Another massacre in the name of Islam in Mumbai.

We will need to find someone else to blame on this one .... maybe those virgins waiting in heaven, if there is not that many virgins ..... really Allah must be running out of virgins by now..... maybe Mother Teresa ..... Santa Claus did not give enough gifts to Muslims.

Time to wake up and look inward to see why evil resides in a religion and culture, time to stop blaming the press or other people for these crimes.

A bad day for your essay to appear Keysar.

A religious mindset that perpetuates the social customs of the Middle Ages (be it Islamic, Christian or Jewish) is going to feel alienated, separated and driven to express itself.

OLO appears to be blighted with reactionary Christians, who quote an old book as truth, but they are not violent.

How a mindset expresses itself is the point.

When young bloods directed by older "Holy Men" get together Mumbai can be the result.

Today the maintenance of Australia's Terrorism Laws, as they are, seems amply justified.

Naturally Christian Neocons and Zionists in the Middle East are part of the cause, part of the retaliation and hence part of the problem.

But it is not assumed that Jewish, Christian or Hindu extremists will bomb Australia.

The Start of a cycle of violence and retaliation it the thing to avoid.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2008/11/suspected-terrorists-pictured-in-mumbai.html

Subject: A German's View on Islam

How many German people were true Nazis. The answer guides our
attitude toward fanaticism. "Very few people were true Nazis, but many enjoyed the return of German pride, . Many people thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, and we had
lost control, and the end of the world had come.
We are told by "experts" that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. This is entirely irrelevant just meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment.
It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one
of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who
are gradually taking over Africa in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor- kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all
our posers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated
of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemies if they don't
speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one
day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Too many peace-loving people have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

Emanuel Tanay, M.D

And it was the fanatics in the USA and Australia, led by Cheney and Bush who invaded Iraq and who are trying to invade Afghanistan,

David

Timing is never right for the cold light of reason. The fault is with those who rather than confront the causes for such obscenity as has been occurring in India since time immemorial.
Where there is deprivation/victimization sooner than later violent response from the oppressed will follow (fact not ideology).

Now back to the article, well written, reasonable and factual, well done. As a secularist I am inclined to contact your organization to offer support.

I think it’s sad that Aussie Muslims as a group need to defend their beliefs because of fear of victimization from fellow Aussies because of the actions of a minority (perverters of the spirit of Islam).

Do Aussie Christians as a group become fearful of victimization from fellow Aussies because of a bunch of ‘Christian’ fundamentalist abuse the spirit of the scriptures by using them to run amok? (e.g. The Branch Davidians, Waco. BTW more Ausies were killed there than in Mumbai)
Or do the Jews feel unsafe from Christian when a settler acts as the decider of which ‘random’ will die based on some misinterpretation of the Tora? No!

So why the special victimization of Muslims? Because they are different not like us? We’re afraid of differences? The truth is we share more in common with them (including fear of zealotic, cowardly xenophobes) than those emotionally dominated, reason deficit Aussie individuals.

Like Keyser admirably demonstrated and as Bruce Springsteen aptly put it when asked about his Hollywood neighbours “there are angel and arseholes on every street, everywhere”.

Aussies, it’s time we all woke up and gave the Muslims the same fair go we demand for our selves and are so proud of. There is NO EXCUSE.

"Too many peace-loving people have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late."

Dr Tanay, Truer words have seldom been spoken.

There are those who wait for the fanatics to take power...and then whine and wring their hands about it.....

and there are those who recognize the ideas which make the fanatics so dangerous...and speak out against them.. BEFORE they ever take power.

THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF MUSLIMS.

-Muslims, like atheists, Buddhists, Hindu's, Jews,etc are sinners.

-Muslims (like every person on earth) are in need of divine grace, forgiveness and renewal.

-Muslims are people.. created equal to all others.

-The words "for God so loved the world" include all...Muslims as well.

-Muslims are no different to Hindu's, Buddhists, Jews or atheists in God's eyes.
"All have sinned" and the free gift of God is forgivness in Christ through repentance and faith.

The only thing separating a Christian from the other groups mentioned above.. is that they/we have availed ourselves of that free gift of forgiveness. We are not sinless, but forgiven.

THE ISLAMIC TEACHING ABOUT CHRISTIANS.

Well..don't let me tell you... read it for yourself in this section of the Quran:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html

scroll to verse 29 and read it in any or all of 3 translations....then form your own opinion.

Then there is this:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/019.qmt.html

Scroll to verse 88 and read to v 92

again...form your own opinion.

What is the worst sin a human can commit according to Islam?

Read it yourself.

THE UTLIMATE CRIME....?
http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shirk/crime.htm

At least you might gain a glipmse as to 'why' such things as Mumbai, 7/11, 9/11, Bali, Sydney,Melbourne happen or almost happen. "Ideas"

The issue is not whether Islamic women should or should not be segregated in mosques: it is why Islamic women are not free to choose where they sit. The issue is not whether Islamic men bash their wives: it is how Islamic religious leaders and community figures react to it.

As long as religious leaders are allowed to retain arbitrary and unchallengeable power they will continue to exercise it for their own selfish and irrational ends. If Islam cannot bend like Christianity to accommodate science, free thought and democratic decision-making then it will eventually break; but thousands will suffer and die in the meantime.

Shocking revelations? I saw the headline and was too bored to read it. I don’t remember any news gatherers being interested enough to put it on the electronic media, and I watch three TV new programmes every day, and countless radio news items. And, the “numerous” conferences would be of interest to Muslims only.

The only thing Muslims need to worry about is the constant and unnecessary ‘defence’ of their religion and day to day activities by Keysar Trad.

As long as they don’t cause any trouble to the wider community, nobody cares about their petty infighting

So, Moslems are looking over their shoulders again, I'm not surprised, considering the regular burning of mosques, the forcible conversions to Christianity and the infidel gangs assaulting every Moslem they encounter,not to mention the attacks from the murderous crusader terrorists.

"There are those who wait for the fanatics to take power...and then whine and wring their hands about it....."

On the other hand there are those who consistently stand against at least one fanatic - Pericles, CJ Morgan, Bugsy and others.

As a general comment I noticed that Keysar did what has become popular, mention one topic then quote statistics which describe a much broader issue.

Following long discussions on other threads it's clear that the formal definitions of Domestic Violence are about a particular form of spousal violence where physical strength is used to control and intimidate a partner. The stats Keysar mentioned are about any level of spousal violence. If it's not about just the dominanation of another person then the figures should be for all people who have experienced violence from a partner.

Likewise the heading of rape is then followed by a stat for sexual assault which can include a lot of stuff at a much lower level than rape.

It's quite possible that Keysar's misuse of both headings was unintentional (plenty of others do the same) but doing so does create a false impression of the state of society and the prevelance of some very serious issues.

R0bert

keysar does himself no favours with this article, but he seldom does. but there's always polycarp chiming in, to see keysar's nonsense, and to raise it.

pin, if you want to talk about fanatics, you might also talk about christian fanatics in uganda. and, though it adds fuel to your silly fire, i think you're wrong about "how many germans were true nazis". goldhagen's book, amongst others, convinces me there was no shortage.

Polycarp
One Major correction to your post
The views expressed are that of Polycarp NOT that of Christians (all or the majority there of).

Apart from that it was off topic by the narrow margin of 9.3 AUs. The question was "in defence of Muslims". We all know what YOU think of Muslims. Just for a change address the issue not try and hijac it for your own arcane reasons.

The main group that demonstrates violence as much as Muslims is the Secularist. They kill the unborn at a rapid rate. No wonder they are often apologist for Islam. I noticed it took ABC nearly 2 days to even admit the killers in India were Muslims. They had to first ensure it was not the Salvation Army. Many secularist are finding out the hard way that their denials is not making the world a better place. Then again they can continue to blame GWB and JHW for bombings in Spain, Bali, India, London, Philippines, USA, Pakistan, etc etc etc.

The opposite of Muslims is not Christians but non-Muslims. The struggle is not between Muslims and Christians but the whole non-Muslim world (dar al-Islam, the house of Islam and dar al-Harb, the house of war). Granted, a large portion of Muslim people are peace-loving but what classical Islam stands for turns the peace-loving Muslim into jihadists (mujahideen) and suicide-bombers. To kill is wrong, but to kill in the cause of Islam is justified and sanctioned by the Koran.

The Western media almost always misses the point. For the sake of political correctness, they would blame it on other factors, e.g. poverty, discrimination, etc.

The recent orgy of killing in Mumbai was described by BBC as action carried out by “a group of young people”, leaving out any mention of links to Islamic militants. The CNN said that what caused this mayhem was a reaction to actions by “right-wing Hindus”; blaming it on “Muslim rage run deep in India”.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1862650,00.html?cnn=yes

The real situation is that the Islamists were targeting British (White), Americans (White), Jews and any non-Muslim. However, of the 100 over killed, over 80% were local Indians. Now if Muslims in India were angry with the “right-wing Hindus”, home come they specifically targeted a Jewish Centre? Perhaps the Bhagavata Purana is contained within the Talmud (Tanach and related books)!

The best refutation to this article, “In defence of Muslims” is this current situation (27/11/2008) in Mumbai.

Islam, mosques, maddrasahs and al Koran is the Muslim’s worst enemy, they keep the Muslims financially, mentally, socially, psychologically and healthily backward.

Runner you really are a fool. Any place in the world where religious people have control, you see them for what they really are. When the fundies take control no matter what faith or lack of faith only bad happens. In Africa both Christians and Moslems are trying to outdo each other. Burning witches seems to be the common theme.
As for the article as a few have commented he does himself and his faith no favours. When it comes to rights there should be one set of rules for everyone. No matter what your faith, in fact in this day and age all religions should be judged harshly the further they are away from them. I would also like to point out that he has been quite loose on some of his facts and perhaps he should reread some of his supporting links.
Moslems have got to do something about their nutters like the Christians largely have, because if it comes to a head and the far right in the west start getting their way, what the Germans did to the Jews will seem like a rehearsal

When Kaysar mentions domestic violence, he ignores the Quran's permission for husbands to beat their wives.

Why does Kaysar quote 'general statistics'? Wife beating is illegal in Australia, but not in Islam.

Surah 4:34 "and lastly... beat them" There is no 'lightly' in the Arabic. There ARE however detailed explainations of how to beat your wife on youtube, from prominent and confident imams.

Private Space in Mosques. Kaysar simply does the usual rationalizing and seeks to potray this as something positive.. 'earned'? hah.. surely it has nothing to do with the fact (not the supposition or speculation) that Mohammad is reported to have said most of the inhabitants of hell are women, and that they are snare to men? Or that 2 women's testimony is required but only one mans?

Muslims need defending for sure..but not from Christians.. or secularists.. they need protection from themselves!

BUSHBASHER.. no, you may NOT speak about 'Christian Fanatics' in Uganda. Not without being taken to task by me at least.

1/ Do you know what a Christian is?
2/ Do you know anything about the LRA? (presumably they are who you mean)
3/ Do you know what Jesus taught and how he lived?

Clearly not...becuase if you did, you would not make such erroneous, vilifiying and outrageous statements.

MAC.. good post!

Kenny

'Runner you really are a fool. ' Coming from the intelligence shown in your posts I don't think I will be seeking counseling.

forgive me, polycarp. i meant "christian" fanatics. I forgot my quotes. as did you, oh, about a thousand times, you poisonous, special-pleading little dweeb.

I am quite dismayed at some of the responses to this article. There appears to be a disproportionate sense of fear directed toward Muslims; fueled by ignorance and the recent attacks in Mumbai.

As an Australian, I find this saddening

"I am quite dismayed at some of the responses to this article. There appears to be a disproportionate sense of fear directed toward Muslims; fueled by ignorance and the recent attacks in Mumbai."

What would be a 'proportionate' sense of fear? Certainly, we are at very little risk of a terrorist attack: but if we ARE attacked, the odds are about twenty to one that it will be by Muslim terrorists. And there is nothing we can do about it. We can try and negotiate with people who have rational desires; but how do you negotiate with people who only want to die in the bloodthirstiest way possible?

If you look back over the sad and sorry history of religion in 2008 at

http://atheistwiki.wikispaces.com/Outrage+scoreboard

you will see that if Keysar Trad had to wait for a week when there was no religious outrage in order to publish his piece, then he would be waiting a long, long time.

I don't think that there are many people
out there who would not acknowledge that
the tragic incidents in Mumbai (Bombay),
was the work of terrorists.

Few rational people would blame Islam
for these actions.
These people are fundamentalists, political
fanaticists, whose behaviour is exemplified
in their terrorist bombings.

Fundamentalist revivals, in whatever religion,
take place in times when social changes have led
to turmoil, uncertainty, and the erosion of
familiar values. When people find themselves
confused, threatened, or even appalled at
changing conditions, they may see a 'return
to basics' as a solution.

But to condemn all Muslims for what a small
marginal group does is not something that any
thinking person would do.

However, it is
understandable that a few would buy into the
distorted image presented by the media which
is based on what is newsworthy, rather than
what is typical.

Jon J,

I am an atheist, and I totally agree that religion and superstition can cause great harm.

But so too can alcohol. In fact, I am far more likely to die from a random act of alcohol-fuelled violence than I am from an Islamic terrorist. Does this mean that I should persecute those who drink? Should I discriminate against them and make them feel uncomfortable in their own country? I am not accusing you of these things, but the nasty tone evident in many of these posts made me sick.

The vast majority of Muslims are no more blood-thirsty than you or I. Therefore, while I do not believe in religion, I respect their right to do so - just as the majority of Muslims respect my right not to.

Whats happening in the sub-continent is complex mix of geo-politics, nationalism and religion. The Taliban, Lashka e Toiba, Jaish Mohammed etc were all nurtured by the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) agency as they were considered useful tools in the interstate rivalry with India, and now their actions are having unintended consequences - the US made the same mistake in Afghanistan.

