veil is not part of "islamic culture" because there is no such thing.

Do you even know the meaning of impertinent? I think it's a very apt word in this case.

Australians are not obliged to accept alien customs (like veils, genital mutilation and 7th century attitudes to women) --> Who expects any Australian to accept these customs when majority of Muslims themselves don't?

"Muslims have chosen to live in Western countries, not the reverse.

One vital fact YOU have left out is that many Muslims were forced to flee their countries because of Western imperialism over the East. So in a way we should accept Islamic prejudice, just as they are forced to live with the consequences and the ramifications of Western Imperial imposition.

Sympathise with rapists? Interesting call. A woman being scantily clad has nothing to do with rape. It's the need to exert power. It has nothing to do with sexuality - funny that the media is turning his comments into something more sinister.

What he was saying (and what people should be offended at) is that by not covering up and staying indoors women are at fault when they become the target of sexual advances. If there's no truth to this statement - then why are people getting so upset over it? The worst that could happen is some people may be scared into covering up their wives and daughters. I hardly see how potential rapists are being formed in the congregat-oh wait...clearly I haven't been reading sensationalised articles about Skaf and other "muslim rape" incidents recently. Of COURSE that's what's going to happen! Silly me.
Posted by fleurette, Sunday, 29 October 2006 4:51:53 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
If we are to believe the Sheik, it is probable that Muslim men will molest and rape any woman who does not wear a black tent and stay indoors (ie in the 'firdge' as the Sheik put it).

The sheik is familiar with his cultural group and gang rape has occurred so the warnings in his sermon ought be given some credence at least.

Thew sheik's warnings are made more believeable by the obvious unwillingness of moderate Muslims to provide evidence to the contrary.

It follows that our freedom has been greatly diminished if girls and women have to be kept off the streets to be safe.

So my question is for Senator Amanda Vanstone, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and I want to know what went wrong with the administration of:

1) immigration policy and
2) multiculturalism policy,

that Australia is now a much less safe place for women?

I also want to know what practical action will be taken to ensure that Muslim clerics do not encourage or excuse assault of Australian women.

It is very disappointing that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has not led the public debate on the Sheik's warnings.

It is not an adequate response to say that one man should be deported, even if it were possible, which it is not, or that the Musliom community will take care of it. This is a national issue and requires a coordinated national response.
Posted by Cornflower, Sunday, 29 October 2006 5:31:02 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
Dear Fleurette,

You say that Muslims were forced to migrate to the West because of Western Imperialism in the East. So why do they choose to come to a country they see as oppressing their fellowcountrymen. A bit disloyal to their fellow countrymen to do that don’t you think.

Its funny how all these people around the world who criticize the West are all actually breaking their necks to get into the West. There are plenty of muslim countries out there to choose from but then the Muslim countries aren’t as tolerant when it comes to taking people from other countries are they. Not even if people are Muslims like themselves. The Sunni muslims and Shiite muslims are committing wholesale slaughter of each other over control of Iraq as an example of that.

You also state that Mohammed ordered Muslim women to cover up because they could not go out side during a civil war at that time, without being raped by the soldiers. Muslim women said in the news after the Shiek Mufti what’s his name made his meat comment about women’ that their wearing of the veil had nothing to do with the attentions of men it was about religion. According to what you say it seems that Mohammed did indeed order the wearing of the hijab and burkha to deflect the attentions of men.

If people choose to come to the West because they envy the way of life of people in the West why do they then seek to change the West
when they get here.
Posted by sharkfin, Sunday, 29 October 2006 7:26:22 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
What has me wishing deadly antibodies upon this virus of a sheik and his satanic cult following is the fact that they actually chose to lie to us about the context of his comments being mistaken.

Now THAT is utterly unforgivable, for all time!
Posted by abyss, Sunday, 29 October 2006 8:27:55 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
A couple of months ago street protest and violence was reported in Bahrain. Muslim males were fighting over whether or not women should dry their under-garments on an outside line. The religious argument was that the sight of these garments would lead otherwise moral Muslim males to rape. A Muslim man can only be charged with rape if it is reported by another male Muslim and the rapist admits his guilt. The rapist is asked to swear by Allah to his guilt or innocents. If he swears in the name of Allah that he is innocent he's innocent. The woman has done something wrong. In the Sudan just a couple of weeks ago a Sudanese reporter was killed for speaking out about the atrocities being committed in the name of Allah, especially many many cases of gang rape.
It is not the question of the nature of the individual Muslim. It is the nature of Islam and it's misogynist structure. Even this week in Afghanistan women and girls are being raped to drive them indoors and
out of a male dominate society
Posted by aqvarivs, Sunday, 29 October 2006 8:32:07 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
gfghgh
Posted by savoir68, Sunday, 29 October 2006 9:43:28 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
All this non-sense again.

A silly man who is clearly speaking on dressing modestly, and takes it a little too far, simply deserves the sack

But to those self-professed "real australians" that see this as an oppotunity to wage a holy war against something they envisage as Islam .. get a life.
Posted by savoir68, Sunday, 29 October 2006 9:47:10 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
Dearest Sharkfin,

So we meet again.

“why do they choose to come to a country they see as oppressing their fellowcountrymen?"

There’s a saying. It goes something like this: “beggars can’t be choosers”.

‘Its funny how all these people around the world who criticize the West are all actually breaking their necks to get into the West.’

Um. Not really. The Sheik was brought in here to preach (like many other religious figures seeing as Australia isn’t exactly a breeding ground for religious leaders being secular and all). He hardly represents Islam or its followers.

So why the generalisation? Have you conducted a census that shows the people breaking their necks to get into the “West” are the same people criticising it?

I don’t see why people CAN'T criticise Australia or the West. It is the antithesis of all the values it preaches to be uniquely Australian.

Who are you to preach about Muslim countries not letting in refugees when Australia has one of the worst refugee records in the world?
If you were escaping persecution would you run next door or would you run as far away as possible? You don’t get more isolated than Australia. Besides many refugees don’t exactly choose their final destination as if they were planning for some kind of holiday.
“The Sunni and Shiite are committing wholesale slaughter of each other over control of Iraq”

Oh yes. And the US, Australia and Great Britain played no part in Iraq’s conflict.

Well OBVIOUSLY it has nothing to do with men NOW. That is the ORIGIN and CONTEXT of the veil and the tradition. It’s also about religion – but it’s not a specific requirement by God and that’s why not all women wear it. It’s a personal choice.

Who is seeking to change the west? Pray do tell. The sheik has no power to change laws. Islam has no power to do anything in this country except stir everyone into a frenzy and create fear because people are too stupid to believe otherwise.

Can we please have some FACTS to back up these claims aqvarivs?
Posted by fleurette, Sunday, 29 October 2006 10:47:54 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
Flaurette, Mercurius,

That you feel the need to remind people of the past actions of the Govenor General, the Archbishop, or even a previous generation, is based on the totally unfounded assumption that those critical of members of the Muslim faith are selectively critical, rather than objectively critical.

To jump to this conclusion betrays your view that Muslims are not part of our society, but just permanent guests, since only guests customarily are not subject to the same level of critical scrutiny as the regulars.

It's becoming nauseating to hear all these tacit white supremicists shielding their pet Others from our totally justified criticisms of them. We think they are equals, not guests!

The most disrespectful act of all is to not subject someone to criticism, for it implies they are unable to transform, learn from their mistakes, do someting about it, etc. You'de only treat someone you couldn't care less about like that!

This is so irresponsible, since this discourse of victimhood brings a sense of undeserved legitimacy to these bigot's hatred of us, bigots raised to believe that they are more pure than the rest of us and as a result don't want to have "aussy" or "skip" friends but prefer to herd together into violent packs of 'rednecks' to intimidate and assault others, justifying all of their problems as the result of imaginary racism supposedly acted upon them by would be employers, the media, the schools, etc.

What laughable crap!

They believe this fantasy because of their racist herd instinct, but you condone and push it because you consider them children, incapable of autonomy.

You will be partly responsible for the next young man who's head is kicked in by ten of these middle eastern savages, for you are giving the green light to the vilest bigots that have ever walked the earth.

When a Muslim leader abuses freedom of speech, there really ARE tangible effects, people really DO justify their crimes on this basis!

The wisest thing Alla did was ban alcohol! Just imagine the convoys of December 11 but drunk!
Posted by abyss, Sunday, 29 October 2006 10:52:29 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
There's no doubt Sheik was speaking about sydney gang rapes.

Now, let's look at the girl who was raped:

18-year-old white girl, was raped 25 times by up to 14 muslim men including Skaf in 2000, was being Australian.

What was her dress?
A typical dress suited for job-interview. (may be a skirt which exposed the meat (legs) to a small extent.

What was she doing?
Sitting on a train, dressed for a job interview in her best suit, and reading The Great Gatsby.

What did the rapist(s) say during rape?
she was a slut, an "Aussie pig" as they called her later, while boasting: "I'm going to f--- you Leb style."

What did the the father of rapist(s) say?
"What do they expect to happen to them? Girls from Pakistan don't go out at night."

What did Sheik Feiz Mohammad say about that?
A victim of rape every minute somewhere in the world," Sheik Feiz Mohammad told 1000 people at Bankstown Town Hall last year. "Why? No one to blame but herself. She displayed her beauty to the entire world ... strapless, backless, sleeveless, nothing but satanic skirts, slit skirts, translucent blouses."
Posted by obozo, Monday, 30 October 2006 2:28:15 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
what did Sheik Hilaly say during that ramadan sermon?

"A woman possesses the weapon of seduction. It is she who takes off her clothes, shortens them, flirts, puts on make-up and powder and takes to the streets, God protect us ... then it's a look, then a smile, then a conversation ... then a date, then a meeting, then a crime, then Long Bay jail. Then you get a judge, who has no mercy, and he gives you 65 years."

Now, people who defend the sheik please come up with some other stuff.
Posted by obozo, Monday, 30 October 2006 2:33:49 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
It is really quite simple.
Moslem women are required to cover up.
Why ? So they won't tempt men.
Which men ? The moslem men in the country of origin.
Australian men can go to the beach without being tempted to rape etc.
Therefore the problem is moslem men as the gang rapes showed.
The moslem men must change or leave.
Then moslem women won't have to be covered up.
Simple isn't it.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 30 October 2006 10:25:13 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
Fleurette - So I ‘fear Islam without knowing why’. A risible statement. I know exactly why I ‘fear’ Islam’ – I don’t wish to see the behaviour of Muslims worldwide repeated in Australia. There is no obligation on any country to accept refugees or immigrants who are proven violent troublemakers – as Muslims are in every Western country that has been foolish enough to accept them. Don’t even bother to deny this fact.

'the West represents one ideology'

Western countries (Western Europe, the UK, the US, Australia) represent one ideology in the sense that they are all (nominally) Christian and Democratic and have established bodies of law including rights for individual citizens of both sexes.

