Aaron

“Unit 101 was an Israeli special operations unit founded and led by Ariel Sharon on orders from Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion in August 1953. It has drawn much criticism due to deaths of innocent civilians, in particular the Qibya operation, which left almost 70 civilians dead.” http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Unit+101&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&linktext=Unit%20101

Secondly

“On November 28, a Belgian court will decide whether Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon can be tried for his alleged role in the slaughter by Lebanese militiamen of untold numbers of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in West Beirut in 1982.

At the time, Sharon was in charge of Israel's invasion and occupation of Lebanon. On October 3, an appellate court grand jury convened in Brussels to begin determining whether Belgium can invoke the mechanisms of international law to prosecute a sitting head of state from another country.

HISTORIC SUIT

On June 18, survivors of the Sabra and Shatila massacres filed two civil lawsuits against Sharon in a Belgian court. The complaints describe the events leading up to the September 15, 1982 sealing of Sabra and Shatila by the Israeli army during the invasion of Lebanon, followed by authorization from Sharon, then Israeli Defense Minister, for a unit of 150 Phalangists -- a right-wing Lebanese Christian militia -- to enter the camps.

In what Sharon has termed a "mopping up" of the camps, for the next two days the Phalangists proceeded to rape, kill and injure thousands of unarmed citizens within the camps. The presentation of facts in the complaint is supplemented with testimonials from 22 of the plaintiffs and 12 witnesses who survived the massacres but lost family members and suffered injuries.

The complaint alleges Sharon is responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes for his role in the massacres.” http://www.merip.org/mero/mero101101.html

Food for thought

Skid Matrix v1.0

I can understand you comments on bad practices by few Muslims but unless you are a robot, why would you shoot yourself in the foot by trying to compare women positions in scriptures?

OK then, here is the Islam position on women rights revealed 1,400 years ago to pagan Arabs:

Surah Women (4) you refer to consists of 177 verses talking about women rights: to maintain their maiden names, to have their own financial entity, to be treated well by their husbands and supported (financially & emotionally). In case of a divorce, she has the right for arbitration (to correct her husband) and supported if divorced until she finds another husband (4: 1-12, onwards). The rights went as far as ‘men should not date women in secret but reveal’ the relationship (in marriage).

The part 4:15 (explained 4:16 and followed in 24:2-10) explains the punishments for adulterers, abusive women (and men). This is a peace of family law/ legislation.

According to your mentally challenged posting re ‘Judeo-Christian’ cocktail, here are the only women rights in OT, NT:
- The ‘right’ to have a master (her husband) (the Hebrew and Arabic used stronger words ‘yasud’ ie to dominate and enslave).
- The ‘right’ to marry her rapist (her lucky father gets 50 shekels though).
- The ‘right to be kicked out of the house and isolated in a kiosk during PMS and after child birth for 30 days (60 days if she gives birth to a female).

FGM is neither Islamic nor Arab but a Central African custom. We have seen FGM victims in Christian and Jewish Ethiopians.

Hoping version 2.0 will be specific and deep.

Aaron,

People with fear of Islam have many options: visit Australian Muslim websites, go to an open day mosque (there are 26 in Sydney receiving in some days 1500 non-Muslim visitors), knock on their next door Muslim neighbour or colleague at work. There are also DVDs, documentaries, or get a ‘meanings interpretation of the Quran’ from any bookstore.

If none of the above works, nothing else will.

Irfan I see your point. But I wonder whether or not protest groups are the main target. Let's face it most people who want to march in a protest march against say nuclear vessels visiting our shores or refugees being jailed don't want to be shot to death or imprisoned or risk imprisonment for seven years.

Herein lies the one reason that terrorists are prepared to do the horrible things they do - they have nothing to lose, they are fanatics.

There is as belief in some cultures that too much order leads to anarchy or is indeed a form of anarchy in that the law is virtually given the nod to do as they please to maintain order. Paradoxical hay? Saddam Hussein kept law and order using forces that were anarchistic. I think the terrorists know this and their actions are having the effect that they want and need. John Howard may consider that he is being tough on terrorism but he is actually capitulating. He is in certain ways taking up the methods of the Middle Eastern rulers to keep order.

I also think John Howard and the Liberals are in a no win situation. Let's say they do nothing and an attack happens. Who do you think is going to have to wear it? Yes something needs to be done but we must not give in to the culture of fascistic control that other cultures use to maintain order.

Look at Iraq. The place is loaded with soldiers to keep order and prevent terrorist attacks and yet they drive a cement mixer into the middle of a hotel complex. I don't think we are any safer from terrorism because of these laws especially since being shot is a good thing to a fanatic. I do think, however, that the more vocal are under threat from their own government or at least feel that way. No John Howard isn't anywhere near as hardcore as Saddam Hussein but his laws to protect us are becoming too similar to the ways Saddam protected his empire.

Fellow Human

I haven't been to mosque open days but have been to islamic webpages and worked with moslems in 4 countries, had neighbours in 2.

Won't go into detail but I can't say I'm impressed.

Regarding FGM, here's what Nida ul Islam, a true blue Aussie Mossie site from Lakemba has to say about it....

As for female circumcision, there is a popular assumption that female circumcision has no place in Islam. There is no basis for this suggestion, because female circumcision was practiced during the time of the Prophet and he approved of it according to many narrations. The Messenger of Allah said to a woman in Madinah who circumcised women: 'When you trim do it slightly and not excessively' [xxvii] Aisha narrated that Allahs Messenger said: 'When the two circumcised parts meet, a ritual bath becomes obligatory. According to hadith and other similar narratives, the Prophet describes both the male and female sex organs as khitaan, which means, location of circumcision. Some scholars such as the Shafiee, and a narration from Ahmad hold that it is obligatory. The majority of the scholars hold that it is only recommended. This is the view of Abu Hanifah, Maalik, and some of the Hanbalees. From what has been said, we see that female circumcision is voluntary and not mandatory.

The site doesn't seem to be working that well anymore I have a about 20 or so of the fruiter articles on file. It's all very interesting.

Carnifex,

I wish I knew the relevance of your post to our proposed anti-terror laws. But if you wish to do something statistically stupid (like superimpose one paragraph from a magazine on the cultures and understandings of 1.2 billion people across over 60 nations), be my guest.

Seriously, and with all due respect, there are some real wackos on these forums.

Off topic –
Islam is one of numerous religions in this world.
Islam has no exclusive rights to terrorism or bad practices.

If you focus solely on one possible threat – invariably you never see the true threat sneaking up from behind.

On topic –
When fear and terror raises its head, governments tells us that security and a little fascism is ‘the price of freedom’.

Has it occurred to anyone that ‘the price of freedom’ is also living with the risk that there are those who may commit violence for self-serving purposes?

Consider the phrase ‘you can make some of the people happy some of the time, but not all of the people happy all of the time’. This speaks volumes as to what democracy and freedom actually mean. It seems strange that many people cannot see that they want to keep their cake and eat it too.

Democracy requires sacrifice. What that sacrifice is – fascism or risk – is perhaps something that has not yet been realised or discussed. Maybe it is time for us as a people to mature a little and understand that we cannot have a utopia, as no significant group of humans want the same thing.

The best we can ask for is more tolerance, greater acceptance – and more commitment to avoid marginalising or disenfranchising anyone – of any kind – from the society we choose to build.

Nice article Ifran.