It is easy to blame a complex problem on an entire religion but it is not right. There are several hundred million Muslims living in the sub-continent and these horrible acts of terror are in no way reflective of their character, and as such, we have no right to discriminate against them

Polycarp.
If Christians truly lived the way that Jesus taught, we would not have the problems in the world that we have. Neither would we have problems if Mahammad had understood what Jesus taught. It is just the crazy interpretations of some of the followers of these two men that cause the strife that we see in the world today. What ever happened to "Love thy neighbor".

David

"Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemies if they don't speak up..." very true indeed, Emanuel Tanay.

The true situation is that "moderate" Muslims rarely speak up in a Muslim-majority country. In Malaysia they (Muslim-inspired government) demolished many Hindu temples until the Hindu minority took the protest to the streets. Now they ban the practice of Yoga claiming it to be unislamic.

Islamists, Muslims and some in the West blame the Indian government for marginalising the Indian Muslims, if that is the real reason for the situation in Mumbai why do the Muslim jihadists kill five white Jewish Americans?

So when Muslims are angry they vent their anger by shooting a few Buddhists in south Thailand, burn churches in Indonesia and in northern Nigeria, blow up tourists in Bali. Blame this and blame that. Indeed, its difficult to understand Islamic reasoning.

Pakistan and Bangladesh(East Pakistan) were founded based on the aspirations of the Indian Muslims then for an Islamic state to practice the full range of Islamic Law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Iqbal

But as it turned out these two countries are failed states and India, based on secular democracy is better off. Islam is a failure.

If any Islamic country or Muslim wants to get off the poverty trap, they must completely abandon the ideology of Islam. Any form of government is better than an Islamic one.

How is it not rational to base one's understanding of Islam on the teaching of Islam and the example of it's founder? Not to mention the attitude of various Muslims I encountered yesterday?

What WOULD be irrational is to say that "Islam is peace" when it is based on the vile acts of a murderer. (any brave but foolish soul care to debate this?)

It WOULD be irrational to say that "I can justify murdering political opponents because Jesus showed me by his example to do so"..THAT is irrational as it has no foundation in fact.

Much of the fuzzy thinking which goes on in this forum is based on poor chronology, lousy history and lack of research.

We can rationally say "Most muslims are peaceful" and be quite correct. We cannot say "Islam is peaceful"

We can rationally say "Most Christians are peaceful, though throughout history some claiming that name have acted despicably, violently and murderously"
We canNOT say "and they did so based on the example and teaching of Christ.

Yesterday at the Mind Body Spirit Festival in Melbourne I met the full range of Muslims.

Man 1 from Eritrea, delightful individual, open to discussion, warm hearted, reasonable and sincere.

Man 2 I suspect a Chechen (accent) Loud, aggressive, intolerant, unwilling to hear a syllable questioning Mohammad. Salafist/Wahabist in attitude.

Man 3 Australian born of Bosnian Muslim parents... age approx 20 "Smart alek".. quite comfortable with the idea of a man having wives and slave girls/sex toys based on Islam today.

So.. the issue of 'defending muslims' should not arise in Australia because the LAW protects them like everyone else.

VK3.. That was probably your best post ever :) *bingo* But I add a comment on one bit of it.

There is nothing 'crazy' about killing someone in the name of Islam, as Mohammad did just that.. many times over. It follows logically. Not so in the case of the Lord Jesus.

I would have to agree with PIN.

While the majority of muslims are peaceful, the majority of muslims are not taking the necessary action to purge their ranks of the fanatics and to isolate them.

While they are not guilty of commissioning the crimes, many are guilty of ommission in that they do not report or dob in the more extreme members of their community for whatever reason.

The result is that they are all branded with the same brush and stereotyped.

The peaceful majority can either close ranks with the community at large (with the fanatics excluded) and be accepted or with those of their faith and be excluded.

This is not my personal desire, but simply how I see the social dynamics playing out.

I often have to laugh when people philosophise about; OOO can’t up set the Terrorists, they might retaliate, - There seems to be an element of Useless idiot mantra about that; - and conflicts with the Useless Idiot –sphere of re- engineering of Social patterns that have become the very paradox to a functional society- and still enter the fields of a psychosis of total denial; -
It would be reasonable to hypothesise that if the idiot sphere were never allowed to introduce a toxin in the first instance, we would never have a need to find an antidote to that toxin; and best described as probability – never having, or discovering an antidote to counter the toxin introduced- then entering the frae, that consumes you, by acts of denial is the only antidote you have;-
Now the Question is; what does That Sound Like.

Dear Democratus,

I agree with you up to a point.

Yes, the peaceful majority of Muslims should
close ranks with the rest of the communities
in which they live and condemn the actions
of these fundamentalists. But we have to take
responsibility for our own actions as well in
the West.

The military actions that we've implemented to date
according to the experts, are not the answer.
They only end up in further conflict. And
bombing and killing people only forces them into
the arms of the jihadists. This has been going on
for decades.

As Imrah Khan pointed out on Andrew Denton,
education and the provision of social services
would help far greatly than bombs and guns.
Most of the Islamist as poor, their wealth from
oil has only benefited a select minority.

Financially assisting the tribes-people in Afghanistan
for example, would enable them to deal with the
taliban themselves. Western intrusion is not welcome.
Here or anywhere else in the Arab countries or the
Middle East.

We can't just go on interfering in people's lives, and
then expect them to succumb to our western way of thinking
and not react negatively to us.

Democritus,
The problem is that the 'moderate' muslims are too scared to take on the extremes. The extremes are more than we think and they are quite willing to kill their own just to get their way and keep the others in line. Examples everywhere of that.

Keysar mentions abuse of women!
What about forced marriages? isn't that rape and abuse. In Islam a wife cannot refuse her husbands desires and must obey, so there is not rape in marriage, she has to comply.

In Cairo recently, a leading female lawyer advocated on TV that the threat of rape was permissable 'resistance' She said Israeli girls and women were fair game for Arabs. I cannot imagine a highly educated woman anywhere saying such things. Its giving a green light to young males.

The problems muslim women are having here with divorce is that our law grants a divorce but this is not recognised by their religion. The ex-husband turns up at her place and demands his sexual rights and she must comply. Thats rape!

What about the girl, in Somalia, stoned to death because she reported she had been raped, or the girl in Iraq that married a non muslim and was stoned to death. Also in Iraq, a Swedish citizen, shot in the head in a 'honor killing' because she refused to submit to a forced marriage. Violence is normal part of the culture

The lists go on and on.

Banjo
Arguing by specific examples simply devolves into a contest of examples inevitably resulting in more heat than light. Consider how many Christian females get raped by Christian males who then get away with it. Also remember the institutionalized victimization of the Jenna 6. Do we then paint all Christians with these appalling events? Do we blame all Christians ?

What is missing in this debate is that these perpetrators of this obscenity are individuals regardless of what religion they CLAIM to follow.

Polycarp resorts to Google searches of Islamic documents to make his idiosyncratic position. In truth this approach too has its fatal flaws in that there are equally highly contentious quotations in the Bible it’s all in the individuals’ interpretation.

In practice both religions have a range of the followers who span from the sublime to the positively psychotic. The psychotic ends are so inclined because of personal issues and would be psychotic regardless of their religion. In short a terrorist “Muslim” (sic) would still be a terrorist “Christian” (sic).

It isn’t a matter of me being an apologist for “Muslims” simply because there is nothing to apologize for. They are no more responsible for aberrant rabid religious psychopaths anymore than “Christians”.

Both religions are tools much like a gun the carnage it does is clearly down to INDIVIDUAL’S (ab)use. Likewise an individual who is inclined to murder can do so with a humble pencil .

examinator,
Do not try to get me involved in a religous debate as I will not be part of that. You will notice that I did not mention women in mosques as I am not interested in that and i am not interested if some christian church admits women priests or not.

The matters I raised were issues that Keysar Trad included in his article. Space prevented me from the polygamy matter and that was discussed extensively a short time ago anyway.

I am interested in cultural issues, especially those that conflict with our society and culture. If I had generalised about girls getting stoned for apostasy or reporting rape or honour killings, no doubt would have been asked for examples, so I included some recent happenings.

No matter which way you look at it, Islamic culture is violent. 'the religion of peace' has to be the biggest lie ever told. The perpertrators of the terrorist attacks themselves claim they do it in the name of Islam. It is that culture that is responsible for 12 honour killings a year in Britain and 1200 complaints of forced marriages so far this year. Womens groups claim it is much higher than this. I am well aware that honour killing, forced marriages, polygamy and FGM are carried out by some cultures other than those of Islam. But I understand that Islam is unique in that it advocates wife beating and there is instruction as to how this should be done.

Since Keysar wrote the article, I was hopeful that he would comment on the posts and how he would reconcile Islam with the matters I spoke of.

I have no doubt that violence and Islam go together. How many muslims have blown up fellow muslims in Iraq?

Polycarp's theory that Islamic terrorism is linked to Islam's Holy Book is sadly proven to be true.

What on earth are terrorists of British Pakistani descent doing in Mumbai?

Healines from Daily Mail of UK

"Massacre in Mumbai: Up to SEVEN gunmen were British and 'came from same area as 7/7 bombers' "

7/7 was when young men (who were radicalised by Islamic extremist teachings) carried out a series of coordinated bomb blasts that hit London's public transport system.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1089711/Massacre-Mumbai-Up-SEVEN-gunmen-British-came-area-7-7-bombers.html

Interesting posts, guys. Two questions:

1. Why are there no women Islamic leaders?
2. Why are we not in danger of a terrorist attack? Who says so?

And one other point. Islam also approves female genital mutilation. Australian laws have had to specifically provide for prohibition of this when it should go without saying.

Nicky

1. Why are there no women Islamic leaders? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/Muslim_Leaders.htm
2. Why are we not in danger of a terrorist attack? Who says so?
Who does say so? Of course we are at risk, especially while hate mongers in our midst continue to provoke trouble.

"Islam also approves female genital mutilation." My understanding is that it's not a muslim teaching, rather a cultural practice thats tollerated. Whilst I think that the impacts are vastly different it's worth remembering that our own culture tollerates male genital mutilation without clear medical reasons to do so.

I don't much like what I've seen of the muslim faith but don't much like the constant attempts to single out that one when many of the complaints are outrigtht lies, distortions or equally valid for our culture or for the faith of those doing the complaining.

R0bert

*kroizyjack*

I think U make a number of valid points.

*EveryOne*

Whilst there are some clearly fine minds here, amongst them are those who appear to only apply there intellect to a confined sub set of knowledge, largely that, that U see in the pitiful media here.

Now, U do not in my view need to be a rocket scientist to very quickly realise when U travel, that the different information carriers all seem to have a propensity to mix lies with the truth.

A bit of truth mixed with a bit of spin to make the mass compliant in order that they will act in accordance with the whims of the leaders.

Seriously, having had opportunity to move about a bit, I have yet to see balanced coverage on these issues from any of them, and mayhaps if they translated SBS international news reports, this would become plainly apparent to more people.

It seems to me that great attrocities have been committed by all involved and as long as only the misdeeds of one over the other are reported, this will likely continue to be the case for generations.

A related example for you all to consider - in the latest report to the n.american congress re red china, it is reported that 62.8% of their energy is produced from coal and that upwards of 750,000 people die every year due to pollution related disease.

And what do U hear about that here? Very, very little. And will the political churches vote for those who would end this?

Not so far ...

90+% of the wealth being concentrated in the hands of less than 10% of the people is also a prime motivator.

Though, it may b a well thought out tactic by some U know?

Consider for a moment if U will. On the fringes with Afghanistan, u've got auntie sam et al going in over the border and striking at their heartland. Now, I do not think they are entirely stupid, in that, it is difficult to battle 1st world war machines with hand held guns. For that, in part, U need yr own countries military support.

So, what do they do? They attack the heartland of the ancient enemy India. And amongst the ranks of the Paki military, U would undoubetly have some supporters, if even just a few giggles from those who have lost Luved ones in Kashmir or wherever. Thus, they may not take the assault upon India in a considered appropriate manner.

This of course, will p!ss of the Indians who with bush turkey egging them on as we speak, may counter in an overly enthusiastic manner which in turn will inflame old prejudices and bring about further sympathy for the Islamic hardliners by the Paki military and population as a whole.

Now, for some people, that may well suit them just fine.

BLACK SPEECH:

One Ring to rule them All,
One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them All and in the darkness bind them.

...Adam...

I have to choke to death on the bleating ignorance and the absolute psychotic reference in turn to explain their variation of stupidity.
In the first instance; the very person who’s essay , you read is a renowned and in FACT, and is on record several times ; is on record of somewhat and in contrary form to this publication of Bovine excrement; Just ask Kaiser or ASIO for HOW LONG> STUPID>
This essay and a perverted intent is a statement on the insane and absolute idiotic and depravity laden moronic intent perpetrated on any level of and on a Nation;

I WILL in a public FORUM; MAKE NOTE; Kaiser TRAD has a Very substantial RECORD OF PUBLICATIONS: _ ASIO Consigned to boot, and many of the brainless idiots have NO IDEA, Enjoy the Freddy Kruger Ideology. You deserve it

Polycarp, a few points:
You seem quite happy to illuminate all of the ills of the Islamic world yet see, what I presume as your own religion, through "rose-coloured" eyes.

The Qur'an is a very contradictory text: consequently you can read it any number of ways - there is nearly always a passage which can support the reading you desire. eg, here are some examples on the net. http://www.carm.org/islam/Koran_contradictions.htm

Islam - as with Christianity - is a very diverse religion: eg. compare sufism with wahhabism.