Definition of ‘impertinent’ (OED) - ‘cheeky’ or ‘lacking in respect’. So it is merely ‘impertinent’ to liken females to cats meat and to state that the flesh of Australian women is ‘as cheap as pigs meat’? If you regard these sickening comments as merely ‘impertinent’ I guess you would regard being called ‘an Aussie slut’ as a compliment. Some people twist themselves into knots defending the indefensible, I guess you are one of them.

“many Muslims were forced to flee ... because of Western imperialism ..”

Oh please! Muslim countries are hellholes because they follow a 7th century desert religion forbidding them to question or criticize any aspect of their existence. There is no separation of religion and state, these countries are theocracies – but their problems are all our fault? Saudi Arabia has billions in oil money but has not done one thing to improve the lives of fellow Muslims – all our fault too? India was subjected to ‘Western Imperialism’ also but that doesn’t seem to have held them back.

‘Sympathise with rapists? Interesting call.’

The sheik’s call, not mine. If you actually read what he said, he refers to the gang rapists and their long prison sentences, then he laughs and expresses sympathy. And his followers cheered him to the echo. It obviously does not bother you that so many Muslims agree with these opinions. It should.

“Silly me”

You said it!
Posted by dee, Monday, 30 October 2006 10:25:16 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
One thing i would like to point out is that a number of our Asian
neighbours practice discrimination against Muslims and Non-Muslims
alike. For example, Singapore has banned the wearing of head-scarves
in all state schools.

This is of particular interest as there is no open-market for
education in Singapore, Singaporean citizens must attend government
schools unless permission is granted to attend one of the
international schools (which usually only is allowed if the child is
female, a dual-passport holder and due to leave Singapore shortly).
As a result, Muslim women in all educational institutions in Singapore
cannot show their faith when attending school.

Likewise, but on the other side of the coin, there have been repeated
attempts in Malaysia to enforce the wearing of the head-scarf on
non-Muslim women whilst attending government schools, but this has not
yet been effectively enforced (unlike Singapore).

Both policies clearly infringe on the basic premise of individual
choice. Maybe in future articles where the author discusses the discrimination against Muslim women they could include examples such as Singapore along side the numerous examples in western societies to provide a broader perspective of the plight that women of the Islamic faith face around the world.
Posted by ExpatinSingapore, Monday, 30 October 2006 10:53:43 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
Mercurious,

You focus on my spelling errors? Why the need for that, surely you know what I meant.

Is this what debate has been reduced to these days?
Posted by Benjamin, Monday, 30 October 2006 11:39:57 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
Benjamin, when did I mention spelling errors? I've said nothing about spelling in any posts.

Abyss repeats the bizarre assertion that I have nothing critical to say of the Sheik or that I see Muslims as permanent guests or not as equals; when my comments on this very page, and related articles, have repeatedly bagged the Sheik, and repeatedly stated my belief that all of us are human beings, equals.

I see little point in writing further clarifications or explanations to people who have either not read my original comments, completely failed to understand them, and who persist in making false assertions and tortured conjectures and leaps of logic that when I say "black", I really mean "white".

Since I prefer to assume that my debating adversery is intelligent, I can only put this down to a wilful misrepresentation of my remarks.

Your attempts to twist my words are too clever by half, and I doubt any of the readers here are fooled either.

THAT is what this debate has been reduced to, and not by me.

When a debate proceeds in such bad faith, it no longer serves any purpose.
Posted by Mercurius, Monday, 30 October 2006 12:28:46 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
How sad, 2006 and to express ones sexuality what ever gender, it is seen as an offence or encouragement for sexual and physical abuse
Posted by Kipp, Monday, 30 October 2006 4:55:46 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
A young woman I know attended her first protest rally covered in sheets. She wore one around her body and one to cover her head. She carried a sign 'Avoid Rape, Dress Sensibly'. The other women at the rally were dressed similarly. They carried the same sign. It was a rally to support women's right to dress how they wanted to dress, to not be blamed for rape, to live their lives in freedom. The women's rally called on governments and churches to take a stand. The rally was 32 years ago in Brisbane's King George Square and I was the young woman.

The more things change, the more they seem to stay the same. For women anyhow. Your male columnist calls a (male) religous leader "impertinent" for instructing women to cover up and do as they're told if they want to avoid rape, for likening rape victims to uncovered meat attacked by cats. Male judges in law courts have made similar comments many times over the last 30 odd years. It's time to accept that women's rights are human rights. And behave accordingly.
Posted by anna52, Monday, 30 October 2006 6:02:28 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
Dear anna52,

I have nothing but respect for you. I am least bothered what you wear viz. hijab/jijab/veil etc.

However, when I found the reason for wearing such things, which the sheik and many islamic scholars reiterated, I have no respect for the veil.

Do you know sheik once said:

"The two cheapest things in Australia are the flesh of a woman and the meat of a pig," .

And he compares white women (or women in general) to meat. He says all muslim men are like cats.

If uncovered meat (women without veils exposing legs/hands/faces) are kept outside (walking on road, travelling in train/bus, in beach)
cats (muslim men) will eat (rape) meat (women esp. white women). So, it's the meat's fault.

This statement was established again and again by many muslim rapists; when they were questioned in courts, they say these "white-women" deserve rape for not wearing veils. Got it?
Posted by tit_for_tat, Monday, 30 October 2006 6:48:01 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
My eyes are opened now as a muslim woman Shakira speaks about her experiences:

Eyes opened by Islamic chauvinism

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20673860-601,00.html

" Mustafa - tried to drag her under their control in the name of Islam."

" As soon as we made contact, he said I should be living under my father's roof, or with my grandmother, or an aunt.

"I didn't realise how serious he was. I just told him that I wasn't interested."

"He (Mustafa) would berate me about that, in part because she was Jewish, but also because I was living out of home," she said.

"Eventually I told him to get lost, mind his own business. But he would come to the house, knocking on the door, to insist I come home with him, to live under our father's roof."

"where a young man, a relative, would decide how I should live, or dress, or behave."

"We should know from London that young Muslim men are feeling disenfranchised - they do not fit into their own cultures, or into Western cultures - and we should not have leaders encouraging them toward this frightening, controlling behaviour."

I am sure this is happening in almost all muslim families.
Posted by obozo, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 3:13:28 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
Dee
Sorry, now it’s “Muslims worldwide behaviour you fear being repeated in Australia”? That’s your concern? Is this the part where you explain the joke to me? How can you fear something that has not occurred? And if it has occurred please feel free to outline how this behaviour is a) worldwide b) being repeated in Australia c) something tangible to fear.

The problem with you lies in your conceptualisation. You see the West as one entity and Islam as another. You’ve fallen straight into the hands of government propaganda. Congratulations!

Not only is it impossible to generalise the entire Muslim population but to give the “we’re all Christian and democratic” line is comical. We’re not all Christian in the West and we’re not all democratic. We don’t practise the values of the Enlightenment period (which we claim to be the founding of Western society).

It was 1946 that France accorded equal voting rights for women. Progressive. 6% of women in France are represented in parliament. Wow. (I mean if we go by your generalisations, clearly it doesn’t matter if the US and France are like chalk and cheese...it’s all the same if it’s on the Western side of the world right?!)

The other problem is that Children being locked up in detention centres may have been trouble makers inside their kindergarten and preschool environments but I hardly see that as warranting such barbaric and inhumane treatment. Perhaps you see differently when it comes to children from the East. Either that or you believe all refugees are criminals. I suppose that would make sense given some of your comments.

“All Muslims who are foolishly accepted in every Western Country are violent troublemakers” – it’s easy to take a person out of context isn’t it?

Yes lacking in respect seems to be what the Sheik is doing. Making an uneducated statement and trying to pass it off as being somehow religiously inspired when it’s not. Expressing an opinion that a lot of people disagree with. Saying it in a smug manner. What else? (Perhaps refer to Today tonight for inspiration).
(continued)
Posted by fleurette, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 4:30:59 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
But you know what? Cardinal George Pell does the same thing almost every week in his column. He offends everyone with his stupid views. He’s even gone so far as to say that women should be in the home, in the kitchen, having babies – where they belong. I find this offensive too. But am I calling for him to deported? Do I want him sacked? Or do I just accept that he is part of an institution that may or may not advocate his views and we just have to deal with it?
What does being an “aussie slut” have to do with not dressing appropriately? Now YOU are the one making the link between the two. The media is ridiculously sensationalising the entire matter. Trying to bring up comments from other sheiks (about the skaf case). Tying it all together so that people no longer differentiate between events relating to Muslims in Australia.

Wrong wrong wrong. Muslim countries are hell holes because the US and Great Britain have maintained the current status quo for as long as they have had control over the region. If you think religion is the problem in the middle east then you are seriously displaying your ignorance here. You name one country in the Middle East where you believe Islam is at the forefront of the problem and I’ll give you a myriad of reasons explaining why the US is really to blame.

India being subjected to British Imperialism for hundreds of years DID set them back considerably. What an oafish comment to make! Indians suffered not just because of the British but because religious tensions were exacerbated BY the British who knew that if there was disunity amongst the populace they’d be less inclined to want independence – and they were right. And it worked. Coincidentally enough the partition of India coincided with the good riddance of Britain and the good times were not rolling for India when all of this occurred. But of course, you only imagine problems when Islam is the primary religion to blame.
Posted by fleurette, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 4:32:28 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
flu,

I think you are typical PC bend-over which took the country to this stage. You say that muslim countries are in the state because western countries UK, USA occupied them. What a load of crap! I wonder what Indians will react to your slurs but I can give you a link which shows how Indians respect UK.

"Today, with the balance and perspective offered by the passage of time and the benefit of hindsight, it is possible for an Indian Prime Minister to assert that India's experience with Britain had its beneficial consequences too. Our notions of the rule of law, of a Constitutional government, of a free press, of a professional civil service, of modern universities and research laboratories have all been fashioned in the crucible where an age old civilization met the dominant Empire of the day. These are all elements which we still value and cherish. Our judiciary, our legal system, our bureaucracy and our police are all great institutions, derived from British-Indian administration and they have served the country well.

Of all the legacies of the Raj, none is more important than the English language and the modern school system. That is, if you leave out cricket! Of course, people here may not recognise the language we speak, but let me assure you that it is English! In indigenising English, as so many people have done in so many nations across the world, we have made the language our own. Our choice of prepositions may not always be the Queen's English; we might occasionally split the infinitive; and we may drop an article here and add an extra one there. I am sure everyone will agree, however, that English has been enriched by Indian creativity as well and we have given you R.K. Narayan and Salman Rushdie. Today, English in India is seen as just another Indian language. ............"
Posted by obozo, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 4:42:36 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
Dee - be nice if things were so simple.

I take your point about some twisting themselves into knots trying to defend the indefensible, but I don't see any people here defending the sheikh. Before I continue, it would appear it's necessary for me to point out I think his comments were dumb, and I certainly don't agree with them. In fact, I don't think the other posters are either, though perhaps that would make it easier to argue with them...

Now. On to weightier matters.
Your post said that muslim countries are "hellholes because they follow a 7th century desert religion."