I agree that strict interpretations of ancient religious texts can lead to great harm; but Islam does not have a monopoly on this. Some have noticed an acceptance of slavery in sections of both the Old and New Testament to justify slavery. The Ku Klux Klan is an extreme example of this.

Moreover, extremism does not need to be inspired by religion. Take the hundreds of suicide bombers of the nationalist Tamil Tigers.

I agree that violent extremism, in all its forms, should be condemned. But I feel that you are being just a little hypocritical. Furthermore I believe that you are making gross simplifications when trying to analyse the recent wave of Islamic militancy

Hi R0bert
My understanding (not that I've ever had anything to do with it) is that male genital mutilation (circumcision) is heavily frowned upon today for the unnecessary and outdated "procedure" it clearly was. Recent media discussions where I live indicate that parents who want it done will never find a doctor to do it.

Nicky

Hi Kroizy... welcome to OLO.. I've not seen much from your keyboard.. *vigorous handshake* :)

The position adopted by many here is similar to your's, though yours demonstrates more understanding and open-ness than some others.

Examinator says:

Part-1.
"Arguing by specific examples simply devolves into a contest of examples inevitably resulting in more heat than light."

Part-2.
"Polycarp resorts to Google searches of Islamic documents to make his idiosyncratic position. In truth this approach too has its fatal flaws in that there are equally highly contentious quotations in the Bible it’s all in the individuals’ interpretation."

EXAMMY.. "hoooooRAY" as for part-1... you are showing exactly WHY I personally focus on the IDEAS and foundations of the Islamic faith RATHER than just point to contemporary incidents to prove a point.
Even in my Mumbai thread, I'm looking at ideas, not just the incident.

BUT...then.. after a good start which clearly supports my approach... you spiral out of control into part-2 calling me out on google searches and an indiosyncratic. Obviously meaning that anyone who uses google to find ORIGINAL sources :) will have an idiosyncratic position... do you by any chance use gooooogle? hmmmm?

The problem with what some call my 'idiosyncratic' position is that they have not actually studied it :) sorry..painful but true.
Might even seem arrogant.. but it's a simple fact.

EXAMPLE. I used the same line of reasoning of "Islam is a violent faith" with reference to Surah 9:29 and then the hadith Bukhari where that verse is quoted to justify invading the Persians.. with a Bosnian Muslim from the Islamic stand just yesterday (MBS festival)..
He said "I don't disagree with anything you said"

All it takes is:

a) Some STUDY
b) Some DISCUSSION

It irritates me when people say 'criticizing ideas is promoting hate' .. good grief.. ALL political debate would cease if we believed that.

PS.. "contentious Bible sayings" ? choose your weapon :)

CHALLENGE 'Show where Jesus commanded his followers to fight/kill unbelievers' :)

polycarp. "How is it not rational to base one's understanding of Islam on the teaching of Islam and the example of it's founder? "

this has been explained to you 100 times, and not a few times in this thread. god, you're dumb.

tang: "Polycarp's theory that Islamic terrorism is linked to Islam's Holy Book is sadly proven to be true."

yes, if by "proven" you mean "endless god-on-my-side ranting".

kroizyjack, good luck. you'll soon distinguish the thoughtful christians here from the religious barbarians.

Banjo
You do me a disservice I too am not interested in religious debates as they all boil down to personal choice. My point to you was simply to point out that argument based on specific instances are futile.
If I misunderstood your post I'm sorry In the context of the topic I was trying to point out for every " evil" in Islam there are evils in Chritianity.
Challenging the author's stance on the points he raised also comes down to the context of the observer's cultural perspective

Keysar,

Thank for sharing your views I have the following comments:

• Not sure why you mixed different touch points. For example, I am sure most Australians would like to know what the muslim community is doing about issues like divorce and/or violence against women in line with Australian stance on violence against women. On the other hand, I am not sure how men and women sharing places of worship in a mosque, church or a temple is important.

• I think the Muslim community should have a clear plan and communicate it regularly to the Australian society openly. The leadership of the community need to be open and accept criticism without feling the need to be defensive. I don't believe the existing way of not communicating then coe up with a knee-jerk reaction is in anyone's benefit.

Peace,

VK3AUU, go for it, mate.

It is so interesting that many philosophers who believe that faith is practically useless, without reason, still say that the story of the young Jesus, including the Sermon on the Mount, even if found to be a fable, is still one of the greatest stories ever told.

Personally, I am one, though greatly moved for some reason,
feel one can only hope that the love and sympathy said to be expressed by the young Jesus, could be used more during our existence than what has been expressed by later Christianity, especially after the so-called Donation of Constantine, said to have given allowance for Christians virtually to commit murder.

It is also interesting that Mahomet is said to have been very impressed by the teachings of the young Jesus.

bushbasher, some newspapers are getting it right.

"This was a stateless crime by a stateless enemy that draws its inspiration from the numerous exhortations in the Koran to wage war on infidels and expand Islam by conquest."

"Anti-Semitism has a conspicuous place in the Koran and is a central element of the new jihadist movement."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/paul-sheehan/2008/11/30/1227979840030.html?page=2

"There are hundreds of Koranic schools which could better be described as cadet schools for Islamists."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,593415,00.html

Banjo and Foxy,

Whilst acknowledging the part the west has played, and the intimidation of many women, it still does not excuse any of the "moderate" menfolk from their silent particication in violence.

As PIN mentioned, the germans simply allowed through pride the Nazis to take control, and must take responsibility for all that ensued. The muslim moderates must not simply state they are peaceful and do nothing otherwise they will pay a similar price, and have no one but themselves to blame.

We should have more contributions from the likes of Trad. Everyone's saying Muslims don't have a coordinated response to atrocities committed in their name, yet Keysar regularly provides the comment and argument we ask for. Then gets shot down in flames on OLO.

Australia, is not a secular state, like say Turkey.

Whilst religious observance is not legally or even socially enforced, anyone would observe that, based on the ancestral background of the vast majority of Australians, if we were to classify it on religious terms, it would be classified as a "Christian" country.

I figure anyone who holds their religious beliefs seriously would ‘seriously’ do the necessary social research and know, before they considered migration to Australia, of that “Christian” heritage and be accepting of the minority nature of their religious beliefs, if they were not “Christian”.

I would further consider, when extremists and terrorists are targeting and killing people most likely of a Christian backgroubnd, in the name of Islam, anyone supporting and aligning themselves with “Islam” is going to need to consider the feelings and anxieties of Christians, no differently to any Catholic Irishman who decided to visit London during the times of the IRA bombings.

One thing is certain. fundamentalism and extremism is not going to prevail in Australia and the sooner it is abandoned by supposed “Australians” of any religious background, the better .

Fundamentalist institutions like “honour killing” and enforced arranged marriages are illegal under Australian law more important, religious terrorism is also illegal. Anyone with doubt or concern about that should check before they apply to migrate here.

I predict the passions, fervor and “commitment” to fundamental Islam will die out within a couple of generations because the ignorance and bigotry upon which “fundamentalism” is dependent will be diluted by exposure to Christians, most typically through regular institutions of School, shopping malls, television etc.

No Islamic girl will accept subservience to a misogynistic and heavy handed paternalistic culture, when she sees the vast majority of her Christian peers living unfettered by draconian paternalistic dogma.

The most important thing about the Islamic community in Australia is for it to understand, it is not separate to the Australian community and if it hopes to exist in any form it must forget the ‘separation’ in which it pretends to exist

May I also wish your moderate views, and tone of voice, much success on this Forum, kroizyjack.

There is unfortunately a great deal of religious fear and loathing evident here, and a quick introduction may not be out of order.

The most characteristic assaults, where the claimed purity of one religion is set against the putative vileness of another through the medium of carefully selected and interpreted ancient texts, have already merited comment from you.

More pernicious, however, is the ease with which your moderate views are turned against you, by the evangelical contingent. It will not be long before you too are labelled an Islamic apologist, at which point your frustration level with the lack of thought with which the debate is prosecuted will wind up a notch.

You also made an observation on the "Mumbai Analysis" thread:

>>This thread has gone way off topic and has become nasty: a moderator should shut it down<<

If you - as I hope you will - stick to your guns, this thought will occur to you quite frequently.

My own view is that this is actually an ideal place for those who fear the very idea of Islam - and there are quite a few - to spew their hate-filled garbage for us all to see.

I consider the motivation for their postings to be so transparent, that they are unlikely to win over even a single convert to their cause. In fact, it is far more likely that anyone who is as yet undecided where rationality lies, will be repelled by the thought of being associated with such bigotry.

My personal battle here has been to maintain that the Christian evangelicals' constant insistence that Muslims are inherently evil is tantamount to rabble-rousing, designed to appeal to those with insufficient mental capacity to work out that they are being manipulated.

Although I doubt there are many of that particular ilk who inhabit this Forum, it is the behavoiur itself that I find abhorrent, and feel obliged to remark upon whenever it rears its ugly head.

I hope that you will, too.

Sorry Keyser Trad, Nothing you say will change my opinion of Islam. I've seen several of your articles in Newspapers and heard you speak on television, and If you are a typical Islam, then you confirm my belief that this is an intolerant bigoted religion. Maybe you are not a typical Muslim. Maybe many Islams feel of you the same way Christians like myself feel about Fred Nile.

Bushbasher...that last post of yours was totally irrational.

If you cannot understand a RELIGION on the basis of it's founder... you cannot understand it at all...

How hard is it to understand "it came from" that person? what is wrong in your brain that you seem to think that one can understand any religion in any other way? Seriously.. there is something very unusual in your thought processes.

How in the world can you understand the Theory of Relativity apart from Einstien? Well actually you can.. because he himSELF is not part of the theory. But if Islam proclaims daily 5 times 'Mohammad is the messenger of Allah' then it follows like night after day that you must know about "him"...does it not?

Nothing has ever.. repeat ever been explained to me which would dethrone that basic reasoning. In fact.. to even try would be ludicrous, absurd and defy all educational processes.

There must be some exotic and strange method of thinking which forms the basis of your output, but I assure you..it is not rationality or reason.

Just try please.. puh-lease.. explain how it is UNreasonable to understand any religion NOT on the basis of it's founders words and deeds?

Note.."The Religion" not it's followers....

Buddhism is not connected to Budda?
Hari Krishna is not connected to Krishna?
Zoroastrianism has nothing to do with Zoroaster?
Sikhism has nothing to do with the Guru's?

When a religion ASSERTS that the founder IS the example to follow.. you would need to have serious mental health issues NOT to 'get' that 'understanding him' is part of the deal.

boaz, you polycarping cretin:

1) of course religious texts and the lives of religious figures give SOME insight into a religion. no one claimed otherwise.

2) that gives you no excuse for your loathsome cherry-picking poison.

3) history tells you there MUST be more to a religion than the texts and the founders. the most respected christian scholars once thought burning witches was consistent with christ and the bible. they thought marching to the middle east to massacre muslims was consistent. they thought executing scientists was consistent. and on and on and homicidally on.

currently, there is no shortage of "christians" who are damn sure that god was on their side when they lied us into the psychopathic iraq war. it is not just the text and the model, it is how you see them: it is the good, or the poison, inside yourself.

for the last and final time: it doesn't matter what the religious texts SAY, it matters what the religious followers DO. all religions have historical baggage and contradictions: all are vulnerable to fundamentalism, and to bad-faith cherry-picking criticism.

and there are thousands of muslims in australia who, by their actions, and by their embracing of peace and tolerance, are a thousand times more christian than you.

Bravo *BushBasher* Bravo
for a most enlightened and eloquent piece.
(and the crowd roars)

..

" ... Hi R0bert
My understanding (not that I've ever had anything to do with it) is that male genital mutilation (circumcision) is heavily frowned upon today for the unnecessary and outdated "procedure" it clearly was. Recent media discussions where I live indicate that parents who want it done will never find a doctor to do it. Nicky ... "

I neither am an expert in this area, but in Indonesia where many are still on the PooWee river system, I suspect it is still a wise precaution from a medical perspective. Outside the great festival and horse ride about which the young fellas are all as proud as punch pre operation, it is probably the case that the water is full of pathogens, which may account for the propensity of certain STD's. And of course, the tissue of the foreskin is far more susceptible to infiltration than the nob.

..

As for genital mutilation and the babes, I can only account for a number of lay perspective inspections pre marriage plus interviews with some of the lokals, including some of the clerics and please do note that the area within which I was was a very strict, traditional area. All that is done is a little nick in order to draw a bit of blood and that is the point. No great amount of tissue is removed and I have not witnessed any loss of normal function or sensitivity.
;-)

Of course the Indos are unique in their interpretation of Islam and my cleric friends all assure me that Islam is very much a work in progress here.

Keyser’s response is to an article in The Age, from a report by the Islamic Women’s Welfare Council.

This is an inside tract on the situation of muslim women here in Australia. Muslim women, reporting on the plight of muslim women, and the barriers to their protection. This is not out of nowhere, Keyser, but it is out of leftfield. They are reporting on their own, on muslim men, on you in fact.

Isolated incidents? Police and legal workers are referring to a sytematic pattern of abuse. They have not singled out certain suburbs or ethnic groups, but all muslims. This is institutionalised violence against Australian women, on Australian soil.

Courage ladies! I applaud your whistle-blowing, and I pray there are no reprisals against you from within the muslim community.

Does anyone care what they have risked so much to say? Or are you too busy applauding Keyser with his quick denials?

From The Age (emphasis not mine):

THE ISLAMIC WOMEN'S WELFARE COUNCIL ON … VIOLENCE

IMAMS favour preserving the family over protecting them, and sometimes advise women to endure beatings.

Legal workers report that Muslim women are particularly vulnerable due to a lack of information and community backlash against women who take legal action.

Police and legal workers say Muslim women often drop charges after husbands come to court with family members and religious leaders and put pressure on them. These conversations are not in English,
and police say they are frustrated that because of it, they cannot carry out Australian laws.