Few points here - I'll acknowledge that a disproportionate number of muslim nations are oppressive to their people, though I rather suspect that those hailing from Turkey would be a little peeved to be grouped in there. In my view, the Ottoman empire was incredibly enlightened for its time. Rather interesting in that it embraced secular government despite accepting religious views.
Something a few Australian politicians could learn from. Also, I'm not sure they had much choice in being a desert religion. And how does the desert bear relevance? Never mind. Anyhow...

"Saudi Arabia has billions in oil money but has not done one thing to improve the lives of fellow Muslims"

Couldn't agree more. Nasty government that one, with plenty of human rights abuses. In fact, having spawned most of the 9/11 bombers, it's also a haven for terrorists.
A much better target for bombing than Iraq... yet we chose to invade an anti Al-Qaeda state. Yeah, saddam was nasty, but so's Saudi Arabia...

Yet we chose Iraq. Bit hypocritical innit? Perhaps it's choices like these that have muslim's questioning western motivations.

Just saying there's more important issues out there. Perhaps we should think about them instead of some dopey sheikh.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 4:50:21 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
So, turnleft&right,

I dont condone this thing but if Mecca, Madina are nuked as part of revenge attacks, what will happen?
Posted by tit_for_tat, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 5:14:23 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
fleurette

I understand what you are saying, particularly when you compare with Cardinal George Pell. But he is home grown and part of the establishment therefore we can and do laugh at him.

Religious minorities, even those who like the Jews arrived with the First Fleet, or the Chinese who arrived later have all learnt to respect the majority. Sir Isaac Isaacs and Sir John Monash would have been more careful than the elderly Cardinal even though they occupied more important positions and were held higher in the public esteem.

Muslims leaders here must learn patience and build bridges to be accepted. Australia is little different from any other society and more tolerant than most.

How would a Catholic priest or a Rabbi be greeted in Saudi Arabia or Syria if they were as tactless about Muslim society as the Sheik was about ours? And please rednecks do not misquote me here.
Posted by logic, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 5:30:14 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
fleurette,
Why do you excuse and support the Sheik for his ratbag statements while you claim Cardinal George Pell makes the same stupid statements. Double standards on your part blinkered by religious bias don't you agree. Where is George Pell seeking the overthrow of Western democracy and personal choice in dress sense? Please give us some URL links!

"Cardinal George Pell does the same thing almost every week in his column. He offends everyone with his stupid views. He’s even gone so far as to say that women should be in the home, in the kitchen, having babies – where they belong."
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 6:53:05 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
fleurette didn't excuse and support the Sheik for his statements - on the contrary she opposed them, but suggests we should make less fuss over them given that we ignore statements in a similar vein by an elderly Christian cleric.
Posted by logic, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 8:53:19 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
Flurette is correct about one thing.

Newscorp is without doubt embarking on a calculated campaign to marginalize Muslims through the linking and timing of various stories, which, when you dig a bit deeper are nothing more than typical ratbag Islamic teaching current at any time.

I scan the following papers each morning.
Daily Telegraph (newscorp)
Sydney Morning Herald
The Age
The Australian (Newscorp)
Herald Sun (Newscorp)

Similar stories in the Age and SMH (leftish/Fairfax) are usually played down.

Things have become so tense for the average Muslim even in Melbourne that a father and son who go to my gym, asked me about self defense.
I gave them both a quick lesson on the spot.

Its such a pity that many truly lovable people (personality) are being hurt by such campaigns.

I support the idea of exposing the nature of Islam, but I focus on the behavior and character of their prophet, and that is where it all starts. The way the media is going about it, is clearly (surprise surprise) to sell papers and advertising.

Dee brought up an important point about the favorite wife of Mohammed not wearing any veil... so it raises the question 'why' do Muslim women do it today ? Its certainly not 'Islamic'..... so they cannot say "It is a sign of my respect for God"

The NewsCorp campaign in particular will simply create social tension, rather than re-shape policy which is more important (immigration and education) though, I suppose it might also impact there due to popular outrage. Sad though, many will be hurt in the process.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 9:39:47 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
Quite often I think to myself that we'd all be better off if all the silly old religious nutters of all persuasions would keep their fundie ideas to themselves.

Then I wake up.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 10:01:28 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
Tit_for_tat

Horrendous chaos I imagine.

I wouldn't advocate the war in Iraq or a war in Saudi Arabia, but I'd say that in the context of the war in terror, Saudi Arabia would be near the top of the list and Iraq way down.
I guess my point is that if the western world was really motivated primarily by security rather than economic reasons (of course both factor in, but we never hear about the economic reasons) than the focus should be on Saudi Arabia.

But it isn't.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 11:35:53 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
fleurette - "explain the joke to me?"

Perhaps if a loved one had ever been the victim of an attack by a gang of Lebanese Muslims it wouldn’t be such a joke. Read the world news every morning, access the internet daily. If you wish me to provide news reports dealing with violent and antisocial behaviour by Muslims around the world, I will do so. Meanwhile, check out France (hundreds of vehicles torched daily in an Islamic ‘infitada’ against French police); Belgium (anti-Jewish riots by Muslim immigrants when I was there); Skandinavia (soaring rape stats and violence due to immigrant Muslims); Indonesia (Christian schoolgirls beheaded, and repeated murder of Christians); Christians and other non-Muslims are persecuted in every Muslim country; UK (street riots in several towns started by Muslim intrusion) – need I continue? Is there some other religion whose followers consistently behave in this fashion everywhere they settle?

“How can you fear something that has not occurred?”

Where have you been living? If you live in Sydney, you must be aware of the high level of crimes like car jacking, drive by shootings, ATM ramraiding and armed robberies. 80% of the offenders are MOMEAs (check NSW Police online). Did you miss the ‘revenge attacks’ carried out by armed Muslim gangs on innocent people?

“You’ve fallen straight into the hands of government propaganda”

The high level of crime carried out by M.E. Muslims is not ‘propaganda’, it is fact. Since the 1980s Sydney people have been subjected to so many crimes committed by Muslims that the M.E. Crime Squad was created.

“We’re not all Christian in the West”

I stated that the west is (nominally) Christian and democratic (meaning that we elect our governments). The US may have little in common with France on the surface but both countries are part of modern western civilization and both have Judeo-Christian heritages. Its quite clear which countries belong to the West, regardless of when women got the vote in what country– we are bound together by our common heritage not our minor differences.
[cont.]
Posted by dee, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 3:08:03 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
fleurette [cont.]

‘Either that or you believe all refugees are criminals’

I don’t believe that anyone should be accepted as a refugee until their story is thoroughly checked out. Until that time, they should be detained. Or are you seriously suggesting that Australia should have an open borders policy? Or that would-be refugees should be given the opportunity to melt into the community as thousands did in the UK? Australia’s security trumps refugees rights.

“I’ll give you a myriad of reasons explaining why the US is really to blame.”

I’m sure you will - but don’t waste your time, I’ve heard them all.

I often disagree with George Pell, but he is a member of the church in a (nominally) Christian country. He is not an import whose loyalty to Australia is highly questionable, neither does he preach in a foreign language. His words can be accessed and understood, and unlike al-Hilaly’s words, they cannot be ‘misinterpreted, misunderstood or mistranslated’.

‘Expressing an opinion that a lot of people disagree with.’

You fail to mention the thousands of followers who agree wholeheartedly and who cheered him to the echo. There is a rally for the sheik this weekend in Sydney, so we can see exactly how many Muslims ‘disagree’ with his words.

I do not believe that every Muslim is a threat but immigration from Islamic countries has been a disaster for the West. Every European country is tightening its laws to restrict Muslim immigration, but I guess you know better than any European government.
Posted by dee, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 3:10:49 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
Hi Turn left & right,

" Horrendous chaos I imagine. "

Absolutely. If a person like Saddam, murderer of fellow muslims i.e kurds, kuwaitis is hailed as a hero in muslim world & seeing the reaction of muslims (i.e london blasts, madrid bombs etc.), we can only imagine the reaction of muslims if saudi arabia is attacked.

As you said, the murderers of 9/11 are mostly saudis and it is a fact that their inspiration, finaces are based in mecca. So, Mecca should be the actual target of U.S. But the fool George Bush diverted all his forces to Iraq and got messed up.

As for me, I wont advocate Iraq war or War on Saudi. I wish these would have happened

1. After 9/11, all the muslims from middle-east origin in US should have been deported or atleast thorougly profiled/examined by FBI.

2. The U.S should have cut all the relations with the muslim world. (in other words, not interferd in their life. let them suffer) It should not have sent aid to any of the muslim countries.

3. Rather, it should have focussed on finding alternative resources for oil.

4. And finally, it should have warned, in the case of any muslim attack, that country will get shape-less.

But, the fool GWB did foolish things and the US / the whole world is suffering now.
Posted by tit_for_tat, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 3:33:09 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
Well, Tit_for_tat, I suppose that's one solution, but can you, (and should you) attempt to block off an entire world religion? This is a billion people worldwide, millions in the US.

Sure, 9/11 was a terrible thing, but can you just chalk that up to an entire religion?

We've the lessons of hitler to tell us what happens when you treat an entire culture/religion/people as 'the enemy,' though I'll concede your approach isn't a 'kill em all' kind of spiel, but rather an 'ignore it and they'll go away.'

Having the west not interfere in middle eastern politics is a good idea in theory... at this point, I'd just advocate a greatly reduced role there.

As for the deporting idea... nope. Not practical and not fair. Believe it or not, fundamentalists are still a minority of Islam, as much as they're painted otherwise.

If we had a billion fundamentalists walking the earth, you'd know it.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 5:10:12 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 tit 4 tat u r a fool really. revert to the solution the us tried on the japanese in ww2?
having the US look for other sources of oil kind of suggests they are only interested in the middle for the oil -could that be true?

i suggest you get back under the bed coz the muslims are cummin - they are shagging their brains out - soon the 300,00 will be 3,000,000 and they can screw us at the ballot box
Posted by INKEEMAGEE2, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 10:50:48 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
Yes Turnright Turnleft,

Germany and Hitler is a very good example of what happens when people decide to segregate themselves off into exclusive religious tribes who wont marry outside of their religion. And there are examples of it right across history not just Hitler. What happened in Germany was nothing new in History but it shocked the world because it had never been done using such precise modern methods before. Gas ovens.
Posted by sharkfin, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 11:29:19 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 Fleurette,

Australia has become wary of taking refugees because we can see the trouble that refugees and immigrants are causing in countries around the world. The race riots in France. The race riots by the West Indians in Britain and the London bombings.
Who can blame us for taking a step back and saying it may be advisable to proceed with caution before importing these kind of problems.

Dee points out that there is trouble in Singapore and Malaysia as well ,over the Muslim religion. The Bosnians were also Muslim and so are the Chechnians in Russsia. The Jindaweed killing the tribespeople in Sudan are also Muslim. It seems that much of the conflict in the world is happening where there are big tribes of Muslims and I’,m not saying the killing in some of these conflicts isn’t directed at the Muslims. I’m saying that there is something provoking conflict wherever this Muslim religion is.

You mention India.
India is another example of the conflict caused by religious tribalism. When the British pulled out of India the Hindus and Sieks waged a bloody war for control of India . That wasn’t Britian’s fault . There was nothing to stop the Hindus and the Shieks forming a peacefully elected government when the British left.

If you are Muslim I know that you write because you want the same thing that I do. You want your loved ones and the generations after them to go forward in peace and safety in this country. The question is how do we make sure that the conflicts we see in other countries never happen here. And don’t tell me the answer is tolerance because I have never believed that wars are about intolerance.
I believe if the Jews and Muslims could step out of their religious tribalism and all intermarry and have children the war in the middle east would be over.
Posted by sharkfin, Thursday, 2 November 2006 12:57:47 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
London Bombings? But those behind it were born in England.

Importing these kind of problems?” But these problems are related to the countries and their people. How can their hatred be transcribed to this country if it’s purely created in their own?
The people LEAVING their country are in most cases forced to do so. They’re not leaving to cause trouble – they can do that in their own country. They seek sanctuary.

Who are you to accuse them of hidden motives when we are the ones bombing them under false pretences?

“I believe if the Jews and Muslims could step out of their religious tribalism and all intermarry and have children the war in the middle east would be over.”

Hahha. Hilarious sharkfin. Tell us another one.

Israel passed a law forbidding intermarriage between Jews and Arabs. Israel is the major cause of PROBLEMS in the middle east. Feel foolish yet?

You have mentioned race riots as one problem – by that I’m assuming Muslims are to blame. So because a bunch of redneck drunken aussies decided to wreak havoc in Cronulla, I’m supposed to turn to Islam and question it’s presence in this country? I’m supposed to be wary of the Muslims of the world coming to this country to prevent these redneck, neo-nazi, racist, intolerant, PURELY AUSTRALIAN BORN hooligans from a repeat performance?

Please. When you see a riot, you see PEOPLE protesting about their social conditions. There’s lots of violence? Wow and America and South Africa were just soo peaceful and had no violence after all the years of apartheid, slavery and oppression! It must be because they’re black. Why don’t we review all black people from entering our country too? (please note the sarcasm).

Stop being naïve. There’s no way in the world things can just “go back to normal” once you’ve thrown a massive rock on a tiny rock pool. It’s not just going to have a small ripple effect. It’s going to leave a crater in the earth, remove most of the water if not all and leave the place worse than
(continued)
Posted by fleurette, Thursday, 2 November 2006 10:52:40 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
it was before the rock ever decided to crash the party.

It wasn’t Britain’s fault that Muslims couldn’t get along with Hindus? Well how exactly is it the fault of the Muslims?
You’d have more credibility if you mentioned how Muslims instigated the problem. But just because now you are more aware of any crisis involving Muslims doesn’t mean they are suddenly the problem.

“I’m saying there is something provoking conflict wherever this Muslim religion is.”

And I’m saying it’s not always because of Islam and its adherents. So I guess that leaves you with no argument.

“The question is how we make sure that the conflicts we see in other countries never happen here.”

We hope and pray that America doesn’t invade us. So I guess we’re A-Okay then.
You can’t PREVENT conflict – trying to do so has only ever created more catastrophe (just ask history). You can only hope that it doesn’t spiral out of control. You also don’t add fuel to a fire that’s been burning for years i.e. support a war you know nothing about, HOWARD.

War may not be about intolerance – but intolerance fuels the fire behind war and makes people support it. A war without support from the populace cannot continue – history will also tell you that.

The reasons to go to war are more complex and they are economical reasons, geo-strategic, geo political etc.
The only role religion plays in war is to use it against those you are fighting because by exacerbating difference you create division.

I’m not suggesting tolerance – I’m just saying people lose the racist and bigoted ideologies and start seeing what’s really happening if you care at all about the status of the world (not just Australia). It may not solve the problems of the world but it’ll sure help me sleep better at night knowing that I don’t live in a country which promotes the views of Adolf Hitler. (titfortat – this means you).

I’m not Muslim. I’m a one-of-a-kind Christian Lebanese who actually cares about the plight of the Muslims.
Go figure.
Posted by fleurette, Thursday, 2 November 2006 10:55:10 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
flu,

"I’m not Muslim. I’m a one-of-a-kind Christian Lebanese who actually cares about the plight of the Muslims"

will you ever hear this statement in your life-time?

"I’m not a non-Muslim. I’m a one-of-a-kind muslim Lebanese who actually cares about the plight of the non-Muslims"

or

" I'm a muslim. I care about the plight of non-muslims in islamic countries. "

Ever??
Posted by tit_for_tat, Thursday, 2 November 2006 2:56:24 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
fleurette - ‘But these problems are related to the countries and their people’

The problem is Islam. 'These problems' begin and end with Islam. Loyalty to Islam comes first, as the home grown bombers prove. A YouGov poll among Britain's Muslims immediately after the July 7 bombings (London's The Daily Telegraph, July 23) found 6% believed them fully justified. A further 24%, while not condoning the bombings, expressed sympathy with the feelings and motives of their perpetrators. Some 32% believe "Western society is decadent and immoral" and "Muslims should seek to bring it to an end". Are Muslims in Australia so different?

‘we are the ones …’

*We*? I have never persecuted Muslims or bombed their countries. Like most Australians, I knew little about Islam before Muslim immigration - So tell me again why I should accept creatures like al-Hilaly and Trad spouting their filth in Australia? Muslims have committed far more crimes against Australians than vice versa, as the creation of the Middle East Crime Squad proves. In 1996, the Muslim unemployment level was 25% compared to the 9% of the national total (ABS). How does Australia benefit by Islamic immigration?

‘.. racist, intolerant, PURELY AUSTRALIAN BORN’

Once again, where do you live? You obviously haven't a clue about the real situation. The Cronulla riots were the result of years of harassment and violence by M.E. hoodlums. Complaints by locals to police resulted in no action being taken. That you fail to mention the revenge attacks (when police allowed a convoy of armed Muslims to attack innocent people) is yet another example of twisting yourself into knots to defend the indefensible. Unless, of course, you believe that Australians should ‘tolerate’ migrants behaving in this fashion. And please don’t say that the gangs were ‘Australians’ (because some were born here) – they are not.

‘I’m a one-of-a-kind Christian Lebanese’

It was the Christian Lebanese who first warned Australians about the dangers of Islamic immigration. Too bad the government didn’t listen. The last thing Australia needs is Islam.
Posted by dee, Thursday, 2 November 2006 3:34:41 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
TurnRightThenLeft –‘nobody here is defending the sheikh’

Not in so many words, but the fact that the sheik has many followers is carefully avoided. To compare George Pell with a blow-in like al-Hilaly, who is in Australia only because Keating and McLeay needed the Muslim vote, is beyond offensive. Al-Hilay's words are not ‘dumb’, they are evil, and by expressing sympathy for gang rapists, he incites more of the same. al-Hilaly has preached similar bile for many years – perhaps the words of his mouthpiece, Kayser Trad, should also be widely publicized. Trad is even more offensive and full of hate for Australia than his boss.

‘those hailing from Turkey’

I agree that Turkey differs from the rest of the Islamic world, I suspect because religion and state are separate in that country.

‘ how does the desert bear relevance?’

Islam was created as a religion for desert people 1400 years ago and has not changed. The OT says: 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live' but now witchcraft is accepted as a valid belief system. The OT says that homosexuality is an 'abomination' but now homosexuals have the same rights as heteros; Jesus told the woman taken in adultery to go home and sin no more - in the same situation, Mohammed ordered the woman stoned. The words of Allah (via Mohammed) are immutable. Homosexuals and adulters are still stoned.

Re Saudi Arabia – couldn’t agree more! Pres. Bush should have declared Saudi a terrorist country and invaded it instead of Iraq. The reputed closeness of the Bush family to the bin Ladens is a worry.

‘muslim's questioning western motivations’.

Not only Muslims! There are so many possible reasons for the war in Iraq that we will probably never know the truth.

“ more important issues out there”

All these issues, small and large, are connected to Islam and the refusal of many Muslims to live by the laws and mores of their adopted countries as well as their aggressive attempts to change our societies to suit them.
Posted by dee, Thursday, 2 November 2006 3:50:52 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
fleurette asked: "How can you fear something that has not occurred?”

Assuming you did not mean: "How can you fear something re-occurring?", this takes the cake of the year's newspeak for "logic".

The lengths people go to just to hold their dogmatic grounds!
Posted by abyss, Thursday, 2 November 2006 7:12:47 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
I have met many Muslims who cared about the plight of non-muslims in Islamic countries. And the plight of many people in other countries.

It depends on how secure people feel. Educated Muslims with prestigious occupations are like secure people anywhere else. The example of Nazi Germany showed what certain people can do when the majority feel threatened.
Posted by logic, Thursday, 2 November 2006 8:03:28 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
Dee -

Interesting that you point out that the old testament had things like suffering witches to live and homosexuality, which have both become largely acceptable in modern society (well, certainly not stoning offences).

Here's the rub. Islam is constantly criticised for the content of the Qu'ran. I'm not sure about the content myself, but we keep hearing about mohammed's paedophilia and such instances.

Fair enough to argue the christian faith has changed and moved on - it has. A little more acknowledgment that plenty of muslims outside of oppressive muslim regimes have moved on as well would be nice.

Of course muslim regimes are infinitely worse than secular ones... but are they infinitely worse than christian ones? We can't say because christian government in a fundamentalist form doesn't exist any more. It has evolved.

A facetious person would point out here recent howard government decisions, but that comparison's still pretty far away from being valid, but... isn't prevention better than cure?

Clearly, fundamentalist islam nations have not evolved their religion in the same way as western ones, and have become tyrannical in exercising their power.

I guess my main point here is don't bag Islam for what's in the Qu'ran. The old testament has issues too. It's all just thousands of year old gobbledygook.

Fair point in criticising those who actually deem that as acceptable. But be open to those of the Islamic faith who don't.

Keep in mind the millions of muslims among the nations of the first world who are enlightened people.
Ostracizing them only leads to more problems, as mentioned in a more recent OLO article.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 3 November 2006 3:35:02 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
TRTL,

I totally agree with your above post.

The problem is not with Islam but with a xenophobic culture that has for a long time interpreted it in an anachronistic manner.

One is still a Muslim if they accept from the Quran what they consider to be essential to Islam, but reject what is arguably only the result of historical circumstances, and thus contingent.

I also think Islamo-fascist extremists want nothing more than that everybody FAIL to make this distinction between the progressives and the rednecks in Islam.

Still, we do have the problem that such rednecks exist, and are far more of a worry than any of the innocuous 500 or so members of white extremist groups throughout Australia, whom ASIO said are even too afraid to show their faces.

And I don't think we can continue to jump to conclusions that those critical of such radicals are only being biased either. If a sector of the population felt as marginalised as Muslims do, you'de think they'd jump at the opportunity to take advantage of this moment and publicly rally against the rednecks.

Australians do not judge an entire people on the actions of a few - if they did we'd not have Australia but some other country! Australians judge the reactions to these few, and form opinion on that basis. That's totally reasonable.
Posted by abyss, Friday, 3 November 2006 5:09:15 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
ExpatInSingapore,

I applaud Singapore for banning the wearing of Muslim head-scarves in all state schools. I hardly regard this a 'plight' that women of the Islamic faith face in Singapore.