Some women who were legally separated but not religiously divorced reported that their husbands entered their homes and forced them to have sex, and imams said this was permitted because there was still a valid marriage.

Legal workers also had concerns about allegations of sexual assault as part of under-age marriages.
... cont.

THE ISLAMIC COUNCIL ON … DIVORCE

IMAMS apply sharia law selectively against women, using it to perform polygamous marriages and grant divorces but saying they cannot use it to enforce compensation to Muslim women because Australia does not have a sharia court.

When wives seek a divorce, some imams say they must leave with only the clothes on their backs, leaving their assets and children.
One imam told a woman she should not seek maintenance, saying: "It is not necessary in Australia where women can get Centrelink benefits."

Women and community workers say it is extremely difficult for a woman to get a religious divorce.

Some women say imams have declined divorces if they are intimidated by the men or are friends with them.

Imams are supposed to charge $200 to consider a divorce, but some (not members of the board) allegedly exploit women by asking a large fee, then more fees to register the divorce in the country of origin.

THE ISLAMIC COUNCIL ON … POLYGAMY

SOME imams have performed religious marriages knowing that the man was already married.

Women whose husbands took other wives have blamed Centrelink benefits for easing the way to polygamy because one wife or the other will claim it.

Marriage celebrants are required to ask whether the parties are already married, but many imams are not doing so.
Asked about this, the Board of Imams said it was the woman's responsibility to ensure the man was not already married. However, some imams say the husband does not have to tell his wife he is marrying another woman.

How does Keyser's blustering appear, when you have the content of the original report? I repeat, a report written by muslim women about muslims in Australia.

Muslims are already living in Australia under sharia law, hamstrung by Australian law where it does not allow them to implement the full sharia code.

Yet, muslim men are able to exploit the benefits of the Australian social security to deprive their women of rights guaranteed under the Koran.

Australian law, when it rubs up against muslim practice, is swept aside.

katieo, i don't see anyone applauding keysar, most definitely not me. and thank-you for attempting to return the thread to keyser's slippery article and the report he wishes to dismiss. (i'll confess that i'm as responsible as anyone for derailing the thread). i have not read the report, but i don't have any reason to doubt that it reflects serious issues, that it's not a beat-up. if anyone wants to defend keysar's spin, i'm interested to hear it.

what is certainly not in doubt is keysar's dishonesty. when he writes that people want to "take away the private space that women have enjoyed in many mosques", one just have to laugh. it sounds exactly like the old days, when those black people "enjoyed" their space at the back of the bus

Again, there is a great variety in the different forms of Islam, with a lot of cultural and other issues bound up.

If there is ugly male domination occuring of women in Australia, irrespective of race or colour, then we need to come down on it like a ton of bricks and if the authorities can't even do that, then it makes a mockery of any claims that they have of defending the population as a whole against potential carnage.

Bushbasher..... I can be as much of a dog with a bone as Pedantic Pericles.....

I want to challenge one statement of yours:...being:

"for the last and final time: it doesn't matter what the religious texts SAY, it matters what the religious followers DO"

If I may point out..... that when they 'DO' something at variance to what their foundation documents clearly 'SAY'...then we can rightly criticize them.

You make the point that over history, various groups have interpreted the Bible this way or that.. and done bad things as a result.

The problem with your approach is that it does not leave any room for truth. You can often ony identify truth be comparing it with falsehood.

Regarding KatieO's post.. you can clearly see that some in the Muslim community are indulging in wife beating. They are told to endure it by Imams.
Now..this is an issue where there is no ambituity whatsoever, as there is a direct command/permission to do just that entirely applicable to today! Quan 4:34

When it comes to the Bible, it is neccessary to distinguish between things given to the Israelite community during their period and those things/commands/guidelines left with us by Jesus for all time. That's the difference between the Quran and the Bible, Islam and Christianity.

Until you recognize this, your view will continue to be biased by the statement you made which I opened with 'It matters what they do'.....
By your logic, if a Nazi walked from his duty at a death camp and helped an old lady across the road.. he would become a good bloke.

They key to understanding Keysars article is knowing what the Quran/Islam actually permits and what Keyser is spinning for public consumption. If you are unaware of what Islam/Quran permits...how can any of us legitimately criticize Keysars points? Or... be aware of his level of deception.

Col,
While I admire your optimism,and I hope you are right, about muslim girls not being submissive to their parents wishes, I cannot agree.
I think the opposite will occur and our weak politicians will continue to compromise our culture to accomodate other ethnic cultures.

This is the second time in a few months that Keysar has raised the issue of polygamy and he will continue to do so, refining his argument each time. Polys will eventually recognise polygamy in certain circumstances and the door will be wedged open. Some states now have an input of 'aboriginal law' in some court cases, So why not sharia law for family matters to accomodate muslim culture. The door is opened!

The UK now recognises and makes social welfare provissions for polygamous marriages, where such is contracted in another country.
The UK also has a Forced Marriages Unit, which so far this year, has handled some 1200 allegations and new laws were recently introduced to assist in this. Their police handle some 12 deaths a year they believe are 'honour killings' and a further 113 deaths are now being re-investigated. There has been a rise in 'balcony suicides' of young Asian girls there. Sadly, I think the more the girls try to defy their parents the more honour killings and balcony suicides will occur.

Already our States turn a blind eye to the occurance of FGM and seemingly forced marriages are ignored.

Sadly, I also think it is only a matter of time before we see our first honour killing in Aus.

KatieO,
Thanks for giving that info about muslim divorce. The report you speak of is not yet publicly available but will be interesting.

Can you get any info on forced marriages in Aus. I am having difficulty in getting any stats, either real or estimates?

"when they 'DO' something at variance to what their foundation documents clearly 'SAY'...then we can rightly criticize them."

No Poly, BB has it right. Actions speak louder than words. Always. Regardless of what some man or woman wrote on paper some thousands of years ago.

Scriptures can be twisted to mean anything you want it to. With over 6 billion religious interpretations it has to happen. Why, I know of someone who claims to be a christian but who after reading certain sections of the bible comes up with the most unchristian comments...

What of those who do not follow any particular dogma? Are they writing their own book? Mine's called Watching Religion At War With Itself. And you?

“… there is some atrocious behaviour by some Muslims, this cannot and will not be excused, however, it should be noted that the behaviour in question is not institutionalised nor is it widespread…”

“Imams (or a minority thereof) trying to salvage marriages”

Keysar, the behaviour in question is the beating of wives by their husbands. It was claimed by this imam (youtube) that this “revelation” came from heaven and was revealed to Mohammad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWGA8i6scYY

How can an imam save a marriage when he tells Muslim men to beat their wives?

See a beautiful Arab lady whose face was beaten out of shape.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZY_7gzFdxU&NR=1

Perhaps Keysar does not have the latest edition of the Koran, could Polycarp lend him a copy?

Join Maryam Namazie in the “One Law for All - Campaign against Sharia law in Britain.” She is a founder member of the Council of ex-Muslims.

http://www.islam-watch.org/MNamazie/Campaign-against-Sharia-law-in-Britain.htm

http://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/

boaz, you're ample dog whether or not you have a bone.

bennie has answered you very well, but i'll make one further point. you claim that the problem with my approach is that it leaves no room for truth. and yes, i very doubt that there is a "truth" there to be determined, that the "true" christianity, or "true" islam is there to be discovered.

however, even if there is a "true" christianity, it would be the height of arrogance for a non-christian to claim to know it. similarly, it is the height of arrogance for a non-muslim to claim to know what "true" islam is.

that is what is so incredible about you. you genuinely seem to have no inkling of how insufferably arrogant you are. you are a truly astonishing piece of work.

katieo, and anyone else: i am interested to know *exactly* what the islamic women's group's claims are, and what evidence there is, either circumstantial or statistical, for their claims. to that end, i figured i'd read the report. but, i simply can't find it. if anybody can supply a reasonable link to anything other than (by their nature suspect) media reports, i'd very much appreciate it.

bushbasher,
I too have been trying to get hold of a copy of the report.

All websites of the Islamic womens welfare council of Victoria were not operating when i tried.

Seeing the Federal Government apparently had some financial input to the report, I then tried my local MP who has since informed me that the report is not yet public. I can only presume that the Government is considering the report before releasing it.

No doubt the government will put out a response in due course.

How the Age got the story is anyones guess.

Idiots. Still pushing that brain-dead imperialist divide-and-rule toxic filth. Yawn - and spew. It's so tiring that we are still bombarded with inane references to "war", "clash of civilizations" and such rubbish. It is a simple, uncontroversial truism to remind ourselves that these actions are first and foremost of the "criminal conspiracy" nature - period. Anything else is distraction of the classic techniques of "false flag" and proxy actors.

Notice how the UK press reported the UK connections from the start, but have now back-pedalled. An exception is Mail Online's Sunday reference to Lashkar-e-Taiba: "A banned Islamic terrorist group funded with cash raised in British mosques is believed to be behind the Mumbai attacks." Earlier UK press quotes repeatedly exposed that at least seven of the attacking criminals were UK nationals - even speaking Punjabi with characteristic northern-English accents!

Same old imperialist dullards playing their games, telling themselves their geniuses as if they really achieved something sophisticated with partition and other dark schemes and secrecy. Indian Government claims against Pakistan are just part of the deal: go along with the scenario or we just get nastier imperialist sickoes to attack you even worse.

Dear Bushbasher
I understand where you 're coming from I think, and empathize with your position to a degee.
But when you say “What counts is”..... that's a subjective approach which is simply reporting how you feel about religious peoples actions. I quite agree in that when religious people do bad things.. it counts in your world.

What I'm trying to get at here, is that it is possible to determine if the religion is responsible or the people themselves, by examining those documents which the people themselves hold as their foundation for life.

The classic example would be the issue of wife beating and/or polygamy. If a Christian pastor beat his 2 wives, you don't have to go far to see that he is plain wrong.
1/

a)Husbands love your wives as your own bodies. As Christ loved the Church. And
b) An elder must be the husband of ONE wife.

2/ Islam
a) “lastly, beat them” (wives) Surah 4:34
b) You may take 4 wives. Surah 4:3

From this, we can easily determine, based on clear, unmistakable commands or permissions, behavior which is “Christian” or “Islamic” or.. not

Interpretation is not hard for clearly spelt out issues. The book of Revelation though is HARD to interpret because it is full of symbolism.

Dear Bennie...
actions only speak louder than words in terms of how they effect US....not about whether people are engaging in “un” Islamic or “un”Christian behavior. Behavior, in religion cannot be separated from their holy books.. I mean.. that should go without saying.. all religions are based on:
-A founder(s)
-A holy book(s).

Wife beating is not 'un'Islamic. Wife beating IS “un”Christian if in both cases you compare/base the behavior on the documents which these faiths claim as their foundation/reference/source of inspiration.

Kaysar's site;

http://www.speednet.com.au/~keysar/

has a link to Sharia, described thusly:

"Sharia refers to the system of guidance in Islam. There are penal provisions within Sharia, these are referred to as Hudood. The Hudood are a very small part of Sharia. The following is a reasonable summation: 95% of Sharia protects the life, safety and freedom of individuals and of society, especially women, 5% are provisions to deter those who would threaten the freedom of society".

http://www.speednet.com.au/~keysar/sharia.htm

Yet, young men who download articles on suppression of womens rights are jailed. It teaches Creationism. Derides democracy, devalues life. Perhaps I'm wrong - just as those who "misunderstood" Hilali's comments on women as meat.

When we examine the Cairo Declaration, we can see it is Allah, not human beings who benefit. Of all 7 worlds in Islamic jurisprudence, Allah resides only here. Muslims are duty bound to cover our planet with The Ummah, and until this question is resolved with tact and understanding, we shall continue to be targets of an alienated people. Muslim pain and psychology is certainly not understood within Australia. Yet, Islamic lifestyles are archaic, commonly barbaric and no - not remotely Australian.

The Declaration of human rights promotes human rights with Article 30 ensuring no article may be used to undermine another. The CD ensures Sharia is the overarching denominator. With the orchestrated attack upon human rights from Islam, following the misguided change to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of expression to focus on "abuse" of that right, "religious freedom" can cry foul no matter what the toll on women across the globe.

CDHR:
http://www.religlaw.org/interdocs/docs/cairohrislam1990.htm

UDHR:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Fitna:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020472.php

Fitna Remade [by a female Muslim]:

http://www.fitna-remade.com/

And today, the faith schools who told SBS Insight that Koranic Doctrine is "identical to Australian values" go unchallenged with demonstrably fallacious and damaging claims. Recently when a British employee tried to sue his employer for "making him" handle alcohol. Grocery store assistants tend to handle stock. And yep. It was a "Sharia court" supported by the UK government.

Interesting to read so many sweeping claims and unexamined references to an old and vastly diverse faith - Islam - from a loud minority clique of avowedly "Christian" critics who are themselves so obviously part of an identity that has its own serious problems. I refer to an aggressive Christian lobby that is often culturally in-bred and backward due to long-term stigmatization and neglect, and also confused and challenged from within its ranks. Do not expect such critics to apply the same absolute, context-free or ahistorical regard for Koranic and Hadiths translation to Old and New testaments. Forget too any fair expectation that they would (or even could, in most cases) deal with the religious texts in their own authentic linguistic terms; they could not summon the respect needed to even consider the classical Arabic, just as they could not deal with the ancient Hebrew or Aramaic. In the broader historical sense, the tired anti-Muslim rants on OLO's discussion amount to just another recent instalment of properly and literally defined “anti-Semitism”.