On the other hand, for Malaysia to enforce the wearing of the head-scarf on non-Muslim women, under any circumstances, is completely wrong and unacceptable, full-stop.

They are not the same plight. It is wrong to suggest otherwise.
Posted by GZ Tan, Friday, 3 November 2006 11:12:49 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
Dear Fluerette,

It was the Sieks not the muslims who fought the Hindus in India. I typed Sieks first up and then I made a typing error and accidentally wrote shieks the second time.

Sigh-: Here is my list of territorial tribal warfare in the last 56years obviously you haven’t read it before.

Territorial massacre of Jews by the Germans
Territorial massacre of 15million Chinese by the Japanese
Territorial massacre of 1million Muslims by the Turks
Territorial civil war by Hindus and Sieks for control of India
Territorial massacre of Bosnians by Serbs
Territorial massacre in Somalia
Territorial massacre of one tribe by the other in Rwanda
Territorial terrorist attacks by the Irish catholic tribe(IRA) against the British Protestant Tribe for control of Ireland
Territorial massacre of the Timorese by the Idonesians in East Timor
Territorial fight by the Tamil tigers
Territorial dogfight between the Arabs and Jews in Middle East
Territorial civil war between the Sunni tribe and the Shiite tribe in Iraq(I predicted that’s what would happen before the Americans invaded )
Four territorial coups by the indigenous native population against the ruling Indian government in Figi
Territorial attack against the immigrant Chinese tribe in the Solomons.

Do you see why I say that wars are between tribes over territorial control.

It has gone on right across history . Goin back further of course, it was The Romans, The British, Ghengis Khan, and other territorial males like him for example the warlords(the Kings of history).

Mankind is tribal and territorial and T.V. and technological advances haven’t changed mans inner programming one bit. Every species on this planet has the two big survival instincts. That is the sexual instinct and the Territorial instinct.
You tell me how we are going to have peace in this country if people remain tribal and don’t intermarry. World war 1 also started in the multi cultural Germany when the German Kaiser went down to the Serbian section and was assassinated.
Women have babies, men are territorial providers and protectors. That has been programmed into them by nature. Armies and terrorists are territorial males.
Posted by sharkfin, Saturday, 4 November 2006 12:42:30 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
Boaz David,

"Australian" food? what do you mean mate? back to piece of meat and three vegs? NOOOO, please!

Seriously though, food is just one example of what the "newbies" to Australia have contributed, bring it on I say! Variety makes the world interesting, why don't you relax and enjoy?
Posted by Schmuck, Saturday, 4 November 2006 1:39:17 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
TurnRightThenLeft - 'Islam is constantly criticised for the content of the Qu'ran'

Isnt that logical? The Koran is the acknowledged holy book of Islam, the immutable words of Allah via Mohammed. It is the guide to life and worship followed by all Muslims – is there a Muslim somewhere who lives his/her life without reference to this book? Since the uproar is so great when some infidel is accused of ‘disrespecting the koran’ we must conclude that it means a lot to Muslims.

'The old testament has issues too'

The Western world has moved on from OT values – in fact, Christian countries (should) follow the teachings of Jesus, not the laws of the OT. The OT accepts slavery, but Christians were the first to declare that slavery is wrong, and campaign to end it. No Islamic country has ever enacted laws against this evil, in fact, there are still slaves in the Muslim world.

'Ostracizing them only leads to more problems'

I think the real problem is that many Muslims have voluntarily ostrasized themselves. Most migrant groups have a tough settling in period, but Australia has accepted all kinds of people. My point is that the Islamic way of life does not fit into Australia in any sense. Islamic customs and mores appear to be diametrically opposed to the Australian way of life. Everything about us 'offends' them.

Of course there are exceptions, but not enough to change the growing perception of Australians that Muslim immigration is of no benefit whatsoever to Australia.
Posted by dee, Saturday, 4 November 2006 3:54:38 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
Dee - the three quotes you picked out don't encompass the rest of the post, which I can't help but feel you've missed the point of.
I acknowledge christianity has moved on, but my point was that plenty of muslims have as well, the part you're studiously ignoring.

Abyss pointed out that the goal of radical fundamentalists was to have western society group both moderate and fundamentalists as the one sector, a point I heartily agree with.

Are they succeeding?
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 6 November 2006 8:24:31 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
Muslim Women Are the Key to Change

Front Page Magazine, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, November 1, 2006

“Ideas can be dangerous. I have learnt that the hard way. But I know that when it comes to freedom and human rights these precious ideas, so valued in the West, are worth fighting for. As a young Muslim woman, born in Somalia, I abandoned my family to avoid an arranged marriage to a distant cousin and fled to Holland. I was just 23 and I had no idea back then that my refusal to submit to a traditional Muslim woman’s life would come to dominate my whole career. So for me, the debate that is raging about the veil, particularly the niqab, which covers most of the woman’s face save for the eyes, goes to the very heart of the matter of liberty for Islamic women…”

At: http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2521
Posted by Philo, Monday, 6 November 2006 4:48:20 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
Comments by Shaikh ibn Baz who was the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia - i.e. a top scholar of Islam: at the holiest Mosque in Mecca

“I advise the young ladies not to refuse a man because of his older age. Even if he be ten, twenty or thirty years older, this is not a valid excuse. THE PROPHET (PEACE BE UPON HIM) MARRIED AISHA WHEN HE WAS FIFTY-THREE YEARS OLD AND SHE WAS NINE YEARS OLD. Older age is not harmful. There is no problem if the woman is older than the man and there is no problem if the man is older than the woman. The Prophet (peace be upon him) married Khadijah when she was forty years old and he was twenty-five years old, before he received his first revelation. That is, she was fifteen years older than him (may Allah be pleased with her). AND AISHA WAS MARRIED WHEN SHE WAS A YOUNG LADY OF SIX OR SEVEN YEARS AND THE PROPHET (PEACE BE UPON HIM) CONSUMMATED THE MARRIAGE WHEN SHE WAS NINE YEARS OLD AND HE WAS FIFTY-THREE YEARS OLD. Many of those who talk on the radio or television and speak against having disparaging ages between husband and wife are wrong. It is not permissible for them to say such things. Instead, what must be done is, the woman must look at the prospective husband and, if he be pious and appropriate, she must agree to him even if he is older than her. Similarly, the man must try to marry a woman who is pious and virtuous, even if she is older than him, especially if she is still less than mid life. In any case, age should not be taken as an excuse. It should also not be considered a shortcoming, as long as the man is pious or the woman is pious. May Allah make the affairs good for everyone!”
Posted by tit_for_tat, Tuesday, 7 November 2006 1:33:37 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
Tit for tat,

Although you quoted a Wahhabi scholar (Bin Baz) if you refer to alazhar references re the prophet’s wives and how he married them, is a different one again.

The prophet was in a monogamous relation from the age of 25 till after the revelation.
Given the known history of Islam and persecution of Muslims, the prophet was preaching the message for the following 13 years. As Muslims we see it as follows:

- He married his wives in the last 10 years of his age (ie 53 to 63).
- Many of the marriages were with older women (widows of war) and some of his wives were the least regarded on the scale of good looks.
- Inter-marriage with two Jewish wives and one Christian (Maria, the mother of his only son Ibrahim). The Jewish marriage was post war with a Jewish tribe and caused all Muslims to release their Jewish prisoners.

Regardless, polygamy is not related to prophethood and judging historical events should be within the time and cultural constraints of the time. For us he is the last prophet and the Qu’ran is God’s word.

PS: there is a number of references on Aisha age so I am not going to dwell on these but Arabs, Jews and other tribes used to consider puberty as the age of consent. Believe what you want to believe I guess

PS: I noticed you did a ‘copy & paste’ of your comment on different topics.
Posted by Fellow_Human, Tuesday, 7 November 2006 9:24:02 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
'Loyalty to Islam comes first, as the home grown bombers prove.'

What? As opposed to say, loyalty to one's nation?

Is it better to kill for reasons of patriotism and national pride than religion? Because there's a lot of the former going on in the secular world.

What does loyalty to Islam come before? Because if you mean pride in one's country I still think suicide bombers (who have mainly targeted countries involved in supporting Israel or the war in Iraq) are acting out of national pride as well. Take South Africa for example. Terrorism over there was against white oppression and a desire to be an autonomous people free of apartheid. I'd say that's motivated by pride in one's nation.

India's the same. Vietnam – another great case study where oppression breeds nationalism and nationalism breeds violence.

Wow we're so far off from talking about Islam; I wonder how it's relevant at all?

Oh Palestinians! They're Muslims!
Oh but wait. The very first terrorists against Israel were Japanese communists. Neither Muslims OR Arabs.

Gee what a let down Islam. I guess when it comes to living up to its bad ass image, Islam doesn't make the cut! Unless your source is the Daily Telegraph as opposed to say, history.

And unless you want to talk about 7th century Islam because that's soo relevant to today huh? Because according to Dee nothing's changed since!

And while we're at it can we also just isolate the few incidents of terrorism that have been done to death in the media and forget about the myriad of attacks, offences, bloodshed, war and horror that the West has inflicted and supported on the Middle Eastern Muslims? Great!

And how many people supported the war in Iraq at first? How many now? I think after 9/11 practically everyone supported it (once again, trying desperately to make the tenuous link between Islam and terrorism).

You do realise it's a joke war right? Somehow (thanks to Fox news) the whole war on Terrorism was changed to the War on Terror.
(continued)
Posted by fleurette, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 10:51:53 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
(continued)
The "ism" was just dropped off the face of the earth. Now we're fighting against a feeling, an emotion.
Hey tomorrow I'm starting a war on Anger and Fluster. Don't think you can get all 'agitate' on me because soon I'll be starting a war on that too!

I can see that you knew little and you still do. To think that you might know more on Islam after "Muslim immigration" is a worry particularly with the views you have expressed.

Thanks Logic for clearing that up. It takes Bozo a while to see past his own bigotry.

In response to your hypothetical, if a Christian or a Rabbi preached in Syria or Saudi Arabia to the Muslim population saying "stop covering up your women this is the reason the Western world is attacking you" then yes I can imagine it would cause an uproar.

If a Christian or a Rabbi preached to his Christian or Jewish followers telling them to adhere to what they believe is the correct version of Christianity or Judaism so that they won't get attacked by non-Christians and non-Jews (and saying that if they DO get attacked it's their own fault) – Well I still don't think Al-Jazeera would make quite the fuss.

Politicians would not get involved, trying to deport them, no fatwas would be declared and I certainly don't think it would "divide the community".

Sharkfin.

You want people to intermarry? Go tell Israel to change their laws then. In fact, while you're at it, get Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. I'm sure you can put on a convincing argument too. Just tell the Prime Minister what you just told me. You know, a nice succinct version of history (and just forget to mention OTHER reasons for why these wars may have occured) - so long as he gets the idea that his segregated, Apartheid, ethnocratic state of Israel is wrong and is the reason why peace will never exist in the world.