In the Australian political context, what we really witness here in the fanatical Islam-bashing is the result of a "clash of lobbies". On the one hand, there is an avowedly secular branch of imperialism which promotes its own particular anti-moralism, inevitably hypocritical, under a banner of supposed "diversity". This lobby's imperialistic nature is betrayed by its very divisiveness: various religions and ethnicities are to be allowed their public space and influence, provided they do not contribute any substantial common foundation for law-making and other leadership, including that of dynamic and most relevant hybrid cultural production. So tokenism is made big, while its degeneracy is clear from its promotion of such bizarre, alienated and inefficient cottage industries as baby-making via same-sex IVF, and other similar marketing of human beings as mere commodities or “lifestyle choices”. In the same context of cynical, imperialist, and anti-democratic manipulation we need to reflect on the often blinkered nature of "Sharia" within the UK courts, and that system's own premature claims to legitimacy and diversity thereby.

(cont.)
Therefore, against the west's imperialist crowd of haughty in-flight degenerates and their often triumphant rainbow banner we see the reaction of a large-C Christian lobby, which realizes that it cannot hope to survive - much less grab power and privilege - unless it out-demonizes Islam. The lobby's hysterical response to Muslims is due to the lobby's own identity crisis: issues of gender and sexual identity have undermined, and continue to undermine, the lobby's sense and understanding of its own mission.

But a powerful further motive behind this reactionary lobby is that many of its Christians have much in common with the most caricatured of Muslim preachers in the west. But they strenuously avoid comparison. Thus we read of their passionate, new-found liberal feminist convictions, for one absurd example. Of course, women face brutal threats like mutilation and acid attacks across cultures but the west's media has fed us a selective sensationalism there, seizing on even isolated cases in the Middle East, to remind "us" of "the threat". Oh, and then there is, of course, Afghanistan - a country smashed into the Stone Age and kept there as the largely western pushers' very own smack factory.

Apart from their support for various large-scale war crimes, the vilest act by the reactionary and revanchist Christian lobby in Australia was its acquiesence and promotion for nasty policies meant to persecute, torture and vilify Middle Eastern migrants fleeing the desolation and misery of their war-ravaged homelands.

Thus did that misguided – and I would suggest misnamed - “Christian” lobby condemn itself, by its own holy texts.

'But when you say “What counts is”..... that's a subjective approach which is simply reporting how you feel about religious peoples actions.'

complete nonsense. it's a pragmatic and respectful decision, to consider only how these people affect me. and, my measure of that effect is substantially objective.

there is nothing subjective about my approach. by comparison your approach is totally subjective, completely dishonest and self-serving. i wish mil-observer had said it in fewer words, but i think he got it right: you attack the muslim religion because you're concerned by the marginalised stance of your own religion.

and once again with the cherry-picking. it's incredible. do you pick your nose in the same uncontrolled manner? because to watch you do it is so much like watching a toddler digging deep. it has the same hypnotic effect. and the same intellectual content.

if i quote the new testament happily talking about slaves, you think that means anything?

What most of the Islam apologists here don't seem to understand is that Islam is not just a religion. It is also a way of life with its own customs, legal system and finance etc...

It is incompatible with western democracy, and Muslims should not be allowed to settle here or anywhere in the West.

All those apologising for and promoting Islam should read KatieO's post again and feel ashamed of themselves.

They are nothing less than traitors.

Please don't think that Islamists will applaud you for your "openness and tolerance". They merely laugh and think about you as the weak-minded idiots you are, and call you infidels, kuffirs etc, some sort of "untermenschen", not willing to stand up for their own culture and people. In fact, they are very much like the Nazis.

Hitler thought they were wonderful, read about it.

Religion of any sort should not be part of the 21st century, when are people going to grow up?

froggie, i'm sure katieo is just thrilled with your last sentence.

i don't see any apologists here. what is lacking in the discussion is evidence, as opposed to guilt by association, and the kind of mindless slagging off in which you are engaging.

once again, trad's post was inspired by the islamic women's report. i asked the thread if anyone had a copy of that report, so that the exact claims could be discussed, as well as the evidence for those claims. it seems that no one has access to that report

You are completely deluded Bushbasher. You should do a bit of research, but how you could have escaped noticing the constant stream of news about Islamist extremism and terrorism, I don't know. Given the events in Mumbai, I would have thought that even someone as obtuse as you would have realised there was something wrong with Islam.
There are none so blind....

Islam does have a problem with a radical element but not all Muslims have been radicalised. The vast majority are law abiding. Tarring all with the same brush is akin to them characterising us as all beer-swilling yobbos. Which they do.

There is a Christian element which takes the bible literally and thinks humanity is reaching the 'end times'. Harmless enough until you consider many actually look forward to it and do their utmost to bring it about.

Why modify my wasteful lifestyle in order to save the planet when God will provide? Why try to bring about peace in the middle east when an all-out war is foretold in the prophecies and is actually desirable? Why extend tolerance to other faiths when I know I'm right and you're wrong?

Phooey to the fundies here on OLO and elsewhere.

Mil Observer...I've seldom seen such undulterated rubbish put forward so elequently. Your eloquence is only exceeded by your abject lack of understanding and prominence as a verbose dill of the highest order :) Now..that's not an ad hominem..its a raw rubber meets the road fact, and if I have to prove it to your face..I'm happy to do so.

The most dangerous part of your posts was that (like any good propoganda) they contain just enough truth to sound plausible.

There are so many issues in your various paragraphs which defy the word and post limit here that it isn't even worth persuing.

If you want to meet up some time, we can disuss all that at length.

"CORRECTIVE ACTION ALERT" - ie.Mil-Observer needs serious counselling and deprogramming/demythologizing.

Dear BUSHBASHER.. I guess that last post was aimed at me.

I absolutely recommend not Froggies LAST sentence to you, but his FIRST (and to Mil-Lackof-Observer also.)

Understand THAT and you and LACKofOBERVER will both understand what the Christian lobby is about in regard to Islam. It might also help (dare I say it) to read.. actually read...

Surah 19:88-92 (about Christians) (scroll to the verse)

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/QURAN/19.htm

Surah 9:30 (about Christians and Jews)

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/QURAN/9.htm (scroll to the verse)

Then...when you couple those to Froggies sentence.. aaaaH enLIGHTenment has come upon you... Nirvanah even.

PS.... did anyone else hear it? the silly little CHIRPING BIRD which freaaaaaked me out from my speakers.. from the ADVERT at the top banner.

gee. i suggest maybe we actually should discuss the islamic women's report that no one can seem to find, and see what the evidence is. froggie immediately whines that i'm deluded and that i should do some research.

and boaz simply ignores all responses, too much in a rush to continue picking his nose.

i've had enough.

katieo, you have more class than this. i suggest you distance yourself from these decidedly unchristian lowlifes.

bushbasher,
Keysar Trads article was really in response to 'The age' story about the report by the Islamic Womens Council.

There is not much purpose in discussing it further until the Government releases the report which,I think, they commisioned.

I certainly will be keeping an eye out for this to happen and when it does I, if nobody else does, will introduce the contents for discussion.

bennie has a very good point.

Fundamentalism is fundamentalism. We may be surprised at how chillingly undemocratic and inhumane a society not "engineered" by tolerance, equality and human rights, but biblically correct would be.

Christian fundamentalists have certainly undermined democratic values and promoted divisiveness. "Controversies" have been invented where there are none. Scientific interpretations and science itself attacked for no other reason than belief is evidence free.

Scripture has been used to justify violence, war, social/economic problems and climate change. 'Creation science' single handedly made Panda's a little less cute and people more confused. Biotechnology, public health, progressive policy, free choice...

Perhaps limiting expressions of fundamental belief, particularly within education would benefit mainstream religions, and us all, in the long run.

banjo, i agree. i wasn't trying to be cute. i'm no fan of trad, and i'm no fan of cultural autonomy as an excuse for nastiness. we'll see what comes.

i was trying to distinguish a real debate with real evidence, from the nasty content-free self-indulgent guilt-by-association unchristian nonsense of boaz and tang and froggie.

Dear BushBasher....so now ur an expert on what constitutes "Christian" and UNChristian behaviour ? :)

Mil Observer...that last post was heading in the right direction. More of that and less of the tripe of your previous 2.

Don't be misled by Trads use of these forums.

Islamic apologists (Nadir Ahmad being a classic current Example) rarely see debates as anything other than an opportunity to declare Islamic spin.... and to try to attract people to the faith by way of misinformation.

They seldom take the serious arguments against their position into account (See Kalid Yassin, Zakir Naik...Ahmad Deedat but lately Nadir Ahmad)

Kayser is one of them, and just tries to steer away from the unpalatable aspects of Islam, simply by denying them, and re-stating the particular issue in 'Christian/Secular' friendly terms hoping to deceive some gullible people.

Dear Boaz.

You owe me for another keyboard.

I was drinking my coffee when I read this.

>>Dear BushBasher....so now ur an expert on what constitutes "Christian" and UNChristian behaviour ?<<

As you are someone who regularly - nay, invariably - decides for others what constitutes Islamic and un-Islamic behaviour, I am staggered that your fingers allowed you to type this.

Any self-respecting digits would have fractured themselves rather than be party to such bare-faced cheek.

bushbasher,
In relation to the first aspect of Keysar Trad's article, that of womens segregation in mosques, There is an article in todays Sydney Morning Herald pertaining to this.

It is written by Nadia Jamal who is a muslim and is a journalist for SMH.

It is of little interest to me as I care not what the seating arrangements are in any place of worship. But it is obviously an important issue for muslims. If anyone is interested, the article is in the Opinions section.

Banjo – thank you for your posts.

As reported by The age.com.au (24/11/08):

“The report is based on a study commissioned and funded by the former Howard government and conducted by the Islamic Women's Welfare Council of Victoria. It has considerable credibility.
…The report was presented on Thursday at a National Centre for Excellence in Islamic Studies conference at the University of Melbourne.”

Conducted by: the Islamic Women’s Welfare Coucil of Victoria, who describe themselves as:

“ a community based welfare organisation established for and managed by Muslim women.”

The questions which remain are:

- Why do the muslim women now attempt to water down this report by:

(1) not releasing it in the public domain and
(2) by saying that the problems identified are experienced by those women already in counselling.

- What proportion of muslim women (statistically, only a small proportion of all Australian women), seek the service?

- Can we assume that the numbers are significant enough to justify a government-commissioned report?

- Can we rely on this body to produce an unbiased report?

- How is the welfare of the women in counseling protected by making such a report public – will it drive the problem further underground?

- How is the welfare of the women currently in counseling protected?

Keyser Trad’s reaction, desiring to stifle any progressive voice, demonstrates that we cannot rely on reform of muslims to come from within.

Is it not significant, that muslim women are acknowledging that sharia does not protect women or guarantee their basic rights?

- What is being done to address the issues raised?

- Why is the Australian legal system not the final recourse for:

(1) young girls in forced marriages

(2) divorced women or women duped into an illegal "marriage"

(3) women deprived of maintenance support for themselves and their children

It appears that muslim women are unaware of their rights and therefore open to abuses under the power and authority of an illegal court which has no legitimate rule in this country, guided by a leadership which ignores or breaks Australian laws.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/still-no-equality-for-muslim-women/2008/12/07/1228584647814.html

Still no equality for women.

There never will be if the Koran is there, its written in heaven on stone tablets.

Nadia Jamal should just join Maryam Namazie, a female Muslim, and walk away forever.
http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/
http://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/eng/events/text1.htm

Here is another Keyboard Pericles :) but it might not last through this post.

Reading Philip Tangs link, we have the following:

1/ 'Nadia Jamal is criticizing Muslims'

2/ "we bigots" are also criticizing Islam.

3/ Jamal and the 'bigots' are of one voice....

And Pericles regularly attacks us (i.e. the 'bigots' but not the Muslim critics of Islam :)

Now that's worth a keyboard.

Here's a voucher P, zip down to Tandy and grab another.

Here's another..for your local therapist :)

" ... Muslim women who oppose polygamy ... "

Yes, in Indonesia this is my experience. I have not met a single Islamic girl who does not have the same aspirations of Luv and faithfullness and loyalty to a single partner that aussie girls have.

However, I have met numerous girls here who have been dumped whilst pregnant, been slashed on the arms with a knife and had cigarettes stubbed out on them for refusing to accept becoming a multiple wife family.

Part of the problem is the fundamentalist attitude to no sex before marriage and prohibition on co-habitation outside wedlock, which leads to kids moving out young getting knocked up and ending up very unhappy.

Fortunately contraception is available over the counter for less than a $AU1 per pack or 3 mth shot, (which all appear to be excessive doses for such relatively small girls leading to weight gain etc) yes the same thing that we pay $30 a month for e.g. MicroGynon ED + a visit to the quack ...

Regrettabley, u still have the problem of catholics espousing anti contraception drivel but fortunately they are in the minority.
(I reckon Mary & Joseph used to pork themselves silly as do all happy Love Poppets - Does anyone know if the Jews then were into Greek or did they just do the pull out and blow method?)

Incidentally, I know a couple here who are trying to get married currently. Their divorce has been legally state approved but the local idiot catholic wont. Regrettabley, in Indo, couples are required to be of the same religion which is why we married in Oz:

1 Muslim Babe + 1 Me

recognised also in Indo as

1 Muslim Girl + 1 Christian Boy

(U have to be a bit careful in Indo as not having a religion can put u in the category of Komunis (Communist))

My Mrs is non practising incidentally but likes to get together on days like today and have a big nosh up with the family much as we do at Chrissy.

pericles, i'll take the blame for your soaked keyboard: as i'm sure you're aware, i had simply decided that sauce for the goose was sauce for the bigger goose.

banjo, thanks for the SMH tip: excellent article. i semi-agree with you in terms of interest in the issue: more, i don't have a clear understanding of the solidity of tradition in religious practice. what is clear is trad's sleazy sweeping away of the issue.

katieo, a couple points:

1) what evidence do you have that that the non-releasing of the report is an attempt to "water down" the report?

2) what is the source for your 2)? not that i see it is a watering down anyway.

3) keysar trad's article "demonstrates" as much about the muslim community as fred nile does about the christian community. please refrain from silly sweeping generalisations.

the rest of your post is simply unsubstantiated. in brief, you ask the right questions, but with a speculative sense of the answers which you do not support.

once again, i take what these women say seriously. but i want to read the report itself. the report may well have "considerable credibility", but i have no intention of taking a newspaper's word, or your word, for it.

tang: you have your own "stone tablets", and they are nothing to write home about.

bushbasher,
In relation to the seating arrangements in mosques. I suppose the segregation only serves to illustrate further that females are not rated very highly in Islam. In todays press there is an article about an English female doctor being held captive, by her family, in Bangladesh for the purpose of forced marriage.

Reading Trad's article again, I see he states that in relation to divorce, there needs to be reciprocal arrangements made with other countries. That is pure hogwash!

Everybody in Australia, born here, citizens and others, need to understand and accept that here Australian law is supreme. It overides any cultural or religous practice or rule. So if our courts grant a divorce that is the end of the matter. There is no need what so ever to get agreement from a religion or culture.

If muslim females are having problems with divorce or forced marriages they need to be informed what their rights are under Australian law. If somebody does not accept that then they should not be here. They do not belong in our community.

I just hope the government releases that report soon. I am anxious to see what the governments response is to the report.

bushbasher: on my previous, I'll try more succinctness here by calling some general trends.

Australia's prevailing clique of evangelical christian fanatics, in its self-defined “Christian” lobby, is still busy chasing the role of leading anti-Muslim demonizer. This jostling is against a secular and often atheist crowd typically associated with neoliberalism but, for often different motives, itself venomously hostile to the traditionalist and moralist resistance posed by Islam. I refer here to a general Islamic challenge, not the “approved” stereotype of Muslim fundamentalist puritans, which is usually compatible with some western christian counterparts or, at least, so outlandish as to discredit Islam in a way useful both for their western counterparts and neoliberalist powers.

But the Christian Lobby's more desperate efforts to shift focus from itself and onto Islam are probably best demonstrated around senior gay clergy in Anglican, Presbyterian and various evangelical denominations. This dynamic would be funny if its results were not so sick and destructive. That's why I alluded to large-scale war crimes and persecution of Middle Eastern war refugees. The Christian Lobby's hypocritical influence was clearest when that Fielding guy made his nervous spin around the farcical West Papuan asylum seekers case.

You're right referring us back to the original context of Trad's article! On two such aspects, domestic violence and polygamy/divorce, I believe it is important to recall KatieO's (and The Age's) source material coming from Muslim women themselves. But, as Trad suggests, that's not to assume these matters amount to some general truth about Muslims in Australia, any more than comparable focus would deserve alarms about such problems within say WASP, Catholic or indigenous communities. And KatieO's conclusion that Australian Muslims are living under Sharia is wrong: such impressions may arise from Australian institutional preference for simplistic and stereotypical interpretations of Islam. Again the UK case of Sharia is a useful point: influential UK Muslim leadership opposed such developments as hasty and unnecessary.

Although I agree with Trad's relativism about western secular and “christian”-hypocrite serial monogamy, I differ with his explanation and implied defence around traditional Muslim polygamy. Muslim women opposing polygamy are many: wives'

(cont.)
consent is meant to be normal for Muslim polygamy in Indonesian law, for example. But Muslims against polygamy have valid and scriptually sound arguments about historical context in formative Islam i.e., when warfare had so damaged traditional society and its gender balance that needs for repopulation compelled a return to ancient, Old Testament-style polygamy, or a “regeneration” by definition. Of course, it would be relevant to consider whether more recent war crimes/crimes against humanity in the Middle East had caused such gender imbalance as to make polygamy more reasonable for helping to restore civilization there. However, I fear modern warfare's effects have made victims of the female population in at least equal measure, even worse.

Likewise, such arguments against modern polygamy are logically and morally sound i.e., endorsement for males' expanded love interests would help cause gender imbalance among marriageable adults, weakening society in various ways. Therefore, Keysar Trad should be wary of relativist traps and corruptions that neoliberalist degeneracy threatens. The catch here is in Quranic discussion of divorce, where Muslim women have apparently simple and fast rights to dump their husband. Serial monogamy and its hypocrisies may be established practices in the non-Muslim west, but it seems a shame if Muslims only ameliorate such practice through formal recognition of contextually unjust and irrational conduct. Oh, and pre-nups are toxic!

KatieO: On the above-mentioned “'approved' stereotype of Muslim fundamentalist puritans”, I refer to that exceptionally superficial Muslim identity targeted and publicized via such a Howard-funded commission (the report's quote seemed almost sarcastic when adding: “it has considerable credibility”). The Howard regime's purpose (not altered now either) was to target “Muslims” as a generally identified pathology anyway, in similar fashion to what is still done to indigenous Australians. Imagine specific parallel efforts made against predominant, nonstigmatized white Australians.

Tang (and other vilifying bigots): your claims are very weak. Khadijah, successful businesswoman and Muhammad's first wife, gave Muhammad permission to marry again. Muhammad worked for Khadijah's business too. A warrior, but Sensitive New Age Prophet too?

Also, Nadia Jamal's article actually doesn't criticise Islam at all.

Islam is an ideology threatening the non-Muslims' liberal democratic principle of secular government which espouses the separation of religion and state.

Mosques and Koranic "religious" schools are the contagion which spreads the deadly disease of shariah law.

Muslims who choose to live in (non-Muslim) liberal democracies of the 1st world, and enjoying the benefits of peace, economic prosperity, progress and freedom, and yet choose to uphold the ideology of Islam (ie remain Muslims) should NOT be given the right to vote in a general election.

They should be in Pakistan, Bangadesh, Saudi Arabia (or any of the 50 plus Islamic countries) which practices the full range of shariah law. There, they can beat their wives as many times as they want, stone people to death, chop off hands of petty thieves, bomb churches, burnt temples, all according to what the Koran instructs them to do.

Launch of One Law for All - Campaign against Sharia law in Britain http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/

"The campaign calls on the UK government to recognise that Sharia law is arbitrary and discriminatory and for an end to Sharia courts and all religious tribunals on the basis that they work against and not for equality and human rights."

"Islam is an ideology threatening the non-Muslims' liberal democratic principle of secular government which espouses the separation of religion and state."

oh yes. not like there are any christians challenging that "separation". no, sir. wouldn't happen. that whole gay marriage kerfuffle is just a figment of my imagination.

banjo, i'm inclined to feel the same way about the sexual separation thing. of course, i don't understand christians objecting to women priests (or gay priests) either. but, what if the practitioners themselves are happy with the situation? certainly some islamic women are decidedly not happy with the sexual separation, but what if most are? i'm not saying it's then an argument for ignoring it, but i do think one has to tread lightly.

mil-observer, it would appear that brevity is not your strong suit! but i think we're pretty much agreeing.

You're clearly dredging the bottom of the logic barrel, Boaz.

>>Reading Philip Tangs link, we have the following:
1/ 'Nadia Jamal is criticizing Muslims'
2/ "we bigots" are also criticizing Islam.
3/ Jamal and the 'bigots' are of one voice....
And Pericles regularly attacks us (i.e. the 'bigots' but not the Muslim critics of Islam<<

Nadia Jamal says nothing about bloody Surah bloody nine.

Nor that if you don't follow bloody surah bloody nine to the letter, you cannot be a Muslim.

Nor does she generally take it upon herself to promote fear and loathing of Islam.

Instead, she soberly points out a few of Islam's shortcomings when it comes to seating arrangements.

You, on the other hand, are constantly harping on about bloody surah bloody nine, and how it is the single rule that every Muslim must abide by, and how we could be murdered in our beds at any tick of the clock, thanks to bloody surah bloody nine.

So for starters, you and Jamal are most certainly not "of one voice".

And for main course, the reason I don't "regularly attack the Muslim critics of Islam" is because they are not intent on sowing discord, disharmony, fear, distrust and loathing.

(Incidentally, I heard that the Australian Cricket selectors were keen to select Nadia to play against South Africa in the upcoming Test. Apparently, someone told them "If you've seen Warne, you've seen Jamal")

" ... i.e., when warfare had so damaged traditional society and its gender balance that needs for repopulation compelled a return to ancient, Old Testament-style polygamy, or a “regeneration” by definition. ... "

We laugh about it now with family and friends but they are fond to tell me how they all peered out to see if I was going to start doing some dutch militant style goose step when I first arrived.

Local oral tradition holds that when the militants came, both dutch and japs, they simply arrived "killing the men from afar and took the woman off screaming and crying by force." The men that survived ran and hid in the jungle. Any who protested were summarily executed.

The woman took to wearing rice sack cloth and smearing their face in sh!t, preferring servitude in the kitchen to servitude in the bed.
This is still taught to the children as it was taught to my wife.

If there was a social security system here, I doubt there would be much polygamy. It is just a case of men behaving badly.

..

I have not viewed prima faecie evidence myself, nor have I read credible histories, but a friend of mine tells me that whilst the indos teach their children that they achieved independence in '47, that in fact that this only came about in '49, with the assistance of Australia and a few others to finally see an end to the dutch <snip>'s
(Is it any surprise that some Indos occassionally sport nazi symbols on their clothes out of appreciation at giving the dutch a bit of their own?)

And yet, they refuse to teach this and we remain all equally branded as "Bule" (Boolay)and attrocities committed by same are taught.

Billions of dollars are being poured in and siphoned off by the corrupt guvment in Jakarta by AUSAID and what do we get for it?
Are we recognised as mates who helped them achieve independence, a fact about which they are all greatly proud? Not so far, quite the opposite in fact.

<SCORN & DERISION>

They can say it better than I do, so let the ex-Muslims speak

Muslims: A Shackled People Enslaved by the Koran

“The severe dearth of creativity in the Muslim world has been revealed in another study by Hisamul Islam Siddiqi, the president of the Delhi-based NGO, Indian Islamic Council. In India and elsewhere in the world, Muslims, as a community, are most back-ward and top the list in adult illiteracy, infant mortality and poverty”

“Mr. Clovis Maksoud, an Egyptian scholar involved in preparing the report, blamed no historical event like Western imperialism, devastation caused by the Second World War or any other outside intervention for the present backwardness of the Arab world, and the Islamic world at large. He indirectly raised his finger to the creed of Islam itself for the said backwardness of the Arab world.”

“All the above mentioned comments and opinions of the scholars who prepared the ‘Arab Human Report 2002’ leads one to conclude that, as a community, Muslims around the world are deprived of their right to freethinking and are intellectually enslaved by the creed of Islam. Or, more pointedly, they are a community of shackled people enslaved by the Koran. Can a community of slaves ever prosper?”

http://www.islam-watch.org/Brahmachari/Muslims-Enslaved-by-Koran-Islam.htm

I think maybe the semantics are going awry here.

I am talking mainly about "Islamists" i.e. the political/social/religious movement which has Islam in its "pure "form at its core.

A good proxy name is "Wahabbism", although Islamists can go under a myriad of other names, as an example "Hizb-ut-Tahrir".

British Muslims seem to be more anti-western than Muslims in other parts of Europe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jun/23/uk.religion

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=432075&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/nov/30/immigrationpolicy

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article682599.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

The problem from the newspaper articles is "How does one identify who are the Islamists and who are the moderates"?

With an increasing number of Muslims in Australia, this is the type of thing we have to look forward to.

This is why I say that we in the West must be very careful about allowing large numbers of Muslims to settle here. We must also take account of the fact that generally they out-breed us.

In Germany, prior to the Second World War, there were many Germans who opposed Nazism. Many others were equivocal: while they didn’t support Hitler, they quite liked the fact that Germany was regaining its pride in itself after the humiliation of the Treaty of Versailles. Therefore they did not sufficiently oppose Hitler.

The German resistance was undermined by Britain’s policy of appeasement.

By failing to draw a clear line in the sand, Britain simply encouraged Hitler in the belief that he could get away with whatever he wanted.

I believe a very similar situation exists today with militant Islam, even to the fact that we are appeasing Islam rather than clearly defining what is acceptable and what is not. We must resist this evil cancer before it becomes too strong for us.

Otherwise, we are simply leaving a great and growing problem to be dealt with by our descendants.

Heyyy there Dreamy :) thanx for sharing all that infor about yourself and spouse.

Now..I'm going to help you get 'lucky' tonight :) unless you already know this

Just whisper these words into your darlings ears k :)

"Oh Sayang yang ku kasihi.. aku penuh cinta yang manis kepada kau...Aku mau memenuhi segala mimpimu dengan hati yang penuh kasih sayang yang khas dan istimewa untuk mu sahaja. Tiada sesiapapun dalam dunia ini yang ku sayangi seperti kau. Aku memberi hatiku kepada mu sahaja untuk selamalamanya"

Now..if that does not do the trick.. come back and I'll try again :)

PERICLES.. you need a serve now:

You said:

"and how it is the single rule that every Muslim must abide by,"

Chapter and verse please..where I have said "every muslim must" in connection with that verse!

I've stated that "ISLAM" (ie.their holy book) curses Christians and Jews...and advocates that the Muslim ummah advance it's program of Islamic rule by violent warfare... if you want to be pedantic.. "Islam" itself says that 'every able bodied Muslim' must fight agianst invaders.

The point I make about Surah 9 is that it is OFFENSIVE in its posture.
It does not related to individual Muslims..it relates to the Muslim UMMAH..... the state...

I find no record of individual muslims in the Quran or Hadith (with the exception of leaders.. Mohammad and Umar the Caliph) using the 29th verse as it is written.

So....your ongoing campaign of misinformation, should stop here and now.

Fess up Pericles.. you are trying deliberately to misrepresent me in the most scurrilous manner.
But don't worry.. you are loved by the Almighty, and by me :) We don't have any such verses in our Holy Writ which call for your destruction in this world.

Ours is "For God so LOVED (Pericles) the world that He gave His only Son"

"Fess up Pericles.. you are trying deliberately to misrepresent me in the most scurrilous manner."

christ! now it's my keyboard that's drenched.

This is the one that did it for me, bushbasher:

<< your ongoing campaign of misinformation, should stop here and now >>

That coming from Porky, who has posted more lies, half-truths, prevarications and unverified factoids on OLO than anyone I can think of.

"Oh Sayang yang ku kasihi.. aku penuh cinta yang manis kepada kau...Aku mau memenuhi segala mimpimu dengan hati yang penuh kasih sayang yang khas dan istimewa untuk mu sahaja. Tiada sesiapapun dalam dunia ini yang ku sayangi seperti kau. Aku memberi hatiku kepada mu sahaja untuk selamalamanya"

"Oh Darling the one that I Luv .. I am full of sweet Luv for you ... I want to fill all your dreams with a heart full of exclusive Luv and affection, extraordinary and other than that which I express to others, for you and you alone. There isn't anyone in this world that I Luv like you. I give my heart to you only for ever and ever." (AmenHotep)

..

U r a troubled Soul *bOAZy* aren't U?

I say that because it is clearly not appropriate to make such suggestions regarding the relationship of others, but noting the log in my own eye I shall push the chair back so to speak for a moment and let some things slide so to speak.

Regarding the Indonesian, it is from the Western side of Jawa and opposite in domicile to where we are. Secondly, and more importantly, Indo is conjugated also in terms of whom you are speaking to. In your example, there is a predominate formal level of speech mixed with the informal usage of "You" & "I" (usually a no, no.)

Here, one of the ways "we" express intimacy is by using short, informal structure and cohesion, heavy on inference, as you tend to when speaking with someone with whom you are intimately familiar. Of course, this is not a level of speech that they teach at Uni.

Taken in the right way, an understanding of these different levels in one language, and then other mechanisms that achieve the same effect in other languages as spoken today, gives the beginning of an awareness of how wondrous is the mind that can achieve so many different things in so many different ways. 1/2

2/2
..

So, malam minggu - night sunday in Indo for the novice is easily confused as being Sunday night, when actually it means Saturday night as the night (malam) is positioned before Sunday, thus Saturday night.
(da da do da do do do do do)

..

Tolkien being a linguist shows off some of this for us in FellowShip of the Ring, when standing before the walls of Moria:
The Mithral enchanted door illuminates under the moon to reveal the words, "Speak friend & enter" to which Gandalf replies, "Well, if you're a friend u speak the password and the door will open," to no avail.

Frodo, of another tongue tongue asks later when all are disgruntled, "What's the Elvish word for Friend?"
(the Elves enchanted the door for the Dwarves)
thus literally not speak friend
(conjoined)
but rather literally speak the word friend.
(there's probably a bit more to this magic I suspect)

..

Companion of course in a modern translation of the Bible could be travelling aquaintance or buddy, but in the time of *JC&Mary* as John Langdon points out, it literally meant spouse. ;-)

..

Why not try some Greek?

..

The New Peace(JeruSalem):

And *John* was a Jew and into Greek, or was it *John* was a Greek and into Jews?
(and something about persecution)
and then divided by the others unit of measurement .. and flip out to alpha numero:
&
*Soma HeliaKon* - the Star/Solar Body

(Interpretation by Australia's Patron St of Luv Making)

Aaah Dreamy... one cannot be too pedantic with Indonesian.... specially when the form of address for the beloved would normally be 'adik' to the girl... "my little sister" and reference to self would be 'Abang' or just 'bang' (older brother)(at least in the wayang's it is) Plus.. my Indo is a mixture of Semenanjung Malay and Sarawak Indonesian and 'bahasa wayang gambar'.. If I'm speaking to an Indonesian they say "Oh.. I see you know Malay" and if I speak to a Malay, they say "Oh..I see you know Indonesian" :) go figure.

The first 'challenge' I experienced after I left formal language school in KL and went to Sarawak was when a local said "Kita" pergi mana selepas kebaktian? in which case he mean't "you" but I understood it as meaning 'we/us' and I looked kind of 'huh' ? at him.. From then on I knew that in Sarawak, they use 'Kita' for the Malay "Awak" (you)

Just imagine my struggle when I was invited to be the teacher/speaker at a youth camp in Sabah, just 3 weeks after arriving in Sarawak.. I could barely put a conversation together let alone speak about theological things.

I made 2 notable blunders.

1/ I referred to things I wrote on the blackboard as on the 'tanda hitam'

2/ I spoke to a group of Muruts and used the word "murut" rather than 'murid' for disciple when preaching on Matthew 28:19 "Go into all the world and make 'MURUTS' of all nations" :) errr you can imagine how well that went down.. me saying everyone in the world must become 'them'....

But back to the topic. Oh wait.. I'd rather pick on Bushbasher :)

Bushy.. all you showed there was your bigotry :) now..I challenge you to debate the 9th surah of the Quran, and how it was used by Mohammad, his companions, and how it is applicable to today.

boaz, let's not and say we did. i have no interest in fueling your nonsense.

shall we give debating biblical verses on slavery a go? i think it'd be meaningless, but presumably you would not.

Mr Periwinkle

I decided to change your name, because you are so far removed from your namesake, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericles
that to call you by that name would be a gross insult to the ancient Greek champion of democracy and freedom.

Quite amazing, Mr Periwinkle, that you should so greatly distort history in order to lend support to an alien totalitarian and fascist movement otherwise known as a religion called Islam.

It would be interesting to see just how sanguine Periwinkle would be if he were unarmed and suddenly faced with a heavily armed young terrorist who proceeded to shoot him to death.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/tributes-flow-for-australians-killed-in-mumbai-terror-attack-20081128-6msu.html

I guess you won’t recognise the danger until it is you or a member of your family in the firing line. Or maybe not even then.

We’ll see who is right in the long run, but don’t forget the people you will consign to a nasty death, because of your head in the sand attitude.

Or should we all just roll over and let the Islamists make Dhimmis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

of us?

Another thing: The Muslims are very fond of telling us how many there are of them- the usual figure bandied about is 1.2 billion. If only 5% become militants, then we shall have to deal with 60 million of them. The rest will sit supine, letting the Islamists do the heavy lifting.

My point is that instead of following a policy of appeasement, which will only encourage the Islamists to demand more and more concessions, we should now let them know that we will accept no more nonsense from them.

Cowards and bullies that they are, they will soon slink back into their shells, like a Periwinkle perhaps.

Hey Traddy,

What has the section on rape got to do with your topic? No mention of anything but stats on all Australian women. So how does it relate to your topic?

It doesn't. It's just padding added to use a word to sensationalise your petty little dirge.

When are you Muslims going to just shut up and get on with assimilating into the best country in the world. All your whingeing attracts the lunatic fringe mate. Your problem if you keep up the publicity barrage.

Did you know there are more Buddhists in Australia than Muslims? Anyone ever hear them complaining, about anything? Anyone ever hear from them, at all? Ahhh, no.

So you must conclude the attention you get Traddy is because of your own approach. Complaining, finger pointing and failing to assimilate.

"Lunatic Fringe" here :) (thanx Peggy)

Froggie says:

<<Quite amazing, Mr Periwinkle, that you should so greatly distort history in order to lend support to an alien totalitarian and fascist movement otherwise known as a religion called Islam.>>

I note with great interest an atheists assessment of Pericles unwise thinking about the dangers of Islam: Strangely, Froggies views are ...remarkably just like my own, and not from a 'Christian Fundy's perspective..

WAIT!@!@!@....could it.... could it just... be.. from 'evidence' ?:)

ie.... the evidence of what both history and (un)holy writ both say about this religion?

I'd love to know how Perilous would react to someone like Froggie or myself yelling out on a street corner in Berlin in 1932 that words such as:

<<"Jewish youth lies in wait for hours on end satanically glaring at and spying on the unconscious girl whom he plans to seduce, adulterating her blood with the ultimate idea of bastardizing the white race which they hate and thus lowering its cultural and political level so that the Jew might dominate.">>

...have the potential... if those propounding them ever gained total power, to result in genocide?

Noooo..of course "The last hour will not come unless the Muslims kill the Jews", even though absolutely explicit (compared to the veiled and mere 'opinion' expressed by Hitler) would NEVER mean any such thing.... of course not.... *cough* (while rolling eyes)

No *bOAZy* ...there are so many unique groups, previously isolated for so long that even though there is one common Bahasa, even in the use of same there are a huge amount of subtle differences. And that's b4 we even get 2 Bahasa Campur (like nasi campur yeah?) [mixed language] where the common tongue is mixed and interdispersed with the preferred native 1st language/lokal dialect ...

Of course, the Indo concept of tolerancy does extend to language which could otherwise be deemed as insulting, in the instance of bule, as it extends to a tolerance of less than ordinary behaviour amongst themselves.

But then, kl sdh mngrt mslh prng sdr? (Bahasa SMS for CJ)
(But then, kalau sudah mengerti masalah perang saudara?)
[But then, if you already understand the problem of family war?]

..

For us here, irrespective of any physical age difference, never "adik" and "abang" It goes contrary to principals of equality between Wifey & Hubbey. Adik is for younger niece or cousin say .. though I ackowledge variance between groups on this. If U trace these words with an over time dictionary, some of the usages have some pretty smelly patriarchal/male chauvinist pig overtones.

..

I've been teased about Adam & Eve since a kid. And now amonst the Muslims too we both get teased for same.
Adam & Eva or Adam and Hawa. Where I am sometimes confrontational and antagonistic, *BosEva* plays the gamelan of cultural sensibilities beautifully and quickly diffuses tense situations like post car vs bike prang out the front of the mosque which could otherwise have easily gotten out of hand. Thus again, never adik.

..

And of course, between intimates, 1st name is the preferance.
" Would Sayang Eva like a Kopi?"

& if apart ..

Q: udah tidur Sayang?
(already asleep, my darling?)

In this context, when Luvers are apart, it has naughty inferences. It means, I am thinking about being near U as is my Luv, though apart, and doing those things that we do before sleeping.

Aaaaaahhh Aaaahh Ooooohh .. Bahasa Wayang gambar!? ..
Bahasa: Language
Wayang: Shadow Poppets (Haven't seen any since Count Putin's.)
Gambar: Pictures/Drawings

Don't U think that it sux @ aph.com.au that they have that pathetic little clause about satire and silly poppets?
Boo Boo - throw tomatoes and rotten eggs.

OOooohhh? Keturunan dari KeRajaan
(that which has descended from the old Hindu Kingdom pre Islam?)
Bahasa amat halus sekali
Silky smooth and purr like a kitten Language.
(Re J.Langdon though, its not a "blood" line.)
..

What happened *bOAZy* Did the *Tiger* growl @ U? Hmmm?

I want to put some more decorations on the tree. But U have to invite all the other computer poppets. There is much value in sharing with them all U know, even your greatest detractors?

I sense U have some valuable experiences to share, but in the 1st instance, please do it like an affidavit - just stick to what U personally saw, heard etc and leave out the opinion and heresay etc etc at least until everyone has had an opportunity to form there own views.

After that, by all means, put on the *pOLYCARp* glasses and interpret as U see fit.

..

" ... "Kita" pergi mana selepas kebaktian? ... Sounds more like he was asking U out for a beer?
Where can WE (kita both U and me and whoever else was present) go to free ourselves of our religious obligations?

..

"Tanda Hitam" the Black sign/omen - Grrrrr - Freudian slip perhaps ;-)
(The Black Book in Indo has the same connotations as in Bahasa Australi)

..

reminds me of a p!ssy night with my mate Major. Ex Malaysian air force and Ex Timor UN. He did a hilarious impersonation of the local clerics seeing off the Buddha.

"Right! U! P!SS OFF!"
(snicker snicker)

You use a lot of words, Froggie, but you don't say a great deal.

>>Quite amazing, Mr Periwinkle, that you should so greatly distort history in order to lend support to an alien totalitarian and fascist movement otherwise known as a religion called Islam.<<

"Quite amazing", also that you don't actually point out where I have "distorted history".

Or indeed, where I have "lent support to an alien totalitarian and fascist movement".

But I guess evidence is not your strong point, just bluster and obloquy.

You can of course rely on support from Boaz, who uses the same methods.

>>I note with great interest an atheists assessment of Pericles unwise thinking about the dangers of Islam: Strangely, Froggies views are ...remarkably just like my own, and not from a 'Christian Fundy's perspective..<<

I think you may be wrong there, Boaz. Very few people have reason to hate Muslims as much as fundamentalist Christians - possibly because they feel threatened by a religion that shares so many fundamental principles.

I suspect that Froggy may actually be "one of you", whether he realizes it or not.

Such an aggressive attitude can only be maintained by a Christian evangelist - there is no other possible reason to fear Islam itself, as opposed to fearing individual Islamic terrorists.

Much as there was no point in hating all Irish, simply because a handful of them conducted indiscriminate bombing against people enjoying a drink in a pub.

http://birmingham999.co.uk/

You always have difficulty separating fantasy from reality, Boaz.

>>I'd love to know how Perilous would react to someone like Froggie or myself yelling out on a street corner in Berlin in 1932 that words such as...<<

I'd think you were really stupid. Just as I think that constantly referring to ancient scripture to support your modern "they're all out to murder us in our beds" is nothing more than deliberate rabble-rousing.

Froggie: << ...alien totalitarian and fascist movement otherwise known as a religion called Islam >>

So Islam is the religion of the Klingons?

Actually, if Froggie is really the atheist s/he claims to be, s/he'd recognise that Islam comes from almost exactly the same Earthly source as do Christianity and Judaism, i.e. the myths and legends of various Semitic pastoralist tribes who inhabited what is now the Middle East some millennia ago.

The reason they all apparently hate each other so much is that they still compete for the same territory, both in the physical and ideological senses of the term, that they always have.

Mr Periwinkle said:

“The forty million who died between 1914 and 1918, thanks to some folk "upholding the values of the West" might just have an argument with you, I suspect.”

So what you are saying, Mr Periwinkle, is that we should have let Germany take over the whole of Europe in 1914?

http://www.firstworldwar.com/origins/causes.htm

And again Mr Periwinkle says:

“Then there were the - oh yes - seventy million who were victims of the same upholding of Western values between 1939 and 1945.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II

So again, Mr Periwinkle, according to you we should have said, OK Hitler, take over the whole of Europe and we’ll join you in making war against your enemies the Bolshevists. Let the Japanese take over Asia and let Germany and Japan share the world between them.

Mr Periwinkle, your words are an insult to all the people who died defending freedom.

Go and live in a more enlightened place like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

As for that ludicrous link to some Indian travel site, I really can’t be bothered trying to dissuade you from your delusions.

The reason I dislike Islam so intensely is that it is against all the principles that are part of Australia:
(from the Department of Immigration’s web site)

What are the Australian values?
Australian values include:
* respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual
* equality of men and women
* freedom of religion
* commitment to the rule of law
* support for Parliamentary democracy
* a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect, tolerance, fair play, compassion for those in need and pursuit of the public good
* equal opportunity for individuals, regardless of their race, religion or ethnic background

Although these values may be expressed differently by different people, their meaning stays the same. The values may not be unique to Australia, but they have broad community agreement and underpin Australian society and culture.

Islam is at odds with these values: plenty of links have been given by other posters about this, but you and C J Morgan are determined to ignore them.
continued...

continued

You are correct that in practical terms, Islamic terrorism has not been very effective, and even compared to say, the road toll, has not killed that many people.

What I am really concerned about is the insidious rise of Islam in our country, and its potential to take away all the freedoms we have fought for over the centuries.

Freedom of religion includes, to me at least, the right not to be religious, and regardless of what you may think, I am definitely not religious.

Dear Dreamy.. this thread has turned seriously surreal wouldn't you agree ? :) we have this cultural/linguistic side discussion between us, and me firing off a few pot shots at Pericles here and there.. Him and Foggie croaking at each other in blunt tones.. Pericles trying to sound elitist/intellectual and relevant but struggling as the truth is brought to bear on his 'unusual' slant on things...ahh.. good entertainment for sure :)

So.. I'll leave Pericles to Froggie and focus on you.

What the heck are you doing in Indo ? I'm most curious now.

Your responses show just how colorful and rich is the (to use my opponents words) tapestry of culture, language and life in South East Asian.. aah.. so romantic to be sure.

Here is something you can probably identify with...

There is this American, he is like 65ish.. got with a local girl, and built this cool round house in 'a location' among my wifes people.. and continued to live the life of a kind of soldier of personal fortune as he flitted back and forth between Brunei (oil industry related work) and Sarawak (for women related work) he is such a dill.
She gets pregnant....oh happy day..but HE has long had a vasectomy ! Oooops!.. well.. they split up.. then he hooks up with this INCREDIBLY gorgeous Javanese girl he met at some factory in Sabah... who can't speak English..and he can't speak Indo/Malay..
Ayyyoh.. he goes into town for regular booze ups..and rips into her for not wanting to join him in that kind of life. Then he beats her up with a pillow etc when he comes back drunk.

She has muslim background, but gravitates so much to the warmth of the Christianity of my wifes people, who accept and embrace her as a friend.

Nice tap dancing, Froggie.

Pity about those two left feet.

>>So what you are saying, Mr Periwinkle, is that we should have let Germany take over the whole of Europe in 1914?<<

You were talking about "upholding the values of the West".

Right?

I simply pointed out that WWI was fully representative of those values

Since when did Germany become Oriental? They were a living example of an upright, mostly Roman Catholic population. How do you possibly determine that they did not represent Western values?

Likewise 1939-45. Those Prussians, I'm sure, were just a bunch of closet Islamists really, according to you.

>>As for that ludicrous link to some Indian travel site...<<

Indian travel site? The only link I posted was http://birmingham999.co.uk/ which was there to enlighten you on the topic of religiously-motivated attacks against random civilians.

I'd be a little more careful what you put into that herbal tea, if I were you.

>>What I am really concerned about is the insidious rise of Islam in our country, and its potential to take away all the freedoms we have fought for over the centuries.<<

That much is obvious.

What I am "really concerned about" is that your extremist views are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

>>Freedom of religion includes, to me at least, the right not to be religious, and regardless of what you may think, I am definitely not religious.<<

Then stop acting as if you were a fully paid-up member of the Untied Church of Radical Evangelists.

The task of atheists is to put religion into a proper perspective, not blow it up into a finely-tuned script for an apocalyptic disaster movie.

Keysar Trad: "Let us try to put things into perspective".

Keysar,
If you know the true nature of Islam, then you won't write a silly article that defends Islam in the first place.

Islam is based on Mohammed's lies.

Mohammed spent more than 20 years conquering and forcibly convert people to his religion. Once a 'critical mass' of followers is established, the fellowship became 'self-replicating' and un-stoppable. Muslims parents producing many baby Muslims who grow up to be Muslims parents themselves, and reproducing...

There are over a million believers flocking to Mecca during a haj every time. How many of them will ever stop to critically think how the religion Islam has come about?

What is more important, if one is to put things in perspective?

Mr Periwinkle

Your last post was a real doozie. Talk about obfuscation and irrelevance.
BTW Indian travel site:
http://www.mapsofindia.com/india-economy.html

I'd love to know where they got the figure on "share of world income in 1700 AD" from!! "ROFL".

You are obviously trying to change the subject, which is, as I said, about the threat we face from Islam, an ideology which is all the more dangerous because it is based on religion.

I have given enough links to indicate that the so-called “religion of peace” has territorial ambitions, and wishes to convert, as it always has done, the mass of the world’s population to its authoritarian rule.

The problem is not the necessarily the large mass of Muslims who are unwitting tools of this fascist ideology. At least, I hope they are unwitting, because if they are not, the problem is even worse than I thought.

As I said before, how are we to distinguish the “moderate” Muslims from the “Islamists?

I have never called for all Muslims to die, as they frequently are heard to utter about the West, Westerners, America and Israel.
“Death to America” they chant. “Israel should be wiped off the map” says Ahmedinajad.

“Anyone who insults Islam shall die”, they shout.

I do not suggest that they be rounded up and put in concentration camps, like their friends the Nazis did to the Jews and others who opposed Nazi rule.

I could list a lot of incidents, which prove that not only do they talk like this, but that they actually put it into action.

My suggestion is that we put a halt to all Muslim immigration into the West, and also give them financial incentives to return permanently to their homelands.

This will eventually be in their interests as well as ours, because they will not, indeed CANNOT, integrate and remain as true Muslims.

If the situation continues as it is, there will be an enormous backlash against them from the populations in whose midst they find themselves, and the resulting civil war will not be pretty.

This is Keyser Trad:

“ The criminal dregs of white society colonised this country, and now, they only take the select choice of other societies, and the descendants of these criminal dregs tell us that they are better than us. And because we are not elitists, we tolerate them. Yet they want us to assimilate “

This is real racism, hard core racism.. At the level of KKK intensity. This is what the author, Nursam, should be fighting.

SedatSmith, you are so right about that. I'm just sick of their continually playing the victim card, when it is they who are the racists and fascists.
It seems strange that we continually let them get away with it.
For the last 40 or 50 years we have been hectored and bullied into accepting all this PC multicultural rubbish, such that now, we are frightened to stand up for our culture for fear of being called "racist".
Especially in the UK, where it has gone so much further than it has here. Yet I can see that the same trend is playing itself out in Australia.
The English, I suppose, were tired after the Second World War and just wanted a little peace and a good life.
So they have put up with all this BS. I hope (and believe) that Australians are made of sterner stuff.
The result of this "multi-culti" experiment being played out, will end up with the Balkanisation of the whole of the western world, complete with inter-racial strife and "no-go" zones. It is already the case in France, the UK, even Sweden and Norway, where the police are afraid to enter certain suburbs.
http://catholicgauze.blogspot.com/2006/11/no-go-areas-of-france-and-rest-of.html
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/429
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574694/Bishop-warns-of-no-go-zones-for-non-Muslims.html

Keysar Trad is not being racist when he refers to "the criminal dregs of white society" who colonized this country. He's stating a straightforward fact which is unfortunately denied by the establishment who, in typical fashion, often overcompensate for that unsavory fact by going over the top with their faux-Englishness and other pretentiousness. All the same, it may be worth reminding Keysar (if he seems too loose or generalizing with some more sensitive white Australians) that the overwhelming majority of white Australians did not come from such "criminal dregs" and did not make that early colonization phase. To qualify his essentially correct statement: most white Australians too - not just newer arrivals like Keysar - have to contend with a sickening, topsy-turvy hierarchy anyway, where descendants of the criminal dregs established themselves as a pompous state oligarchy of sorts since before the Rum Rebellion.

The people who colonised australia were British politicians not the convicts that they brought here.

Some people imply or say we let in the Dregs of Lebanese society in 1975 onwards. Tanveer Ahmed made a point about the specific low class people we imported. Marrickville based Tanveer as a Bangladeshi Muslim growing up in western Sydney realises there is a much greater threat from Arab Muslim bigots than there is from evil whitey.

If a white person who said the truth that we imported the dregs of Lebanese society in 1975 they would be up at the HREOC.

Welcome victim! Such a recent OLO arrival (all of 3 posts now in that name), and all just to spread the same hate. Yum! Amazing coincidence that such a recent addition could "interject" here. ;-)

No, that's not true (well your whole post really). The Lebanese immigrants of the '70s are overwhelmingly NON-CONVICT. One of my good workmates is from that background and his dad is a veteran of the warfare going on then; great folks, and no criminal convictions. My family and I have several good Lebanese friends, and we shop regularly at Lebanese businesses (Muslim ones too, so I must be "a traitor"! Ha!) None of them was in any way dumped into this country either, even though some nasties in Israel and the west apparently wanted to dump them somewhere via some aggressive war.

Who were these "British politicians" who brought convicts here? Whatever, I was referring to "criminal dregs of white society" in the way Keysar apparently meant: the uppers, royals and other criminal imperialists who thought it their right to steal and enslave as much of the world as they could get away with. The actual "convicts" among that crowd were really only those who were let into the ruling elite, and who joined in the big racket that is empire.

I sympathize with your victimhood. What a pity.

Trad is still a racist regardless of the technicalities if we are to put whites and Lebanese on the same pedestal.

100 000 people were killed in Lebanon's civil war many criminals were never caught. We did let in the Lebanese lower class from 1975.

Lebos? I've got some Lebo friends in Sydney. Christian ones but they all seem to mix happily irrespective of religion. On one occassion, we went to:

*WOGARAMA*

a most excellently entertaining evening of much mirth and frivolity.

..

I watched the movie *Amazing Grace* recently. It is in part about genocidal pom slavers and their so called empire based on the backs of 11 million plus slaves. Also about a very few *Noble Poms* like Wilberforce et al who played a not insignificant role in bringing Anglo/North American slaving to an end.

Hmmm .. thus when the genocidal pom sea rogues arrived in this place and classified the *Original Australians* as animals, literally as part of the Flora and Fauna Act, and continued on with their slaughter, rape, pillage and enslavement, it was not really a new trick at all.

Of course, the Original Australians & Africans were not the only "coloured" people to be enslaved thus now were they?

..

And now this, from another thread and I quote Phil Tang:

" ... Probably, you did not see my putting quotes within free-trade like this "free-trade", or have chosen to misrepresent what I have written.

The only advantage that you have given is cheap electrical goods made in China but have chosen to ignore the hundred of million people e.g. in Indonesia that are exploited. Millions of people in Indonesia are so disillusioned with "free-traders", globalisation that they are turning to radical Islam which they believe will bring them out of poverty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdgMlXoQMbY ... "

..

So, in some ways u see (if u look at the John Pilger clip) somethings haven't changed much, except now multinationals do dirty deals with corrupt remnants of the collaborators who betrayed their own people to the likes of the dutch slavers.

Clearly, if n.america has anything remotely similar to Australian anti-corruption laws, they would appear to have a problem with detection and enforcement.

*bOAZy*

I'm not even 40 yet mate. Just a young pup and still snotty nosed. I'm not one of the sit in a restaurant and booze mySelf stupid every day kind though.

..

Kl sy, sk jln jln, lht lht, omng omng.
;-)

(In the case of I, (I) like to go for a walk, lookey lookey and have a yarn)

..

Have U been to Deer Cave in Borneo?
(Jumps)
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Wicked!

Found *Planet Earth* & *Blue Planet* 2 * 5 disc set Dave Attenburra's for $AU7 each after we 1st started talking. My Munchkin girls Luv them. I got a great buzz seeing my little ones eyes stand out like on storks when seeing some of the amazing Natural History. Only trouble is that it's in english and only has about 4 sub title tracks of various chinese.
(The sub titling generally is absolutely woeful)
I don't really have time but mayb I shld gut the disks and do some decent Indo sub titles, give 'em to
*Mr Pepper Sauce and Hoo Flung Dung* and have em pumped out for $2 a pack. My poppets need feeding U know!?

OH!? Hang on a minute!
That wld b WICKED woouullddnn'tt iiittt?
[OOOHHHH RRREEEEAAALLLYYY!?]
HaHaHa

Best not .. I'm too busy .. but still, it's a nice kind of wicked idea isn't it? (Chortle Chortle)