Got all that down? Can't wait to hear his response!
Posted by fleurette, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 10:58:26 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
Fleurette,

U wrote: "...oppression breeds nationalism and nationalism breeds violence"??

Is that how you quickly jumped to a conclusion that suicide bombing is justifiable? In fact the way you think, you can justify ANYTHING !!

I think this is better: "...oppression... breeds 'struggle'".

But then why should oppression breed nationalism? Please provide your profound reasoning.

U wrote: "The very first terrorists against Israel were Japanese communists"

Not that I think it is relevant/important, but I'd like to know what information you have on this, since it seems to be significant to you.

btw, may you regard Iraq war as a joke war, perhaps Afghanistan included. I don't. And I believe it is inevitable some countries (eg. Iran) will have to be dealt with. Many people understand the significance of war on Terror(ism). I am sure you disagree.

U wrote: "You want people to intermarry? Go tell Israel to change their laws then..."

You are twisting Sharkfin's logic. He correctly regards a steadfast refusal to inter-marry as an issue. It does not mean he excluded the possibility that inter-marry may actually be a problem elsewhere. So why would you relate to Israeli laws?

You are "right" that peace will never exist in the world, until the state of Israel is destroyed, followed by United States... destruction of freedom and democracy... we all convert to Islam... Then all that there will be are sporadic brotherly squabbles among our various Islamic sects. (I don't think they use the word "sisterly" much)

You've got quite a brain !!
Posted by GZ Tan, Thursday, 9 November 2006 12:20:36 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
TurnRightThenLeft - "my point was that plenty of muslims have as well, the part you're studiously ignoring."

I'm not ignoring it, I simply don't believe it. I think 'moderate Muslims' are a myth - and even if there are such creatures, they have little or no influence. A few 'fatwah' threats are enough to shut them up.

It is not possible to misinterpret the koran - hundreds of verses instruct Muslims to avoid, convert by force, or kill 'disbelievers'. It is possible to ignore those verses, I suppose - is that what you mean by a 'moderate Muslim'?

I find it impossible to believe one word from a person whose religion includes a doctrine (taqiyya) which permits them to lie 'in defence of Islam'. That phrase covers a very wide field and Islam is the only religion that gives its followers permission to lie under any circumstances.
Posted by dee, Thursday, 9 November 2006 10:52:01 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
fleurette - 'As opposed to ... loyalty to one's nation?'

Exactly. This 'loyalty' allows British-born Muslims to plan murder and mayhem against other Britons. If loyalty to their country came before their religious superstitions, there would be no ‘home-grown’ suicide bombers.

‘a desire to be an autonomous people free of apartheid’.

That worked out well! South Africa is now a basket case, the rape and crime capital of the world. Even the white ‘humanitarians’ who helped to topple Apartheid are leaving the country like rats abandoning a sinking ship. Apartheid was an inhumane system but the present one is no better. South Africa has become yet another African hellhole.

'7th century Islam because that's soo relevant to today’

Its relevant to Muslims. Have you never heard Islamic leaders state that killing westerners is ‘revenge’ for The Crusades? Australia is included among ‘the Crusader countries’? So who is living in the 7th century?

‘ trying desperately to make the tenuous link between Islam and terrorism’.

Are you for real? Check out the FBIs most wanted list. Of the 122 most wanted, 119 are Islamic terrorists who never miss the opportunity to state that they kill and maim in the name of Islam. Of course not all Muslims are terrorists, but 99% of terrorists are Muslims.

‘after 9/11 practically everyone supported it [Iraq war]'

On the contrary, many people wondered why Pres. Bush did not aim at the real culprit, Saudi Arabia.

'the myriad of attacks .. war and horror that the West has inflicted on ... the Middle Eastern Muslims?'

The greatest killer of Muslims is other Muslims.

‘I'm starting a war on Anger and Fluster.’

If Anger and Fluster are responsible for maiming and killing human beings, then I’m all for starting a war. ‘Terror’ is what we feel when there is a strong possibility that our loved ones may be slaughtered in the name of a primitive ‘religion’. The people who carry out these attacks are ‘terrorists’. As The Chief replied to Maxwell Smart when he commented that terrorist activities were ‘terrible’:

“That’s why they call it ‘terrorism’, Max!”
Posted by dee, Thursday, 9 November 2006 11:50:27 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
fleurette

Largely I agree with you but Israel is not an apartheid state and far less ethnocratic than Iran or Saudi Arabia.

It is true that Israel does not have a civil marriage system but it does recognise foreign marriages and does not outlaw de facto relationships of any kind.

If a Jew in Israel wishes to convert to Islam or Christianity and marry someone of their new faith within a Mosque/Church that is totally legitimate. How many middle eastern countries allow a Muslim to convert to Judaism or Christianity and then marry outside of their faith? I suggest you look up the definition of apartheid.

And Israel did leave the occupied territory of Gaza after forcefully removing its own settlers only to face deadly rocket attacks almost the day after they left.

Muslims here do face a lot of predjudice but this was inflamed when a tiny minority killed many Australians in Bali. Suicide bombing is hardly the way to make friends and influence people. I understand the alienation of Islamic groups but it becomes hard to be generous when many terrible things are said and done by some in the name of Islam.
Posted by logic, Thursday, 9 November 2006 8:47:54 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
GZ Tan,

You know when someone responds to your post saying exactly what you expect them to say because that’s how predictable the post-9/11 brainwashed mind is? Well I had never truly experienced that feeling until your post.
So thank you.
In response to your queries, I shall attempt to make this as succinct as possible.
Nationalism is intrinsically linked to ‘struggle’. You cannot fight against occupation if you are not a nation or if you don’t see yourself as a ‘Palestinian’ or a ‘South African’ or an ‘Indian’. - Instead you are one of many groups which differs culturally, linguistically, geographically etc. If one group says ‘let’s rise up against the Imperialists’. Are you going to listen to that group? Not unless they say ‘we are all ________ therefore we should fight for OUR freedom’.
I don’t see how you can think that I am using this as a way of justifying suicide bombing when I am opposed to nationalism on all levels (Like Gandhi). Fanon is another one who was against nationalism. But the truth is, it works. Nothing else has inspired such rigour determination amongst the populace than nationalism – binding together under one flag.

"The very first terrorists against Israel were Japanese communists"
Actually it is very important. Particularly when some people (like yourself) come to the conclusion that ‘Islam = terrorism=world domination’. I think the Japanese communists who shot and wounded Israelis in Tel Aviv beg to differ.
‘On May 30, 1972 three members of the Japanese Red Army undertook a terrorist attack at Lod Airport in Tel Aviv on behalf of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.’ – do a search.

‘btw, may you regard Iraq war as a joke war, perhaps Afghanistan included. I don't.’
Neither do I. There’s nothing remotely funny about 650,000 Iraqis dead thanks to the US.
But I was referring to the “War on Terror” as the butt of the joke. Oh. Don’t tell me! You believe Iraq is PART of the war on terror! So it all makes sense.
(continued)
Posted by fleurette, Thursday, 9 November 2006 11:26:01 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
(How a country like Iraq, with a secular Arab government, not one case of suicide terrorism prior to US invasion, had no members in Al Qaeda, is somehow linked to Fox’s ‘War on Terror’ is beyond me).

“So why would you relate to Israeli laws?”

Sigh. This is very silly of you.
Perhaps my sarcasm is not translating well for you and Sharkin. Allow me to break it down.

Inter-marriage is not a problem elsewhere – It’s not a problem anywhere.
He is correct in saying a refusal to inter-marry is ONE of many issues inherent in conflict.
But it’s not a refusal to marry on their own terms – it’s because it’s against the LAW in Apartheid states like Israel.
Capisce?

- What you want me to have said:
‘You are "right" that peace will never exist in the world, until the state of Israel is destroyed,’
- What I actually said:
‘Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories’
(It’s not an optical illusion. Just copying and pasting. Works wonders!)

At first you suggested that I am ‘coming to conclusions in order to justify terrorism’.
Yet here is your lovely summary of the mumbo-jumbo war against Islam.
A Logical Sequence of Events by GZ TAN
“Destroy Israel; which subsequently MUST lead to the destruction of the US (naturally); Then the destruction of freedom and democracy (Because it exists nowhere else in the world apparently and the US and ISRAEL (ha!) is the exemplar of F & D; Everyone will have to convert to Islam because without F+D what other option do we have?; Then we have Islamic sects because it wouldn’t feel right being unified under the one umbrella seeing as we have thousands upon thousands of Christian variants - only logical to create division in our new religion.

Wow all that comes from telling Israel to withdraw from the territories?

Hoo-rah for Freedom and Democracy.

Dee thinks moderate Muslims are creatures. That’s if they exist, of course. For all we know they could just be a figment of our imagination. Like the “War on Terror”.
Posted by fleurette, Thursday, 9 November 2006 11:28:32 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
Fleurette,

As you consider those disagee with you brain-washed, please explain what that means, before I regard you a liar (for calling me brain-washed), and prove in fact you are the one akin to being brainwashed.

9/11 is "wake-up call" to non-Muslims, like "nationlism"- a rallying call. But I do not need 9/11. I had known Islam for long time. You pre-supposed my attitudes. Such presupposition indicates you're predisposed to being brain-washed. Not a good sign!!

Your statement "...oppression breeds nationalism.....violence" is indicative of your narrow-mindedness. Much as you retract (by saying you oppose nationalism)... too late, as you had indeed implied a sense of sympathy towards suicide bombers.

In fact, to "retract" is worse. Because it makes you a hypocrite. Are you then disagreeable with Vietnam/India nationalism? Are you implying if nationalism is a driving force that expells US and Israeli from 'occupied lands' (which is what you agree with), nationalism is not a good thing?

Further, my rebuke "oppression breed nationalism" proved that you're not open-minded as you think. What about "oppression breeds stupidity"? Thought about this before, or know what I mean?

So your concept of "oppression" is a warped one, mixed with some global events, your little brain churns out cliche frauded in reasoning.

Worse, you lack ability to learn. logic tried to educate you on apartheid. But you simply repeated the same claim. Is this because you've been brain-washed to think in certain ways? Please explain why middle-eastern countries are not apartheid, based on your concept of apartheid applied to Israel?

But worst, you presumptuously put words in others mouth. This is insulting and annoying. Do you always expect others to correct what you suppose they think, and waste precious time?

Be sarcastic if you wish but show some intelligence by making correct logical statements when debating me because I expect NO LESS. Example, "Islam breeds terrorism" is logically true. But your statement "Islam=terrorism=world domination" is not even a correct logical statement. You think you can put such words in my mouth??
Posted by GZ Tan, Friday, 10 November 2006 11:31:50 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
Fleurette – is English your native language? If not - the phrase ‘no such creature’ is not an insult, it is a common term used to express disbelief in the existence of something eg, moderate Muslims.

Re the ‘war on terror’. Since the War on Terror is a ‘figment of … imagination’, what measures do you think the West should take to combat Islamic extremism? How do you think the West should deal with Iran? Why should the West stay completely out of the Middle East when our economies are dependent on oil (for which we pay the oil leeches top dollar)?

I’m not surprised to see that your sole response consisted of trying to make it look as if I think Muslims are non-human by nitpicking one phrase. You have twisted yourself into knots trying to deny that terrorism is linked to Islam, when every head-chopping freak proclaims loud and clear that he acts in the name of Islam and is carrying out a jihad against the West and against the Jews. Nearly every person charged with terrorism offences is a Muslim, yet it has nothing to do with Islam?

Logic responded – ‘Israel is not an apartheid state and far less ethnocratic than Iran or Saudi Arabia.’

There are Muslim Arab members of the Knesset and they have their own media outlets; it is absurd to suggest that Israel is an ‘apatheid’ country. In Iran and Saudi Arabia, you would be persecuted for your religion and you would be arrested by the Religious Police if you dared to wear a cross or be found with a Bible. In fact, you would probably be arrested for even being outdoors without being covered from head to toe and escorted by a male. If caught alone with a male, you would be arrested and punished. None of these things would happen in Israel.

Think about what you are defending so blindly.
Posted by dee, Friday, 10 November 2006 3:47:19 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
Fleurette,

In fact, worse than just putting words in others mouth. Your strawman "A Logical Sequence of Events by GZ TAN" is firm indication you have a propensity to bear false witness. I do say you are phony and you are a liar.

Also, in your strawman: "..seeing as we have thousands upon thousands of Christian variants...", I figure you also lied when telling us you are a "Christian" Lebanese. I do not believe a true Christian thinks there are "thousands upon thousands Christian variants". You owe me a list of names of those Christian sects (starting from "Roman Catholic"), if indeed you did not tell a lie.
Posted by GZ Tan, Friday, 10 November 2006 10:16:46 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
Fleurette, I agree with GZ Tan - you sound most unlike a Christian, the statement "..seeing as we have thousands upon thousands of Christian variants..." gives you away. I think you are a Muslim posing as a Christian in order to promote the (very tiresome) 'Muslims-are-the-real-victims' agenda.

"You tell me how we are going to have peace in this country if people remain tribal and don’t intermarry."

To prefer marrying among ones own race, religion or nationality is a natural state of human beings. Why should any group of people willfully commit racial and/or cultural suicide by encouraging intermarriage with vastly different groups? Referring specifically to the Jews - if there had not been strict rules regarding intermarriage, the Jews would not exist today, they would have been absorbed by other cultures. No sane human being wishes to see this happen to their own racial or cultural group.
Posted by dee, Saturday, 11 November 2006 8:24:26 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
How is it that the two of you have managed to write 400 or so words in which neither one of you even attempt to make a clear argument? Of course, there exists a barrage of personal insults which neither add to the discussion nor attempts to address any of my points.

My religion, my first language and my sarcasm really has very little to do with Middle Eastern politics and the very fact that you think otherwise suggests more about your argument than I can ever ridicule with the power of touch typing.

You have made this one very easy for me.

Rather than try to actually give any credence to the personal assumptions which are highly irrelevant I’ll answer the one question which has occurred several times in this discussion.

It’s not hard to do some research to see why Israel is an Apartheid state. Clearly you have never heard of a South African Jew called Uri Davis who ever so succinctly explains this idea in his book Israel; An Apartheid State (I wonder what it’s about!)

Ever heard of Gideon Levy, Robert Fisk, Antony Lowenstein, Tanya Reinart, Noam Chomsky, Uri Avnery, David Bernstein, Susan Nathan, Yulie Gershell Cohen? No? Some of the most prominent writers (most of them Israelis or American Jews) on the issue have all tackled this subject ad nauseum.

But because they have managed to write ever so eloquently on the subject I’ll leave it up to you to find out for yourself.

Go do some light reading. You’ll feel better (and perhaps a bit uncomfortable) afterwards but at least you won't be so inclined to spill diatribe about Muslims being the problem when you can see clearly that it's neither Jews nor Muslims who are causing trouble - it's the political zionists who are to blame.
Posted by fleurette, Saturday, 11 November 2006 2:00:54 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
Dee maybe you should be asking your friend GZ TAN if English is his/her first language, given the grammatical errors and syntax issues abound in their posts. I suppose one could be forgiven for thinking that you would stoop so low as to label muslims as ‘creatures’ given the context and the content of the majority of your posts.

As for your, ‘how can there be thousands of Christian denominations?” question. I should be kind and let this one slip but it’s so much more fun this way!

There are currently 42,000 separate Protestant churches, 12 Orthodox churches and one Catholic.

It’s estimated that there are 5 new, separate churches growing a week (churches not in communion with each other).
(Figures taken from the Oxford dictionary of religion)

So I guess, whilst I could have been sarcastically exaggerating that fact, the truth is, I wasn’t. So I'm glad you picked up on it in the way that you did. Although I bet you feel mighty foolish now.

As for me ‘posing as a Muslim’ – wow. This one takes the cake for best argument on OLO to date. Clearly I’m wasting my time here but if you must know I’m a Maronite Catholic from a little village in the North of Lebanon called ‘Baan’. Their patron saint is St George. My father’s village is right next door to this one and their patron saint is Saint Maroun.

Did you think that only Muslims would want to defend themselves? Or did it not occur to you that non-muslims may wish to educate themselves further in a field so pertinent to Middle Eastern politics, particularly when that person is a journalist.

Maybe you should read a bio on Ghassan Hage, another Christian concerned with the plight of the Muslims – or is he ‘a self hating Christian too’?
Posted by fleurette, Saturday, 11 November 2006 2:12:16 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
fleurette

"It’s not hard to do some research to see why Israel is an Apartheid state. Clearly you have never heard of a South African Jew called Uri Davis who ever so succinctly explains this idea in his book Israel; An Apartheid State (I wonder what it’s about!)"

When you quote a book which happens to agree with you viewpoint that is not a logical argument. It could be that the author is just as wrong as you are.

Apartheid in South Africa was a policy of segregating certain defined "races" by law. (look up a decent dictionary such as the Shorter Oxford). Different groups had to live in different areas were not allowed to travel in the same sections of buses could be prosecuted for cohabitating etc. This is not the case in Israel.

Different religious groups are allowed to intermarry there but have to do the ceromony in another country because Israel has no civil marriage system. This is a thorn in the side of liberal Jews but their politics require the apeasement of certain conservative groups, including the Muslims.

There is no Apartheid in Israel unless you are trying to rewrite the English language on your own. I don't think you will succeed at that.
Posted by logic, Saturday, 11 November 2006 5:34:20 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
Fleurette,

Wow, impressive list of writers, just on a narrow subject of Israel and apartheid. How much time have you spent reading their views? Is this how you get yourself brain-washed (by reading books that agree with you view-point)??

You didn't answer my previous question:
"Please explain why middle-eastern countries are not apartheid, based on your concept of apartheid applied to Israel?"

Let me guess- This is because you (1) only attack Israel (bias and narrow-minded). (2) are incapable of APPLYING your wealth of knowledge on apartheid to those Islamic states. (3) are a Muslim.

Bias, tunnel-vision and inability to apply new knowledge are characteristics of a brain-washed person.

Now... Who is brain-washed. You or me?

I will indeed address ALL your points in due course (including the Japanese Red Army attack!). You are the one who avoids answering my questions. (Thought about "oppression breeds stupidity" yet??)

You think each and every separate Protestant church represents a variant Christianity? This shows how little you know about Christianity. Have you asked church_xyz and church_abc whether they believe in different Jesus?

You wrote: "As for your, 'how can there be thousands of Christian denominations?' question."

Sorry, but are you lying and bear false witness, yet again?

I don't think anyone had asked the question you quoted. Those are your own words. Also, I notice you changed from "variants" to "denominations".

Gee... you do speak with a forked tongue.

You wrote: "...I’m a Maronite Catholic...."

Trust me, saying this does not make you a Christian any more than telling us previously that you are a "Christian Lebanese". We can tell a tree by its fruit.

So here's a question for you:

--> "Muslim Allah == Christian God". Do YOU think this is true or false? Why?

My question and your answer will surely add to the discussion.
Posted by GZ Tan, Saturday, 11 November 2006 6:55:33 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
“.. neither one of you even attempt to make a clear argument?’

I have made clear arguments for everything I have written.

‘barrage of personal insults’

Please point out any ‘personal insults’ I have directed to you. Unless you consider my suspicions concerning your religion an insult?

‘nor attempts to address any of my points.’

I have addressed every point you made. You have addressed almost none of mine. I asked you several questions to which you have not responded.

Re grammatical errors. I have not mentioned grammatical errors – I pointed out that ‘no such creature’ is a commonly used phrase and that perhaps your misunderstanding was deliberate.

‘42,000 separate Protestant churches ..’

Please define your use of ‘churches’. The Christian faith is often grouped into four categories: the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and Protestantism (often including Anglicanism). There are over 1,500 Protestant sects that differ in practice and belief but they are all Christians who acknowledge Jesus as The Messiah.

‘or is he ‘a self hating Christian too’?’

No doubt powers of invention are handy in your chosen field but I have never called you ‘a self-loathing Christian’.

‘ever heard of ... Robert Fisk , Noam Chomsky’ –

Should I be in awe because you quote a litany of leftwing, America-hating writers with whom you agree? Please don’t quote these names at me as if they are the True Gospel, especially Fisk, whose reports are often sheer fantasy (re the invasion of Iraq). Have you ever read writers who give an opposing opinion?

‘Go do some light reading’.

Does this qualify as a ‘personal insult’?

‘ ..political zionists who are to blame.’

The refusal of Islamic counties to accept the existence of Israel is at the root of the trouble in the Middle East. The stated aim of Islamic leaders is to destroy the state of Israel and to ‘drive the Jews into the sea’. Read their public statements and manifestos. They do not want negotiation, they want the total destruction of Israel.
Posted by dee, Sunday, 12 November 2006 9:32:51 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
That's why Saudi Arabia made a statement saying that if Israel withdrew from the territories and ended its occupation, then the Arab countries would no longer resent its presence in the region? So much for wanting its complete destruction! Perhaps you have honed in on the statement from the Iranian president rather than addressed the concerns of all countries in the Middle East who are against Israel. I'd say Lebanon has a great excuse to resent Israel. I'd say countries sympathising with the Palestinians also have reason to criticise the nation. But more than anything I'd say that countries which Israel has attacked should be more than willing to show antagonism towards such a militaristic neighbor (which incidentally enough DOES have WMD like their US buddies). So please stop acting like Israel is a victim in this madness!

To save time I responded collectively to all 3 of the posts requesting a response. If you were not one involved in the 'nitpicking of the personal' than you can ignore that..but then again I suppose it wouldn't leave you with much else to work with if you simply responded to the topics relevant to your argument. You can only say "muslims are evil, barbaric, backward and the cause of world suffering" for so long, eh?

GZ Tan,
If oppression breeds stupidity it still means that the outcome of stupidity is the result of oppression. Thus the oppressors are still to blame.

Just because you think oppression breeds stupidity doesn't mean that it doesn't also breed violence – it doesn't mean that violence is JUSTIFIED but in the given circumstances it's understandable that people will want to fight against occupation. Now we're entering the arena of common sense.

Logic, naturally when one is so overwhelmed with information on a subject they are hardly inclined to repeat to an audience such as this one. I'd happily discuss this if it was just you asking but when people who accuse me of lying about my religion also jump on the bandwagon I tend to get a bit of a 'why bother' happening
Posted by fleurette, Sunday, 12 November 2006 11:59:00 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
And no I wouldn't recommend reading a book that supports your opinion and tells you exactly what you want and need to know. But when you read the same thing time and time again in almost every piece of credible literature you've read on the subject you tend to see patterns emerge which are hard to ignore. It's not brainwashing. Brainwashing is when you listen to Israeli propaganda that says the piece of land known as Palestine was empty when Jews settled there. Or when they construct Arabs as filthy, desert and camel ridden farmers incapable of civilisation. Or when they say that they are victims of the Holocaust and therefore any violence against others is justified.

But I will give you a short answer because your civil attempt at an argument is a breath of fresh air and I respect your attempt at objectivity. What is frightening about Israel is that unlike South Africa the institutionalised racism occurs on a more insidious level. There are no signs saying 'Jews only'. There are no designated areas for Jews and non Jews. But the education system, the employment system and the laws which govern the country are specifically for Jews and Jews alone. It's not Jews versus Arabs – it's Jews versus non-Jews. It is a militaristic ethnocracy.

GZ TAN,
No one asked the question ‘how can they be this many churches’ per se, they implied that it was a false statement and that as a result of saying it, I somehow converted religion just like that (in order to convert to Islam you must say 'there is no God but allah' but hey if you think this constitutes a conversion then so be it!).

'tell a tree by its fruit'.
You can tell I'm not Christian how exactly? Because I'm defending the Muslims?

So if a Christian defended the Jews in Nazi Germany, is he no longer a Christian?

I suppose that explains why the Pope didn't say or do enough to stop the onslaught before it began.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qALcJzekk5A&eurl=
Posted by fleurette, Monday, 13 November 2006 12:07:11 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
Fleurette...a cunning "Muslim" posing as a Christian... a wolf in sheep skin... a mole... a liar... a hypocrite... someone who speaks with a forked tongue and bears false witness...

Fleurette,
In future, whenever you see a woman wearing a mini-skirt, do not allow the thought of her being a "cheap slut" enters your head, before recalling how I have just described you.

Because it is not the physical outward appearance that matters. It is the mind.

Because you are morally corrupt and ethically bankrupt !!

You are truly the lowest of the low !!
Posted by GZ Tan, Monday, 13 November 2006 9:26:43 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
Fleurette - ‘ Arab countries would no longer resent its presence in the region’

May I ask why you believe this obvious lie? Any ‘statement’ from a country that funds terrorism and publishes 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' is not even remotely believable.

'Perhaps you have honed in on the statement from the Iranian president'

Dozens of Islamic leaders have made these statements. They are easily verifiable.

‘..acting like Israel is a victim in this madness’

Neither side is blameless. The existence of Israel is a hard reality and it is an Arab fantasy to believe that the Israelis will ever surrender or leave. The conflict will remain so long as ‘driving the Jews into the sea’ is the aim. Another reason for Muslim resentment is the fact that the State of Israel, created in 60 years, is a feat that Muslim Arabs have been unable to achieve. It makes them look bad, perhaps their own people may even begin to ask why the billions of oil dollars have not improved their lives.

Israel is a victim of ‘the war of the flea’ sydrome, in which a large dog is continually attacked by hundreds of tiny biting insects at different times. Should the dog not defend itself because the attackers are individually smaller?

‘You can only say "muslims are evil ... and the cause of world suffering"’

I have never said this, although Islamic religious Fascism is responsible for many of the world’s present ills. Islam has contributed nothing to humanity but misery and its main victims are Muslims.

‘ ..the same thing time and time again in almost every piece of credible literature’

Credible by whose standards? Many on your list have based their careers on hating the West and denigrating the very system that gave them wealth, fame and freedom of speech (which they use to praise despots and religious Fascists).

What you are really saying is that the people you agree with are ‘credible’ and anyone who disagrees with them is ‘brainwashed’.
Posted by dee, Monday, 13 November 2006 4:07:10 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
Wow talk about generalizing. I haven't read all of the comments but they're quite similar. I, myself, am a Muslim and am thoroughly disgusted at how many people are generalizing millions of people. All Muslim men are going to rape women? Of course not. Religion has nothing to do with rape. Any man can rape a woman, and under no circumstances is it EVER the woman's fault. Rape is NEVER about sex, it is always about wanting to feel powerful. It doesn't matter if a woman is wearing sweats or lingerie. Clothing is used as an excuse. And as for the veil issue, please actually researching the religion. I am a Muslim and I do not wear a veil. My family left the choice up to me and I chose not to. If women are allowed to wear underwear outside their clothing they can ofcourse wear a veil. If I started to wear a veil tomorrow, none of my friends would REFUSE to talk to me. It seems so many people commenting must be scholars, because of how they talk. Women have just as much power as men. The Koran was written in the days of housewives, so that is why it's the norm in the book. But it also says a woman CHOOSES who she can marry, she is ENCOURAGED to have an education and her husband has no right to limit her rights or order her. Because of the new portrayal of Muslims by the media, when people hear my last name, they judge me and assume I am for war, Binladen etc. I would like you to know that the killing of any innocent person is an automatic sentence to hell in ISLAM. Only in a war situation can you kill soldiers who are fighting with you. I hate how one ass extremist can say 'Convert or die because my religion says so' and can actually change the point of view of millions. Next time anyone talks about a religion, please try an research it or talk to someone of the religion, otherwise please don't judge.
Posted by Alia24, Friday, 17 November 2006 3:50:39 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
Alia24,
Agreed that generalizing can lead to the wrong conclusions.

I previously assumed that there was a social problem with muslim men and their attitude to women. I have now narrowed this down, thanks to a muslim poster here on OLO, to that the problem is the cultural attitude of Arabic muslim men towards women and particularly to women in western dress. This shown by the anti-social conduct of some young gangs and the speeches made by Sheiks Hilali and Feiz Mahommed. Also by the complaints by females such as nurses, teachers, police,receptionists and shop assistants that claim that muslim men are rude, dictatorial and offensive to them.

I also noted an article by Waheed Ally, who was angry that criminals were using his religion in effort to obtain lighter sentences. I also note that Ifran Yusuf writes similar type articles and refers to what he calls "thick sheiks". The only way to combat the adverse effects on muslims in general is to bring to public notice the real culprits of the critisism.

The only question I have in relation to your post is this. If murder of innocents gains instant hell and dammnation for muslims, how do extremists get it so wrong that they believe that after their actions they go to heaven and have X number of virgins to play with.

Oh, I do not care much how one chooses to dress, but I must admitt that I like to see a persons face. Facial expression is a great advantage in communication.
Posted by Banjo, Saturday, 18 November 2006 10:28:18 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
Banjo,
To be honest I have no idea how extremists actually think killing innocent people will get them into heaven. I was quite young at the time of 9/11 and all I could do was ask my father how?. I myself have finished reading the whole Koran and it NEVER says anything about justification for killing innocent people. It is especially mentioned about women and children. The only thing I found was that the Koran asks that you to do is try and tell non believers about Islam.

One reason I have stayed with my religion and felt proud of, was the fact that the two main things are about cleanliness and peace. In the Koran it always says to be tolerant of all others. Nothing about war or violence. Peace is a huge thing. And I almost fell down laughing when I found out what the word "jihad" actually means, because I was shocked that it could mean holy war. The word itself means "struggle" as in I could say 'My day at work today was a jihad'. Simple as that. I have found myself wanting to ask these extremists where in the world to they actually get their information from because it almost seems like a different religion.

I agree that facial expression is a great advantage in communication, but I don't see why someone should change their way of dress because of me. Oh and the actual facial cover of a veil is fully optional, the Koran does want women to cover their hair, but if someone covers their face, it is choice, in case anyone was wondering.
Posted by Alia24, Saturday, 18 November 2006 6:10:50 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
Alia24,
Thank you for your reply, I do appreciate it.

I will try not to generalize too much and get as much information as I can before commenting on a matter.
Posted by Banjo, Saturday, 18 November 2006 8:37:21 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
Peronally, I have no problem with others wearing the burka if that's their very own choice.
I am all for freedom of religion and the right to express that religion. Freedom is about being able to do whatever you please as long as it fits within the law.

Having said that, I do not like to see women being oppressed and restricted for whatever reasons- religious or other.

If I could be certain that this is what women really want to do merely to please themselves, then I would have no problem with the burka; others would simply have the choice to get used to it or not.
However, they should be required, like everyone else, to uncover the face when identification is needed. (Drivers license please!)

However, there are certain occupations in where wearing the burka would be impractical or impossible. Therefore, a burka would limit a woman’s choice of occupation.
For example, the burka is not recommendable for women working at preschools or kindergartens because young children are still at the stage where they learn about and rely on human facial expressions and body language as an integral part of learning a language.
I don’t see how fully covered-up drama teachers or dance instructors can be successful either.
Jobs in where uniforms are required are out too (police uniform etc).
The face veil stops women from achieving their full potential and is restrictive (e.g. all sports and quite a few occupations).

Alia, thanks for explaining that it is an not an obligation of Islam that women cover up their faces.
I've always believed that the face veil is more about oppression and subjugation of women by fundamentalist Muslim men than it is about religious obligation or women's own choice.

Philo- have you noticed anything? We finally agree on some points :)
Posted by Celivia, Tuesday, 21 November 2006 9:53:11 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
Alia 24
I doubt people are judging you personally or Islam in itself but rather commenting on the Muslims who perpetrate social unrest, attempt to impose repressive and oppressive bits of Sharia, demand cultural inclusion in law and expect the host nation to change to accommodate them. The veil question wasn't about covering ones hair we all do that at one time or another. It was about those Islamist who wanted to go to work with the public like teach class or get a drivers licence, drive a car, be a receptionist, a nurse, etc., wearing the burka. It's the ones who demand the right to public prayer in airplanes while in flight. The ones who demand that a school must provide a prayer room, or Muslim workers who demand a prayer room in the work place. It's the radicals, the extremist who harm Islam. Not to mention the death and destruction that they bring upon themselves and their fellow Muslims.
Ever hear of David Koresh. He was a Christian cult extremist in Texas or New Mexico, USA. You will know you've really gone wrong when you get the response to extremism he and his cult got. It's the Islamic cult of the mahdi and many many Islamic terrorist cadres like al-Qaeda that forment this world wide suspicion, distrust and anger. It would really help if Muslims such as yourself spoke out against this activity and false belief of Islam and let the citizens know you support them and their society, will fight to preserve democracy, and respect the customs and values of your new Nation. Demonstrate that and you will find a renewed welcome and a warm embrase. Peace and blessings.
Posted by aqvarivs, Wednesday, 22 November 2006 10:33:58 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 21
  7. 22
  8. 23
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy