The question is not whether ISIS would fail the most basic test of Islam according to Max Abrahams, a "terrorism expert" from Northeastern University; but according to Mohammed, the Koran, and hadith.

As Muslims by definition consider Mohammed to be the apostle of God, it is not "un-Australian" or "extremist", but only obvious, to inquire whether any given Muslim including Junaid rejects and condemns the moral example of Mohammed in practising and authorising slavery, killing people for not believing his religious opinions, killing people for not agreeing with his sexual opinions, armed robbery, mass murder, and having sex with little children; or not?

Junaid: So do you? Or not?

JKJ, that's some of the most specious "reasoning" I've ever seen. Even runner would be ashamed of it - actually, that's unfair, runner would love it...

The article makes a very strong point; that there is a class of people - not just Moslems - who are so disengaged from what we think of as the social norms that they have no meaning in framing behaviour.

This has always been a part of society and it was glorified by Hollywood for years in the form of Westerns, not to mention being the basis of our own bushranger mythologising. So what's different?

I'd suggest a few major things and a couple of less important but still significant ones.

The most important thing is that we now have no frontier where marginalised people, especially young men without prospects, can go to seek a better outcome living on their wits.

Also important is that we have a social model that is increasingly restrictive and conformative, so that behaviours that would once have been acceptable hijinks among young men are now subject to rigorous enforcement action and constant social disapprobation, with the best of intentions.

A third important factor is that the opportunities for low-skilled industrial employment are simply not there for young men. Even driving a forklift, one of the most basic of tasks, requires completion of a week long course costing $1000 dollars. Driving a truck requires a lengthy period of holding a lesser license and then spending up to several thousand dollars. To put it in perspective, I drove a forklift at 17 in one of my first jobs, with no license and I first drove a truck at 19. I'm only in my early fifties, so that's just 30 years ago.

Less important is the cultural change that has seen us devalue individuality in almost every aspect of life. A young man is rebellious and needs to establish his own boundaries. If small rebellions are not possible, the old "may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb" thinking occurs.

And finally, we have become a society which reflexively devalues religion, of any kind. Devout observance is seen as not merely suspect, but deluded, thanks to St Richard of the Gene.

We need to seriously reconsider our social structures and our cultural norms in the light of what we might consider to be Australian values.

That wonderful non existent being of the imagination "God" is always there, especially in wars and peoples problems, time to throw God to the wind and admit it is your own imagination that is causing the problem not because of a God who doesn't exist. Germany, God on our side, England, God on our side, USA, God on our side, Muslims God on our side, God must be so busy trying to work out who to favour.
Running to church to pray for all of those men & women you yourself have caused to have an early death, but of course I didn't, they were fighting for our democracy , lay a wreath for others as long as it is not me dead.

ojnab, I'm an atheist, but whether I believe in a god is irrelevant, because the people in question do and have every right to do so if they wish.

If you want them to have a good reason to ignore you as irrelevant, then you're going the right way about it.

I think you'll find that has never ended well, wherever its been tried and whichever god happens to be the subject of the belief.

I'm not good at Political Correctness & my answers are usually short & to the point. I will, though, attempt to critique Junaid's article fairly.

Junaid: We are a nation built on immigration, a nation of second chances.

Yes, Australia is, but it must be remembered that those immigrants were in the main, Christian, holding the same values as Australia. Those who came from Asia also held similar values in Budhism.

Junaid: We are a people of community, of equal rights and believers in a fair go.

Yes Australians are, but they get pretty Pi$$ed off when that is taken advantage of by people who refuse to hold our values as equal to theirs.

Junaid: The Prime Ministers's security statement promised to clamp down on those "who incite religious or racial hatred" and those who participate in "blatantly spreading discord and division".

This is usually taken to mean by the Politically Correct, Greenies & Do-Gooders that the Prime minister's Statement only refers to any criticism of moslems . Not any condemnation of Australian values by moslems.
Junaid: Such hate speech disrupts the community, spreads Xenophobia.

Yes it does, so why is it deemed that only Australians who are not moslems, called Xenophobic & any moslems who are caught out, explained away as only being "individuals." This luxury isn't afforded to Australian non-moslems. (Infidels)

Junaid: an article titled "It's absurd to deny Jihadist act in the name of Islam" concluding extremism is inherent to Islam.

1400 years of invasions & infighting tells me that the article is inherently correct. I haven't read the article only the statement here. Christianity had its share of violence & has moved on. But for a very few here & there. Americans in the Bible Belt mostly. (weird lot)
Cont.

cont.
Junaid: The publication had a very un-Australian affect on the readers - comments flooded the paper's social media site vilifying Muslims, promoting hate and creating divisions amongst Australians.

As I said earlier, Any criticism of moslems is deemed hate any criticism of Australian non-believers seems to be considered by the Politically Correct, Greenies & Do-Gooders as being, OK. I find that as, not being given a fair go.

Junaid: an article titled "Face reality the west is at war with Islam".

I dispute that. I believe that, "Islam is at war with the West, " & has been since 637 AD. It is the very Testament of Islam to be at war with, non-believers.

Junaid: an en vogue trend which seems to associate everything Islamic with everything anti-western and thereby everything un-Australian.

It is not "en vogue" at all The statement is very true.

Junaid: This is a recurring theme in which the popular narrative is starting to promote hate, disenfranchising people and sowing the seeds of discord in society.

This is what Islam is doing to Australia. There was never this much discord in Australia before the arrival of moslems en mass. There were no threats of Terrorist attacks or attacks prior to their arrival. Who are threatening these Terrorist attack, Greeks, Yugoslavs, Italians, the British, who happen to be mostly Christian. Chinese, Vietnamese, who happen to be Christian & Buddhist. Indian, Who are mostly Christian & Hindu. No. People of Middle Eastern origin who just happen to be moslem, Yes.
Are we disenfranchising any of these people? No. Are they disenfranchising Australians? Only one group & they happen to be moslem.

Junaid: Is hate speech free-speech when the targets are a particular group?

Free speech by non-moslems is considered "hate speech" apparently. Free speech by moslems seems to be considered to be Ok. Once again, "a fair go, " is being rorted by moslems & their apologists.
cont

cont.
Junaid: Respected sources such as Spielberg International cite, self proclaimed Islamists kill 8 times more Muslims than non muslims, making muslims the greatest 'victims' of terror.
Yet, there are people like yegiba & his ilk that lay the blame, for any killing, of any moslems on the West. Even if the killings were done by fellow moslems. Therefore it is their right to defend Islam & attack the West anywhere they please, by any means.

Junaid: Perhaps raw figures from Europol and the FBI database, concluding well over 90% of terror attacks on western soil have nothing to do with Islam,

This figure is oft used by the Politically Correct, Greenies & Do-Gooders to soften the effects that Islam is having on the ordinary people in the street. They say it is a "Lone Wolf" attack. It's just that their seems to be so many of these "Lone Wolf," attack that the ordinary person in the street is starting to wake up to the fact that they are having the wool pulled over their eyes.

Junaid: Associating ISIS with Islam and making Islam the anti-thesis of the West and Australia, is also non-violent extremism.
No. ISIS associates it's self with Islam. It claims to be the voice of real Islam. Even a casual reading of the Koran & their other books explaining the Koran will give the reader that Islam regards the West as the enemy of Allah & therefore The West must be exterminated. Their Book exclaims that Islam is the only rightful Religion & Shar'a Law is the only rightful Law. All else is to be eliminated by all means possible. So called Moderate moslems are only moderate while they are a minority in any region. Once they become the majority they will become Fanatics & impose their Religion & Laws on the people of that region regardless of those peoples wishes.
cont

cont.
Junaid: Doesn't associating ISIS with Islam and labelling Islam as the antithesis of the West devoid young Muslims of meaning in Australia and push the disenfranchised to the terrorist cause?

No. Islam has done this by its own teaching in their Mosques & Madras's in Australia. The Imam's deny that they do this in the News, But, any watching of 4 Corners, Insight or other programmes show the number of adherents to violent Jihad there are amongst ordinary moslems.

.Junaid: Xenophobia is uncharacteristic of a nation forged by brave immigrants, it is uncharacteristic of the true Australian.

True. But the Xenophobia is coming directly from the moslem population & their attitude to Australian Values & Customs. Australians, at the moment are only at the stage of , "WTF going on." Australians have not , in general woken up to the fact that we are being played for fools by these people who do not believe in a "fair go." They only believe in Islam. They only believe in a fair go for moslems, not non-moslems.

End

Craig
Why do you say it's specious reasoning, to reason that Muslims must either consider Mohammed to be a good moral example, or not?

Even driving a forklift, one of the most basic of tasks, requires completion of a week long course costing $1000 dollars. Oh, boo hoo

If the person who desires to be a fork lift driver is not employed and is receiving the benefit, Centrelink will cover the cost of the training program. Are you suggesting that spending a week to learn the job skills is too much to ask? "Wow, I wanted a job that I didn't know how to do, and those bastards expected me to do a week's training course. How unfair is that? I'm going to join ISIS instead."

So what the issue... the radicalised layabouts excuse for not finding employment is 'no senior management positions were available' therefore ISIS is a better option. Send them all overseas on a one way journey if they think ISIS is so great.

The article's premises are all wrong. It's unaustralian (though the word is strictly meaningless) not to be racist and xenophobic, that is if we are to go by popular opinion.
The idea that we're,
"a people of community, of equal rights and believers in a fair go" is patent nonsense perpetuated by colloquial history and pc propaganda.
We're actually a nation of mean-spirited ethnocentrists and racists, by and large.

JKJ,
for two main reasons: because for the most part the problem that is being described in the article is not to do with Islam, but to do with the other factors discussed, therefore the issue of Islam is a red herring and your phrasing is deliberately provocative.

Secondly, as has been reiterated time and again, here and elsewhere, what a Moslem chooses to take from the principles of their faith is entirely up to them, it is not something defined centrally by fiat, therefore your basic tenets are flawed.

CH, as a hippy you've probably never done much work in your own life, but I can assure you that it is very difficult to get Centrelink to form out for programs like forklift licenses unless there is a job lined up that requires it. Of course, for people like yourself who have the skills to scam Centrelink into paying for all sorts of things that the rest of us prefer to work for, that might not be a problem, but for a kid from the wrong side of the tracks it's not such a doddle.

Junaid Cheema's medieval religion has a real PR problem at the moment what with Muslim terrorist mutants running around the planet killing, raping, crucifying, beheading, abducting, and incinerating anybody who is either not Muslim, or not Muslim enough.

Instead of trying to defend the indefensible, Junaid uses the old military tactic of using attack as the best form of defence. Notice how he writes in the tone of high moral indignation. Here is a man who wants to right a terrible wrong and is angry about it.

Junaid insists that the problem isn't Muslims. Nup. Cross his heart and hope to die, it isn't Muslims. The real problem is, (drum roll) (wait for it) (wait for it) AUSTRALIANS. Australians are the problem. Australians are just awful to Muslims. Just because Muslim blow Aussies up in Balinese nightclubs, gang rape dozens of "cat meat" Australian girls, shoot Aussies in coffee shops, intimidate Australians on beaches, turn the Southwest of Sydney into the Chicago of the Pacific with endless street shootings, and drive like kamikaze pilots on crack, does not mean that Australians should have a poor opinion of them.

Look Junaid, the jig's up, mate.

Australians are waking up to the fact that Muslims are simply too backward and violent to ever have been allowed to immigrate into advanced societies. Your religion has a real problem with it's own scriptures. Your prophet is a genocidal slave owning, war lord, paedophile. And the religion that this nut case invented is incredibly violent, intolerant, misogynistic, ultraconservative and unable to relate to the modern world. But unless it changes, than Muslims are going into the future backwards. The reason why Muslims are so poor and incapable of advancement is your stupid religion. The more Muslim any society is, the more backward it is.

The problem is Islam, stupid.

Junaid argues that “90% of terror attacks on western soil have nothing to do with Islam” That may be true in Europe, for example, where separatist, anarchist and left-wing groups regularly commit terrorist acts. But the great majority of Australians who have died in terrorist attacks in the past 20 years have died as a result of radical Islamists, including the 88 who died in the first Bali bombs and four in the second; 10 in 9/11; three in the Jakarta Marriot bombings, one in the London bombings and one on the Nairobi mall attack. We have recently had two deaths in Sydney.

And there have been attacks directed at Australia, such as the Jakarta embassy bombing in which several Indonesian citizens died.

While it is true that not all terrorists are Muslims, and certainly true that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, terrorism as experienced and witnessed by Australians in recent years has overwhelmingly been linked to radical Islam. This is not just a case of media bias or unfair demonization: you can prove it with a body count.

It is equally nonsensical to say that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam. It may have a perverse view of Islam than most Muslims find abhorrent, but it does what it does in the name of Islam. As a Christian, I may feel the inquisition was a vile perversion of Christian values, but I could not pretend it had nothing to do with Christianity

generally the hatred of Christ and His teachings have led us to the point where many progressives are just to blinded to see things for how they are. They have totally misrepresented and mocked the Christian faith so what chance have they of interpreting Islam. Its no wonder they are apologist for terrorism. Its forgivable that Junaid would defend his own religion but unbelievable that others are so pig headed (apologies to the muslims). Obviously the self loathing of the principles that made Australia the envy of the world has come home to roost.

Dear hate mongers and bigots:

Great job on proving the article's point. I read the authors piece he strike me as reasonable (I may disagree on some bits). I read your comments and you sound like medieval plebs pretending to be civilised- funny that.

Hitler convinced the lowest common dominator of the 20th century that the Jews were responsible for the worlds problems. You as the lowest common denominator of the 21st century are convinced muslims are - look in the mirror mate.Great job at falling on your face. Thankfully you don't represent Australia.

Your historical and religious inaccuracies are two many to name, but they would make a good sequel for American sniper or a rant on Fox News (fair and unbiased).

Get a basic education and then we can talk , until then you are on ignore - Chao

Rhian "As a Christian, I may feel the inquisition was a vile perversion of Christian values, but I could not pretend it had nothing to do with Christianity"

Very well put.

This who argument that the extremists are not really muslim does not cut it. The mix of religion and culture is heavily entwined but for those concerned about the way muslim migration is playing out it's not all neatly separated out just as it's not neatly separated out for those who think mutilating young girls and older ones being covered up is part of their religion.

It's hard for those of us not defending Islam to separate the views of Sheikh Hilaly when he was one of if not the senior Muslim figure in Australia and expressed a number of extreme views including his "uncovered meat" comments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taj_El-Din_Hilaly

I can accept that some of those heading to the middle East to fight with ISIS might be on the fringes but too many of those seemingly doing the support activities seem to be a major part of their local Muslim community.

Maybe there are fierce debates within the Muslim community about this stuff but for those of us outside they are rarely visible in any shape or form, just some denial when it goes against Islam and claims that it's nothing to do with the religion.

Jardine has made the point about the extremists following in many ways the model of your prophet who appears to be widely revered by most muslims. Do muslims deny the claims made regarding the atrocities committed by your prophet?

There are those on both sides of the divide who seek to cause strife but I do not think the process is helped by the pretence that it's nothing to do with Islam. If it is nothing to do with the faith then it's well past time that Muslims ditched a lot of cultural baggage that is giving the faith a really bad rap. Personally I don't think it's all culture.

R0bert

Craig
"the problem that is being described in the article is not to do with Islam, but to do with the other factors discussed".

The problem described in the article is to do with Islam. The issue is whether it is wrong to connect Islam with abuses carried out in its name.

Junaid is saying it's wrong, and extremist, and un-Australian, and a threat to democracy for Australians to assert that jihadism is motivated by Islam. This raises the obvious question of the extent to which any Muslim accepts or rejects the moral example of Mohammed and the authority of the Koran and hadit.

Therefore my reasoning was not specious on that ground.

"Secondly, as has been reiterated time and again, here and elsewhere, what a Moslem chooses to take from the principles of their faith is entirely up to them, it is not something defined centrally by fiat, therefore your basic tenets are flawed."

This is to pretend that Islam has nothing to do with Mohammed, the Koran and hadith. It's nonsense.

It is not "extremist" or "un-Australian" or a threat to good government to ask Muslims whether they agree with Mohammed or not; nor to call on them to reject his abusive example.

I find Junaid's preciousness about the sensitivities of Muslims to be pretentious and false. It is entirely appropriate for Australians to point out the connection between Islamism and Islam, and offensive to accuse them of being bigots for doing so.

Junaid
Do you agree with Mohammed that it is okay to kill people for their religious opinion, or not?

It is not my reasoning, but Junaid’s reasoning that is specious:
1. Of all Muslims, there is a subset who are known by Junaid to be true Muslims, and another subset who are known by Junaid to be false Muslims.
2. ISIS are false Muslims, even though they claim to be motivated by Islam and obviously they believe that means true, not false Islam
3. Australians are bigoted and hateful and undemocratic for remarking any connection between Islamism and Islam.

The flaw in this reasoning should be obvious. It only begs the question how Junaid, or anyone, is to know the true from the false Muslims.

It has not escaped my notice that the Muslim community fell into hot dispute about this very question approximately 2 milli-seconds after the death of Mohammed, and have been busily hating and killing each other about it ever since.

Junaid invites us to join the theological controversy; but will not enlighten us as to his distinguishing criterion. The necessary implication of his smug argument is that Junaid shares with Mohammed the one true knowledge of which is which.

But the rest of us have nothing to go by but either:
a) Junaid’s opinion, so the argument is in effect that anyone who disagrees with Junaid’s religious opinion is hateful and bigoted and un-Australian and extremist, or
b) the example of Mohammed and the teachings of the Koran and hadith.

Junaid has got the whole matter precisely back-the-front. If the terrorists he says are false Muslims, are doing what Mohammed told them to do, then it’s perfectly appropriate for anyone to point this out.

But when we ask Junaid how he reconciles his beliefs with Mohammed’s abusive and atrocious example - completely unacceptable by modern Australian standards - all we get are shrieks of silence.

The specious and extremist argument here is that we shouldn’t offend Muslims’ prickly sensitivities when blind Freddie can see that, by definition, they’ve got a major problem with understanding the most basic concepts of ethics and modernity and good government; else they would renounce and condemn Mohammed’s dreadful example.

"Perhaps raw figures from Europol and the FBI database,concluding well over 90% of terror attacks on western soil have nothing to do with Islam, also seem irrelevant."

I suspect these figures derive from a left-wing source such as this: http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/. But if you analyse those tables a little more closely it's possible to see that they're well out of date -- the latest is 2009 -- and heavily dominated by separatist movements in France, Spain and Germany. Take those out, along with the religiously-inspired violence in Ireland, and what remains are generic attacks on 'the West' inspired by Islam. Nobody's suggesting, I take it, that the West go to war on Basque separatists? That's simply a domestic problem for the governments concerned and of no relevance to anyone else.

It's worth pointing out that these figures also count 'attacks' but not property damage or lives lost. I suspect that if those were counted the score for Islam would be considerably higher.

So let's have a debate by all means; but let's not pretend to support our claims with dodgy and irrelevant figures.

Jon J,
When Leftists talk about "attacks" they include all sorts of behaviour, almost all of which relates to verbal altercations or harassment and nowadays 99% of their atrocity stories are generated by trolling Twitter and Facebook. ETA and the IRA have never been more of a problem to their respective societies than say,the Mafia in southern Italy.
Islam is only practiced as a religion by a minority of immigrants, for most of them tribal, family and gang loyalty are more important, the "Islamic Problem" in every European society is that they are prone to criminal behaviour, drug dealing, extortion and violent turf wars.
Gangs from Kosovo, Albania, Pakistan, Somalia and Lebanon are the Mafia equivalent in Germany,Denmark,Sweden and Norway they control all of the drug trade in the major cities and run myriad other rackets as well.
Muslim Gangs Terrorize Denmark
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2941/muslim-gangs-denmark
This is an account of how Lebanese gangs were allowed to take over Sydney.
http://1389blog.com/2008/01/29/mideast-gangs-no-go-areas-in-sydney/
We saw exactly the same thing happening under commissioners Nixon, Overland and Lay in Victoria,Police are now effectively prohibited from taking on African and Middle Eastern gangs while petty crime by Anglo Australians, crime by defenceless minorities such as Vietnamese and Chinese and things like domestic violence are given priority.
The Lebanese gangs are left alone because they fight back, they'll attack and stand over Police and members of the public including their own "community leaders" if challenged, they can assemble a mob of 30 bruisers in a few minutes and stare down or defeat anyone who confronts them.
The Imams, "Community leaders" and the White Social Justice Warriors of the community legal centres also work against the Police to protect the gangs under the threat of a breakdown in "social cohesion" if pro active measures are taken against African and Middle Eastern criminals.

ISIS claims that everything it does is in accordance with the Koran and subsequent hadiths.

Is that so ? Can the actions of ISIS be justified by reference to the Koran ?

But, if not - and since there is nothing much any non-Muslims can do which won't exacerbate the ideological discussion - it is up to Muslims to expose ISIS as anti-Muslim, and their claim on the Koran as a pack of lies.

Until that happens, the rest of us will have to wait patiently.

Of course, what we hear about ISIS may be just taken out of context ......

Joe

Joe,
Craig Minns posted this link in another discussion, it should be read by anyone with and interest in current affairs:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

The left are continually screaming at us we must apply the precautionary principle to the global warming scare, even though there is not one shred of evidence that it is happening.

Now surely, with the high level of proof that Islam & the west do not mix, & that Islam is attacking the west wherever it can, that same precautionary principle should apply.

We should deport all Muslims to somewhere we don't care about, & never let any into our midst.

Seeing how Tasmania is such an economic drain, we should make it the only place where Islam may be practiced. It could again actually contribute something useful to the wellbeing of those who fund it, mainland Australians.

Hasbeen,
The White Nationalists want Tassie for their "White Israel", the idea is that the mainland can go up in flames and become a multiracial hell while down there they all brew mead to drink on Samhain, make bespoke Celtic jewelry and worship Odin and Hitler.

The EXTREMISTS vs Faith

The Author draws attention to a historically verified lesson that extremism is unhealthy for a society as a whole.

The ‘extremists’ respond to this sane suggestion with their characteristic fury and loud intentions to continue maligning Islam.

Are they any different from extremists within Islam who promote extreme views against the West? I don’t think so, because:

1- MALIGNING a FAITH is WRONG: Maligning a faith is against all accepted norms of a civilised conduct that the humanity has finally come to adopt from the painful lessons;

2- MALIGNING a FAITH is NOT HELPFUL: Maligning a faith is counterproductive to peace within any society and in the world at large;

3- MALIGNING ISLAM is BASELESS: As seen previously (will probably have to be repeated here, as well), the misinformation on Islam has been universally jettisoned by the mainstream scholar ship of today – thanks to the research methods of the age of reason. Because of the modern research the medieval distortions have been pushed to the extreme fringe, outnumbered but existent, nevertheless. These distortions are closely held and repeatedly pedalled by the ‘extremists’, yet the distortions fail to stand a reasonable scrutiny.

4- ISLAM is MALIGNED to CHANGE the CONTEXT: Some of the highly deplorable actions of the Muslim extreme fringe is linked to about one million of innocent civilians killed in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq etc. Not a single ‘extremist’ would even mention that. He or she must declare the Faith of the victims to be the sole cause ignoring any link to the carnage humanity has seen in recent years;

5- The EXTEMISTS and NOT the FAITH MUST be the TARGET: The extremists, Islamic and anti-Islamic alike, are the ones to be discouraged and checked. This society, like any other society, is entitled to make laws to handle them.

I hope the Prime Minister’s intention to clamp down on those "who incite religious or racial hatred" works in true spirit of the words. Any approach or strategy that shift focus from individuals to a Faith will be counterproductive in all probabilities.

JKJ, Islamic youths are merely the group du jour that happens to be disaffected and alienated within Australia, just as Irish (Catholic, significantly) youths once were, Vietanamese (Buddhist) youths once were, Greek and Italian (Orthodox and Catholic) youths once were...

In other words, the moral panic you're trying to whip up is entirely confected and I stand by my original comment.

ISIS is less relevant to Australia than the Irish Troubles were, but those of weak minds and weaker prostates are always looking for something to get their tired old blood flowing. However, humans are an iterative process in operation: they too, shall pass.

Hasbeen, surely an old salt like you who's braved the headhunters and p1ssed into cyclones can handle a few spotty unemployed trouble-makers?

JoM, I'm not sure that Huon pine is much good for mead barrels and Tassie Oak is actually a eucalypt, so it might be a good idea to check on eBay for oak suppliers before catching the ferry. Mind you, all those poppies might make some really interesting mead. The backpackers will love the place!

Is publicly stating that I think a particular faith is wrong maligning that faith?

Should I ignore the pictures and 'faith' of an eleven year old boy holding up a severed human head and say that this happened because of those killed in Palestine?

I am sorry, but I cannot agree with whatever faith beheads innocent journalists, throws homosexuals off buildings and gets children to execute prisoners.

What is the 'faith' of the people who do that?

What do we call it?

NC,

I think that, if ISIS does not represent Islam BUT it does represent the 'faith' of many evil and reactionary people, then it is not only proper but imperative that all good-thinking people 'malign' ISIS and everything it stands for.

Don't you agree ?

Joe

Joe, I think you need to have a serious discussion with your sitting bits again.

They seem to be trolling using your handle.

Craig, you can try dribbling your prostate somewhere else, obviously that argument satisfies your intellectual standard. But any sane person recognises that the idea that Junaid is pushing, that Islamism has nothing to do with Islam, is nonsense; and so is your attempt to confuse Islam with other different social phenomena.

JKJ, thanks for the concern, but my underpants remain unstained.

In front AND in back.

Craig,

So what did I write that offends basic logic - or am I offending your left-opportunism ?

Does the reactionary terrorist group, ISIS, get its inspiration from the Koran ? Yes ? No ?

If so, isn't it the duty of 'moderate' Muslims, if such exist, to expose and condemn those parts of the Koran which are abhorrent ? Yes ? No ?

How is that trolling ? It sounds like fair questions to me.

I think you need to check your underwear again, as well as your equally soiled political stance. I hold my nose to both.

Joe

Maligning.

definition. To speak harmful untruths about; speak evil of; slander; defame, make false accusations.

1. Islam was invented by a paedophile warlord who was a genocidal anti Semite. True.

2. The scriptures of the Islamic faith order believers to make war on non believers to spread Islam. True.

3. The scriptures of Islam order believers to kill "idolaters" who will not convert to Islam. True.

4. The scriptures of Islam order believers to not take Jews or Christians as their friends. True. (so much for Craig Minns "marginalisation.")

5. The Scriptures of Islam order believers to never co exist peacefully with non Muslims. Islam must always dominate. True.

6. Islam is an extremely mysogynistic religion where females are considered to be minors, or the property of Muslim males. True.

7. Muslims believe that religious law must take precedence over secular law. True.

8. Muslims believe that women must exercise extreme modesty and if she does not, she deserves to be raped. And if she is raped, it is her own fault and she should be punished. True.

9. Muslims believe that state and religion are inseparable. True.

10. Muslims believe that there religion is beyond criticism and those who criticise it should be murdered. True.

11. Muslims believe that homosexuality should be a capitol offence. True.

12. Muslim believe that Muslims who convert to other religions should be murdered. True.

14. Muslims believe that a husband may beat his wife. True.

15. Almost all Muslim societies are dysfunctional and totalitarian. The more Muslim it is, the more backward, totalitarian and dysfunctional it is. Even within prosperous societies, Muslims usually form poverty stricken and crime prone under classes because their beliefs are incompatible to the attitudes which create modern prosperous communities. True.

Now NC claims that "maligning faiths" is morally wrong. But you don't have to make any false acusations about Islam to make valid criticisms of it. All you need to do is point out the self evident truths to conclude that this is a very dangerous religion which has no place in a modern, secular society.

Loudmouth,

Despite a disappointing experience with your semi-logical childish and mostly crooked questions (including your support for the SMALL mind you know who) on a different thread, I am willing to take another chance in this new thread.

BUT I must have your assurance that you will answer my question(s) that will accompany my answer to your post of 26 Feb 2:56 PM.

Will you answer my questions(s)?

'Hitler convinced the lowest common dominator of the 20th century that the Jews were responsible for the worlds problems.

theHypocrisy

very observant. Today it is the progressives and Islam that think the Jews are repsonsible for the worlds problems. Not much has changed.

@runner

I considered ignoring and then gave you the benefit of the doubt for being misinformed. There is an enormous difference between Judaism and Zionism. In respect to Judasim there are innumerable Muslim and Jewish organisations working together to combat hate propagated to divide the faithful, innumerable muslims see Jews as trusted friends vital partners in this cause example:

-Jewish Muslim Outreach
- JMCBI
- Jewish voice for peace
- The Muslim-Jewish Solidarity Committees
I could on and on...

Here is some basic eduction on the latest news of Muslim Jewish unity against hatred.

Muslims and Jews united against hate
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/01/uk-jews-muslims-team-hate-150127091540305.html
Hundreds of Muslim surround synagogue to form human shield
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/hundreds-of-norwegian-muslims-form-human-shield-to-protect-jewish-synagogue-in-oslo-10062227.html
Rabi's stop anti muslim hate
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/pro-muslim-subway-ads-rabbi-jill-jacobs-executive-director_n_1949344.html

Of course there are some pig headed muslims out there, they are a problem. Just like the pigheaded people on this comment thread who cant see beyond their manufactured hate for Islam- I hope you are not one of them, are you?

Of course there are some pig headed muslims out there, they are a problem. Just like the pigheaded people on this comment thread who cant see beyond their manufactured hate for Islam- I hope you are not one of them, are you?

theHypocrisy

plenty of nice muslims however am yet to come across one redeeming feature of Islam. Then again that is also difficult to find in secularism/feminism that is so self centred and self righteous that it denies and misrepresents the Only One who can save them. Call that 'hate' intolerant whatever however outside of fundamentalist muslims, secularist match that hatred.

Hypocrit: Just like the pigheaded people on this comment thread who cant see beyond their manufactured hate for Islam.'

It's not us pig headed people that hate Islam. It's Islam that hates us, especially because we are Pig ;-) headed & won't convert.

Oh, I would convert. but I'm looking for a brand of Islam that is not trying to kill another brand of Islam. So far I don't believe that one exists. So I'll just have to stay an Atheist. I guess.

Hippo, Are you not seeing that Islam hates everyone that is not Islam? If non-Islamic (Infidels) object to their hate then we are attacking Islam. ?? because we have attacked Islam, in their eyes, they have the right to kill us. Any excuse at all. Some sort of twisted logic?

JKJ we have had our differences, but I cannot fault any of your posts.

"especially because we are Pig ;-) headed & won't convert."

I've asked some of my Muslim friends and they say they don't want you.

Apparently it has something to do with maintaining the quality of the gene pool. They say they hope you have lots of children...

runner, I've yet to come across one redeeming feature of whatever perverted distortion of a religion you hide behind. Got your handful of 5c coins ready for the plate on Sunday yet?

Joe, what "opportunism" do you think there is in my views? I assure you my views are sincere and unlike those of you and your rather third-rate "mates" here, are wll reasoned and constructive. Do yourself a favour and look those words up, they're obviously not concepts you have a lot of familiarity with.

'runner, I've yet to come across one redeeming feature of whatever perverted distortion of a religion you hide behind. Got your handful of 5c coins ready for the plate on Sunday yet?'

of course Craig with no moral base you have no idea or at least pretend not to.

NC,

I've put forward some questions which I think are crucial. Whether you have the courage to answer them is up to you.

Joe

@Jayb

I'm not sure reasoning will work for you, because it seems you need medicating.

Break out of your mental prison and go spend some time with some real-life Muslims.

You'll realise your apocalyptic views about Islam are nothing but voices in your head.

Loudmouth,

I have said very clearly that I will answer your question. RE-READ my response (26 Feb 4:15 PM)

<<BUT I must have your assurance that you will answer my question(s) that will accompany my answer to your post of 26 Feb 2:56 PM.>>

Ask anyone what the above statement means!

Is it not obvious that IT IS YOU WHO LACKS COURAGE TO ANSWER questions? And YOU HAVE SHOWN YOUR LACK OF COURGE AGAIN ON THIS THREAD AS WELL.

Your idea of exchange is that you ask me questions but you don’t answer my questions.

What world do you live in?

And more importantly, What are you?

NC,

I think he/she/it is a troll. For people who have followed his/her/it's posts know they lack total credibility, have no substance and add no value to the conversation. You are not likely to get any kind of coherent answer. I think you can safely ignore him/her/it

To Mr thehypocrisy

If most Muslims are moderate and rooly nice guys who just want to live in multicultural peace with everybody, could you please define what a "moderate" Muslim believes in? What part of the Koran and the Hadiths does he publically renounce?

To NC.

I will happily answer your question. Fire away, sunshine.

theHypocrisy "Islam is just voices in your head", isn't all religions just that?
Poison plotter, Jehover, "lingering at the table of Satan" for extramarital sex, banned from congregation, if you believe what the voices in your head are telling you then you will kill because the voices "religion" are telling you just that, so how on earth are you going to stop the killings when this drivel has been indoctrinated into your brain as voices that it is ok to kill for all sorts of reasons, ban the brainwashing in the first place.
These people think they are right in what they are doing, others think they are wrong because their brainwashing "voices" have told them the opposite, we all have these voices but thankfully one can see beyond the religious voice of killing.

CM: Also important is that we have a social model that is increasingly restrictive and conformative,

I disagree, the Social Model to day is far less restrictive & conformative than it was when I was growing up. Back in the 50/60 young people didn't have a voice at all. The late 60/70 revolution changed that & young people have enjoyed less & less restrictions ever since. The type of behaviour that "Schoolies" brings would have brought out the riot police in the early 60's.

CCCM: so that behaviours that would once have been acceptable hijinks among young men are now subject to rigorous enforcement action and constant social disapprobation, with the best of intentions.

Are you referring to the drunken Drug fuelled mob fighting that goes on outside of night clubs? Do you see drunken, Drug fuelled,fighting louts subject being to rigorous enforcement as being a bad thing? Do you think the Ambulance & Emergency Services would agree?

Do you think that the Islamic inspired moslem youth should be allowed to run rampant because they feel disenfranchised by Australians that refuse to convert to Islam, in our own Country?

So many questions & I never receive an answer, So sad.

Jayb, I suggest to you that you have not watched the bullying and "shaming" that drives conformism within the youth. It is obvious on social media, but it is just as prevalent within groups in more conventional settings.

In addition there is enormously stringent enforcement, both from police and from the "Mrs Grundy" types who make it their business to keep their beady eye on anything young people do. The number of these types is expanding rapidly as the population ages and silly old buggers with time on their hands become ever more prevalent.

When I was a young man the measure of whether something was socially permissible was largely whether it hurt someone else. Sure, there were some things, like the unofficial "drags" at Fisherman's Island that were pretty stupid, but mostly harmless nonetheless, but mostly we could get away with almost anything short of murder. We got it out of our systems and we had fun doing it. O-week at uni in the early 80s was a great excuse for pranks and there were some absolute classics that everyone under 50 (including the cops) got a great laugh out of.

Today, it's an organised careers fair and a bunch of children's fairground rides put on by the uni.

And yes, it was going out and getting drunk and sometimes ending up the wporse for wear. A "king-hit" was some gutless wonder sneaking in a cheap shot from behind, not a lucky punch that got through the other bloke's guard.

There is no doubt that as a result of all these social changes our cities and towns have become safer places, but there is also no doubt that there will be a price to pay, sooner or later, for making young people bottle up their impulses to act stupidly and learn from the consequences.

Hypocrite, heal thyself.

NC, Simple question: Can what ISIS is doing be justified by reference to the Koran ? Yes ? No ?

Obfuscation will be, quite reasonably, taken to mean 'Yes".

IF the Koran is the literal word of god, and ISIS IS acting in accordance with the Koran, then we have this ghastly scenario that god approves of all the evils that ISIS is doing, and surely that is not possible ?

But IF so, then how can we talk about a just and good god ? Is burning someone in a cage an act that god would approve of ? Raping and enslaving women and young girls ? Throwing people off tall buildings ? Stoning people for their own private behaviour ? In 2015 ?

I can't believe that anybody would agree with that: there must be 'moderate' Muslims who don't agree with all that, who are as disgusted as I am that such things could be committed in their name.

So either the Koran has to be questioned, cleaned up, purged of its vicious and vile sections, or its believers will be forever stuck with a flawed book which counsels, even demands, such vile acts.

I sympathise, as an atheist, with the dilemmas that ISIS has inflicted on good Muslims through their reliance on the teachings of 1400 years ago. As an atheist, I could never approve of such actions, and I'm sure that most Muslims don't either.

Joe

Hell yes we need to save democracy from the extremists. The extremists like Junaid who wants to give our democracy to any dropkick who comes along & wants it for them selves, to change it more to their liking.

Will we ever get sensible enough to kick out these destroyers?

CM: but there is also no doubt that there will be a price to pay, sooner or later, for making young people bottle up their impulses to act stupidly and learn from the consequences.

Ah ha! but just who is going to pay for those consequences. The young people themselves, or will they or their parents blame the Government/Police, etc. The latter of course, Then they'll want to sue & be looked after for the rest of their lives at great expense to the Tax payer. Previously young people took responsibility for their actions. They knew how far to go. Not the young ones today. They "have rights" but accept no responsibility for their actions. Any guiding hand is seen as a disenfranchisement by them & an affront to their Democratic Rights.

To my mind if people get drunk & kill someone they should spend the rest of their life in prison. If the person is cripples then the punch drunk should have to pay Maintenance to that person for the rest of their life. If they do drugs & need medical attention then they would be liable for all Medical expenses, Ambulance Services, etc & no rebates. That is accepting responsibility. These people should have to pay out of their own pocket. I think that's Democratic, don't you.

CM: Jayb, I suggest to you that you have not watched the bullying and "shaming" that drives conformism within the youth. It is obvious on social media.

What makes you think that Bullying is a new trend. Whatever happened to, "Sticks & stones my break my bones but words will never hurt me." or, "If someone jumps into the fire would you jump after them". or "Pi$$O##." I guess we were a lot stronger in the mind then the youth of today. We all got bullied too, but we didn't cry or commit suicide or conform to the ratbags because we knew the consequences & our Responsibilities.

Jayb, there are prices that are not financial and yes, the young people and their parents will and are paying those prices today.

The price will get higher and higher as the elderly live longer and continue to exert their fear-filled, self-gratifying stranglehold on society.

In our world of exponential change, the young already have a great deal to cope with. It would be nice if their elders and purported "betters" let them get on with dealing with it.

Hi Jayb,

Yeah, I remember when I was at Penrith State Primary School, there was a bully in our class, a big Pommie kid, he used to stand over other kids and push them around until some little kid belted him in the eye (and ran like hell) and he was okay after that.

Young people these days are not under any more pressure than fifty or sixty years ago. Sure, they're looking down from much greater heights of affluence and comfort, but I recall those times sixty-odd years ago as a much more dog-eat-dog world, much more make-or-break, literally. I remember getting into a fight with a couple of kids in Wagga, I guess we were all about twelve, trying to punch the living sh!t out of each other.

Maybe it was a much more physical world then, less cerebral, and that kids these days are tormented much more by personality attacks, character smears, poor things.

Wouldn't be young for quids !

Joe

Lego,

On your invitation to ask you questions (your post 27bFeb 2:54 SM), I will attempt to scrutinise your observations (your post 26 Feb 4 PM) in a rational environment dealing with genuine references as opposed to medieval distortions of Islam one can grab from hundreds of hate-sites and pedal without any responsibility or care.

On your repeated “scriptures of Islam”, let us be clear on the basic fact the only scripture Islam has is Quran. Hadith, a human collection of verbal accounts about 200 years after the death of Muhammad (Saw) must pass the basic test that it DOES NOT CONTRADICT QURAN.

I will start with two of your observations, obviously borrowed from hate-sites as pointed out earlier:

I) <<The scriptures of the Islamic faith order believers to make war on non believers to spread Islam. True.>>

II) <<The scriptures of Islam order believers to kill "idolaters" who will not convert to Islam. True.>>

The Islamic Faith is clear on the subject of your observations which can be clearly understood through the following injunctions of Quran :

1- There is no compulsion in religion (Quran 2:256);

2- Muhammad ‘s (Saw) response to “idolaters”: Unto you your religion and unto me my religion (Quran 109:6).

Given that your observations stand in stark contradiction of Quran, my First Question to you is: Where is a QUOTE FROM QURAN THAT SUPPORTS YOUR ABOVE NOTED OBSERVATIONS. Every sentence of Quran is readily quotable and verifiable today.

My second question to you is: Do you spread hatred against other religions as well or you have (for reason you may like to disclose) reserved this privilege for Islam only.

Being a Muslim myself, the knowledge of your religious inclination or a lack of it will help save time in pursuing this discussion in the right context.

Hi Crai,

Yeah, those elderly b@stards ! Working all their lives, and then having the gall to want to live in some sort of comfort, while young people - the inheritors of the world - have to struggle and scrape and envy those with. So unfair !

Why can't elderly people top themselves at seventy or seventy five, and immediately give over all their property to young people ?! After all, those young people are so much more superior, worthy, they know so much more, than wrinkled-up, smelly old people who clutter up buses and doctors' waiting rooms.

So how long before you're in that situation, Craig ? Welcome to the second half of your life :)

Joe

TheHypocrisy,
So are you an unpaid Sayanim or employed directly by Israeli foreign affairs?

Joe, I'm 52 this year and I hope to live to some reasonable age. I'm at the tail end of the baby boom, in other words. Unlike most of the "grumpy old men" here though, I've lived my life well and without regrets. I'm not going to spend my last years trying to make everyone else miserable: resentful and fearful of losing a life I never really used.

The problem for society is that there has possibly never been a time in history when so much of the population has been elderly and certainly there has never been a time when so many of the elderly have not been within extended family units.

There has also never been a time when such a high proportion of women in their reproductive years have been without families around them. Nor has there ever been a time when women have spent so much of their time being unavailable for their children, or when children have spent so long being children.

These are not trivial issues. They have had and continue to have enormous social consequences. Pretending, as you do in your unworthily stupid trolling of NC, that the most important issue is some aspect of Islam, is purest idiocy.

The appeal of Islamism to disaffected youth is that it provides a "justification" for acting out their frustration, lack of hope and alienation. If it didn't exist, some other justification would be found. Outlaw bikers call themselves the 1%, meaning they see themselves as being a tiny minority who are able to choose whether or not to obey the rules of society. It is no surprise that they draw their membership from among the same demographic as the radical Islamists

Craig,

You are a wise man - respect!. There is no like button to hit, so I had to leave a short comment - cheers.

@Lego

Your question echoes your extremism. You are saying muslims are only 'nice' if they reject the Quran.

If I attempt educate you on the Quran, not the cut and paste version of your hate cult, or the distorted version of the ISIS death cult - you'll just hurl insults.

So if you're truly interested in knowing about the controversial Quranic verses and not just spreading hate and misinformation, then listen to the view of a wise woman, an agnostic Jew, and respected scholar, who speaks on an international platform. Unlike you, who is a nobody, will alway be a nobody, finding purpose in hate, hiding behind a pseudonym. So listen to this 10 min talk sunshine you might grow a millimetre since childhood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y2Or0LlO6g

You and your hate cult make fools out of yourselves in the sights of even the mildly educated. Quoting Hadith to malign the religious founder, not knowing many Muslims along with historians question the historicity of your favourite Hadith's, the ones you use as a weapon against the faith of 1.6 billion people - the equivalent of the entire human population at beginning of the 20th century. Here is a link to give you some baby steps:

http://www.free-minds.org/does-hadith-have-solid-historical-basis

@Loudmouth maybe its time to close your mouth and open your ears and eyes for the first time in life, check out the links above you might learn something, or find something to manipulate and take out of context.

Chao

Craig,
What if I could offer you a movement which might lead to danger, self sacrifice and a fierce struggle for civil rights? I'm only a couple of years younger than you and I've done nothing either, want to join me and we'll die with our boots on?

Loudmouth,

Your post 27 Feb 3:14 PM

A simple and straight answer to your question will dismantle your childish logic in seconds.

To proceed, I sought assurance from you for answer to my question (my post of 26 February 2015 4:15 PM)

<<BUT I must have your assurance that you will answer my question(s) that will accompany my answer to your post of 26 Feb 2:56 PM.>>

YOU REPEATEDLY AVOID this assurance as you avoided it umpteen times in another thread because of which I have been ignoring your posts – it is all recorded.

Your idea of exchange is that you ask me questions but you don’t answer my questions.

What world do you live in?

And more importantly, what are you?

the Hypocrasy,
We already knew that ISIL was legitimate Islamic movement just the same as the "soft" Salafists like Abdur-Raheem Green, Abu Harayra and Musa Cerantonio, the distinction between the peaceful Sunni and the violent Sunni lies in their views on the eschatological timeline, not on Koranic teaching.
Explain to us you're willing to accept an interpretation of the Koran which comes from dotty old White Lefties and Liberals over the views of actual Muslims.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JTd9R2K9js

NC,

I don't avoid, I ignore, your irrelevant questions.

So you obfuscate ? That's a 'yes'.

Okay, so you believe that ISIS is acting in accordance with the Koran and you agree with their version of Islam.

Is that what we are supposed to believe ? I hope not.

Joe

Jay, I've done many things and I hope to do many more. I've no desire to die any time soon, but thanks for the kind offer. If you need a pair of boots, I've got a pair of slightly worn-out steel caps I don't use any more you can have. Size 10?

theHypocrisy, thank you,it's nice to have some acknowledgement, although I won't claim to be wise, despite your very kind words.

I've just watched your link to the fantastic Lesley Hazleton. Isn't she a wonderfully thoughtful and insightful speaker? It struck me how similar many of her views are to my own, although she knows a great deal more about Islam than I do. I will be making a point of reading her books and watching more of her lectures. Thank you very much.

I hope that some others here might take the time to watch her lectures.

Lesley's a great speaker, no argument. I could listen to her all day just reading the phone-book, but don't mistake style entirely for substance.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/06/lesley-hazleton-karen-armstrong-ii
(Beware dear reader, hate site, do take seriously!) suggests her glasses may be rose coloured in her love of Islam.

OK NC

You have posted two innocuous quotes from the Koran, which you claim over ride the two quotes from the Koran which I have posted up, which I say proves that Islam as a very violent and dangerous religion. If Mohammad was tolerant of other people's religion, why in AD 625 did he execute 600-800 Jewish men in Medina of the Banu Qurayzah tribe for refusing to convert from Judaism to Islam? Then there was the story about Mecca inhabitant Abu Sufyan who was arrested by Muhammad's goons and brought before him. Muhammad demanded that Abu Safyan become a Muslim or he would chop his head off. If Muhammad claims that there is no compulsion to convert to Islam, then clearly demonstrates with his own actions that he does not mean what he says, we westerners would say that he is a liar and a person who can not be trusted. And as Hirsan Ali has pointed out, there are verses in the Koran full of peace, love and mung beans, but they are very much outnumbered by verses which preach violence and intolerance.

I am tolerant of tolerant religions who mind their own business. Unfortunately most religions wish to shove their values down my throat, regardless of whether I want them or not. When they do that, I oppose them.

Islam is a very dangerous religion. Islam has failed it's own people and Muslims are the most backward and poverty stricken civilisation on this planet. It is about time you people reformed your religion but I know it is difficult for you to do that. Any criticism of your religion by a Muslim woukld mean that they would be promptly murdered. And we in the west are stating to se that Muslims will do the same thing to us if we criticise their stupid religion. But our criticism will not go away. The violence which Muslims commit in order to shut up criticism of their religion is a measure of how sensitive they are to critical the examination of their values and attitudes.

To Craig Minns.

The problems facing western society that you have posted up are valid and reasonable. And you are correct in predicting dire social consequences because of them. Where you dropped the ball, was where you failed to look at Islam and why Muslim societies (and Muslims in general) are poverty stricken failures.

The extreme poverty that exists in Islamic communities is a product of their own religious beliefs, and almost every Muslim country is an economic basket case. Muslim economies are growing, on average, only 1% a year. But Muslim populations are growing, on average, at a disastrous 4% a year. Muslim societies are great believers in breeding like flies and Muslim families are noted for marrying very young and for having families with very large numbers of children. This factor alone is instrumental in their appalling levels of poverty, superstition, unemployment and ignorance.

Even within prosperous societies, Muslims form a crime and welfare prone sub group for the same reasons. They do not mix socially with people from other religions because their religion forbids it. Their religion also encourages hostility towards non believers. Schools with high Muslim infestations are noted for their academic failure by virtue of the fact that most of the good students and teachers flee the places in fear of the violence and intimidation brought by on Muslim male students. The state of NSW has six schools with security guards permanently stationed on them to keep order. No prizes for guessing what religion most of the students are in those schools.

"Outlaw" motorcycle gangs are composed of the dumbest and most violent young men in society. They are not poor because they are oppressed, they are poor because they are violent, lazy and stupid. It is no surprise that these gangs are now largely composed of young Muslim males. Nor is it any surprise that they are "alienated". If your religion teaches you to hate anybody who is not a Muslim, despise females, and your group behaviour confirms your anti social attitudes, you can hardly be surprised if the rest of society despises you.

@Jay of Melbourne
'Explain to us you're willing to accept an interpretation of the Koran which comes from dotty old White Lefties and Liberals over the views of actual Muslims'

If I quoted the views of respected Muslim scholars and theologians with enormous followings such as Humza Yusuf, Abdal Hakim Murad, Jeffery Lang, Tariq Ramadan, Reza Arslan etc etc, etc you would have called them apologists. I quote you an independent scholar, an agnostic Jew, you call her a 'dotty old white lefty', if I quoted you other impartial contemporary or historic scholars you would have found demeaning names for them too. The funny bit is they all reach the same interpretation independently, one that calls for healing rather than hating.

The problem is not the scholarship, its you. You only want to look at what conforms to your image of hate
though it may be a tiny minority. You want to dismiss all those who are calling for love, unity and understanding though they may be the vast majority. You spread lies and misinformation, preach hate and division and then call yourself civilised.

You'll never confess to this, but your 'hypocrisy' is plain for all to see. I think you have just proven the authors point once again. Well done on getting your knickers in a knot and falling on your face - again *clap* *clap*

Now if i mis-judged you and its not your intentions that are lacking, rather its your intellect - then I apologies. No one is asking you to convert, despite what you claim, just asking you to stop hating and lying from which you refuse to abstain, is that too much to ask?

The Hypocrisy,
No actually I look for an interpretation of Islam which fits the teachings of their prophet.
If you'd listen to the talk I posted you'd understand, the speakers is saying that when Mohammed first came to the kuffar they regarded him as someone who could be trusted, who spoke the truth. As soon as he began to call them to tawhid, ie asked them to actually DO something, to go out of their way they start calling him "Liar", "A mad poet" and "Soothsayer".
ISIL is calling Muslims to work, to struggle, to Jihad and asking them to forgo Western comforts and conceits, the lazy Westernised sheikhs and scholars who don't want to give up their Mercedes cars, their air conditioning and their other "sinful" innovations and desires are simply coming up with labels, insults and justifications for their own inaction.

Lego,

The outcome of a rational scrutiny of your distortions of Quran is just as expected!!

I gave you two quotes from Quran (my post of the 27th) showing you that your statements were nothing but distortions of the message of Quran. And asked you to quote Quran in support of your statements

YOU FAILED TO PROVIDE A QUOTE from Quran.

Instead, you insist that:
<<the two quotes from the Koran which I have posted up, which I say proves that Islam as a very violent and dangerous religion>>

Again, you have not provided any reference of ‘your quotes’ from Quran - every sentence of Quran is quotable and verifiable.

YOU CANNOT provide a reference from Quran because these statements are NOT FROM QURAN.

But you insist that Quran says things it does not say.

This is typical of the paddlers of the misinformation.

They don’t apologise for their misquotes, like you, and then shift the subject, just like you have done.

The shifting now involves a distortion of history << Muhammad demanded that Abu Safyan become a Muslim or he would chop his head off>> (your post 27 Feb)

The statement is a lie similar to the ones that fill your post of the 26 Feb.

I draw your attention to your responsibility to provide a quote from RELIABLE references on history. Material from the hate-sites, which apparently is your data base, does not count.

Let us have the references, for a meaningful discussion or your apology for misquotes.

Loudmouth,
Your post 27 Feb. 15

<<I don't avoid, I ignore, your irrelevant questions.>>

My irrelevant questions?,
Haven’t asked you a question on the subject under discussion yet?

So, what are you avoiding/ignoring?

You are avoiding to assure me that you will answer my questions after I answer yours. Our exchange of the last few days has nothing but this fact wrapped all around it – everything is recorded, you can’t lie even if you try.

Like I said before: a simple answer from me will dismantle your childish logic in seconds. But I must have your assurance that you will answer my question(s) after I answer yours.

You lack the courage to face my questions.

Again, your idea of exchange is that you ask me questions but you don’t answer my questions.

Something basically wrong with you!!

I keep wondering:

What world do you live in?

And more importantly, what are you?

NC,
The only reliable work on Islam is the Koran, neither the Hadith nor any subsequent scholarship can contradict it nor innovate upon it and the authenticity of the Koran as the word of the almighty as given to his prophet has been a moot point for a thousand years.
It doesn't matter what academics or "haters" say or what interpretation they give to certain verses, the Sunni are the followers of Mohammed and only they can form a consensus upon how the prophet's teachings are put into practice.
So we wait and see if the Caliphate stands, no Caliphate means no malahim, no malahim no second coming, no second coming no antichrist, no antichrist no mahdi...simples.

of course NC if true to his religion knows clearly that the apparent peaceful quotes from the KOran are superceded by Mohammed's later penning.

http://www.aina.org/guesteds/20110118151407.htm

'Faced with these contradictory verses from the Quran, and instead of explaining these contradictions, Muslim theologian started looking into another mechanism to solve these contradictions. They adopted a doctrine known as "the doctrine of abrogation", a legal method that allows annulment of seemingly contradictory verses from the Quran, without deleting them from the text.'

Sorry, Mr thehypocrisy. I missed your post but will address it now.

I asked you two simple questions which you failed to answer. Your failure to answer "echoes your extremism" in that you prefer not to get nailed down on any premise that you may have to defend. Naturally, you instead referred me to a couple of boring and longwinded youtube video's which told me nothing. I don't debate against links.

I had a funny feeling you were going to pike out. I have been examining your "debating" style with other posters, which is to come on like you are the font of all knowledge who is talking to a bunch of retarded children. But you are all piiss and wind. I have dealt with characters like you before. You can't mix it in a fair stand up fight.

Now, the Koran and the Hadiths contain numerous quotes which I can post up, which clearly demonstrates that it is the very scriptures of Islam which are the problem. They clearly instruct Muslims to make war on unbelievers, "slay the Idolators", maintain social separation from non believers, humiliate non believers, cut their throats, chop off their fingers etc. etc.

Don't give me any crap about not being able to understand the Koran unless I can read 7th Century Arabic. And don't give me any crap about taking the Koran out of context. The passages I can quote are stand alone statements which clearly display why Islam is so dangerous. If you like, I will post up some quotes and you can explain to all of us how "slay the idolaters wherever you find them" is really an innocuous statement which actually means "love thy neighbour."

C'mon mate, I double dog dare you.

But I know you won't. You are just a pretentious ratbag acting out the role of the super intelligent tertiary educated seer. The last thing you want to do is to mix it with a member of the Great Unwashed who you know can stick a pin in your inflated ego.

Run rabbit, run rabbit, run, run, run.

NC: I keep wondering: What world do you live in?

A very dangerous one, caused by having moslems in Australia.

NC: And more importantly, what are you?

Thankfully, not a backward moslem.

NC : I) rfrom LEGO: <<The scriptures of the Islamic faith order believers to make war on non believers to spread Islam. True.>>
NC: II) from LEGO:<<The scriptures of Islam order believers to kill "idolaters" who will not convert to Islam. True.>>
LEGO, let me Please.
I believe everybody will agree with this interpretations of the Koran's Suras.
Ch 2 v98. Allah is an enemy to unbelievers.
Allah treats unbelievers as the "enemy."
Ch 2 v161. On unbelievers is the curse of Allah.
Allah curses unbelievers & wants to give them bad luck & harm.

Ch 2 v191. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme.
Or, Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is Allah's entirely.
moslems are commanded by Allah to fight & kill all unbelievers until the entire World is moslem.

Ch2 v193. . And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.
moslems are commanded by Allah to fight & kill all unbelievers until the entire World is moslem.

ch3 v118. O ye who believe! take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks; they will not fail to corrupt you.
Allah commands moslems not to make friends with unbelievers.

Ch2 v216. Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.
Allah commands moslems to fight unbelievers even if you don't want to because Allah knows better than you.

Ch 8 v39. Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it.
Allah commands moslems to fight unbelievers even though they don't like to fight. No excuse.

Cont.

Ch 4 v 95. Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the Cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home): unto all (in faith) hath Allah promised good: but those who strive and fight hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward.
moslems who don't fight unbelievers are gutless & Allah knows them & their reward in Heaven will not be as great as those moslems that fight unbelievers.

Ch9 v5. 5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them and seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war )
Allah Commands moslems to fight unbelievers at "every" opportunity.

Ch47 v4. Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost.
Allah commands moslems to kill unbelievers when & where ever they can. Take some prisoners & demand a ransom. Allah himself would have done this. Allah commands you to fight unbelievers to test you to see if really are obedient to him. If you are killed you will get the best reward there is in heaven.

All moslems believe this to be true. Do you want to tell me that Islam is the Religion of Peace?

I posted this on another thread and I'll post it here:
http://media.clarionproject.org/files/islamic-state/islamic-state-isis-magazine-Issue-4-the-failed-crusade.pdf
Now I read a lot of commentary by Sunni religious teachers and Islamists as opposed to the views of White or Jewish Dhimmis and Zionist stooges from the David Horowitz milieu and the Dabiq magazine is the equal of any other pro Islam publication. Dabiq is coherent, well written, extensively footnoted with the Koran and completely convincing in it's arguments.
I don't support ISIL, they've declared war on my race, my nation and my people but I understand them and I can't find any fault with the way they go about Jihad.
What ISIL don't talk about is what Europeans, and particularly Anglo Saxons are capable of once freed from their alliances and treaties,if
Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia were to fall we would see "Total War" unleashed as it was against the National Socialists from about 1943, we've just passed the anniversary of the bombing of Dresden in 1945, it's food for thought for the residents of Mosul and Raqqa.

To NC.

Your "logic" is that you can provide a couple of quotes from the Koran which says that there is no compulsion to become a Muslim. And unless I can find a direct quote in the Koran which contradicts your quotes, then there is no compulsion in Islam.

That is a load of crap and you know it.

To begin with, the prophet himself forced at least one person to convert to Islam on pain of decapitation, and he mass murdered 600-800 Jewish males for refusing to convert. Muhammad was therefore breaching Allah's direct command as written in the Koran. Was Muhammad therefore a sinner? Answer the damned question.

Next, here are direct quotes from the Koran instructing Muslims to forcibly convert people to Islam.

Koran 9:123: “O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the pious.”

9:73
Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their Home: an evil fate.

8:39: “And fight them until there is no more disbelief in Islam and the religion will all be for Allâh Alone...”

Sura (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."

All of these quotes instruct Muslims to physically assault non Muslims. The purpose is obviously to terrorize them into becoming Muslims. That is compulsion.

Lastly. the Muslim custom of forcing non Muslims living in Muslim territory to pay a "Jizya" tax is a monetary penalty, the purpose of which is to compel defeated people to become Muslims.

Onya Jayb

Thanks, LEGO.

The simple question is still hanging in the air: are ISIS terrorists acting in accordance with the Koran, or not ?

And it won't go away :)

Joe

Joe,
The only people calling ISIL "un Islamic" are the people against whom it has declared war, their actions follow to the letter the teachings of their prophet. What's more they're thinning out their own ranks, weeding out the adventurers, the bandits and the shirkers, a number of the foreign Jihadis whose commitment to the cause came under question have been executed:
http://rt.com/news/216339-isis-fighters-executed-report/
Revolutions can be bloody at first but after the initial rush there comes a period of consolidation where the degenerate killers, the war junkies and the shell shocked maniacs are swiftly exterminated becuse they serve no further purpose to the cause and through their terrorism work against the necessary "hearts and minds" operations to come.

I like articles written by Junaid, and this one is no exception. No doubt he has this inherent intellect of "seeing", feeling, understanding and then writing on these sensitive and supercharged subjects. I hope he continues to write and shine light from a different perspective. Personally I am fed up of how we, the people, are taken for granted by the corporate media and fed all kind of "views" as "news". So thumbs up to Onlineopinion and to Junaid. Regards

I'll tell you boys a funny story. I have three books on drone warfare, and one of them is by a drone operator who sits in an air conditioned 40 foot container in Quantico, Virginia zapping bad guys.

He said that the terrorists just can't get a handle on the fact that the drones are watching their every move, 24 hours a day. They jump in and out of moving cars to throw off the drones but it does not work. The drones can follow them to their hideouts every time, and the drones then blow up a stack of them in one go by dropping the building on top of them. But the best time to "terminate terrs with extreme prejudice" is to do it is when the terrs are traveling in a car, because they can get them on isolated stretches of road where there are no innocents around.

With the drones destroying so many hideouts full of terrs, the stupid schmucks thought that it must be the neighbours who were dobbing them in to the yanks. So every time the yanks destroyed a terr building, killing a lot of terrs, the surviving terrs would run around the neighbourhood killing the neighbours. And so many terrs got killed driving in cars that the stupid schmucks thought that the local mechanics who serviced the Taliban and AL Qaida cars must be putting tracking devices on the cars. So the terrs went around to the garages where their cars were being serviced and shot all the mechanics.

Hee hee hee.

No doubt about the most devout Muslim jihadis, they ain't too bright.

I saw the front line boys popping their pills
Sick of the mess they find
On their desert stage
And the bravery of being out of range
Yeah the question is vexed
Old man what the hell you gonna kill next
Old timer who you gonna kill next
Hey bartender over here
Two more shots
And two more beers
Sir turn up the TV sound
The war has started on the ground
Just love those laser guided bombs
They're really great
For righting wrongs
You hit the target
And win the game
From bars 3,000 miles away
3,000 miles away
We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range
We zap and maim
With the bravery of being out of range
We strafe the train
With the bravery of being out of range
We gain terrain
With the bravery of being out of range
With the bravery of being out of range
We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range

Does the recoil remind you
Remind you of sex?

Craig,
Typical, in your mind the possession of superior technology equals cowardice eh? Bearing in mind that even in a ground war against Arabs Europeans have about a 50-1 kill rate in their favour, and that's when they play nice, if the gloves come off this is what an enemy city looks like afterwards:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Hiroshima_aftermath.jpg,
It's in the Jihadi script that most of them are going to die anyway,the last 5,000 will be cornered in Jerusalem and witness the final battle between the Mahdi and the Antichrist. ISIL have made it quite clear that they are unilaterally declaring war on Europeans because it's their destiny to confront the forces of "Rome" in the battle of armageddon at Dabiq in Syria.

Hi Craig,

Burning someone to death in a cage.

Throwing individuals off tall buildings.

Seizing young girls, raping them and selling them into slavery to your mates.

Beheading bound people.

Shooting people in the back of the head.

These are more honourable than blasting some bunch of terrorists from drones ?

Let me press the button, please !

Joe

Lego’s Quotes 1 of 3

Lego, Your quotes (I will take them up one by one) allow a review of the basic facts that I start with extracts (in quotes) from Karen Armstrong’s article entitled “The True, Peaceful Face of Islam” in The Time Magazine (Sept, 2001).

Armstrong (a modern authority on history of religion with a secular perspective) is one of many mainstream western scholars who have demolished the myth of so called violence in Quran/Islam.

FACT 1: “In the Koran, therefore, the only permissible war is one of self-defence” [2:190 - Fight in the way of Allah against THOSE WHO FIGHT AGAINST YOU..]

FACT 2: “Muslims may not begin hostilities (2: 190)”[ 2:190 … BUT BEGIN NOT HOSTILITIES….]

FACT 3: “HOSTILITIES MUST BE BROUGHT TO AN END AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AND MUST CEASE THE MINUTE THE ENEMY SUES FOR PEACE (2: 192-3)”

A brief overview of Muhammad’s (Saw) achievement on the subject we are discussing, again in Armstrong’s words (in quotes) is:

• “a major part of his (Muhammad’s) mission was devoted precisely to bringing an end to the kind of mass slaughter we witnessed in New York City and Washington. Pre-Islamic Arabia was caught up in a vicious cycle of warfare, in which tribe fought tribe in a pattern of vendetta and counter vendetta……….”

• “The Prophet had to fight a deadly war in order to survive, but as soon as he felt his people were probably safe, he devoted his attention to building up a peaceful coalition of tribes and achieved victory by an ingenious and inspiring campaign of nonviolence. When he died in 632, he had almost single-handedly brought peace to war-torn Arabia……..”

• “Because the Koran was revealed in the context of an all-out war, several passages deal with the conduct of armed struggle.”

Lego’s Quotes 2 of 3

With this brief background, now I address your quotes:

VERSE 9:5 applied to the prevailing state of war. What do you do in that state? Not fight?

Look at the verse that follows:
9:6 And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.

You have obviously ignored research from Lesley Hazleton (Agnostic Jew) on this verse of Quran (among other topics) she explained so clearly in the Utube link Hypocrisy forwarded to you on the 26 Feb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y2Or0LlO6g

She is one of many present day scholars who have spent time to see Quran first-hand as opposed to the ‘study’ of hate-sites for picking up and paddling distortions.

VERSE 9:73: O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end.

The key word “striving” against is not conversion by force you appear to insinuate.

The striving, if it extends to a fight MUST be within the ABSOLUTE conditions summarised as FACTS 1, 2, and 3 above. You will not find a SINGLE conversion by force in Muhammad’s (Saw) time, from reliable historic resources

The same applies to your next quote (verse 9:123)

VERSE 9:123: O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).

The number of the Surah (9) tells you the environment which is same as for 9:5 and 9:73. “Near to you” points out the prime responsibility of Muslims close to who the disbelievers wage a war.

Nowhere in it, the Quran allows its followers to wage a war against any people just because of their faith or the lack of it. It has to be in self-defence and is hedged by qualifiers.

Wow, what a great argument, Joe.

I can recall hearing back in primary school:

"Yeah, well you are too..."

Makes me proud to be Australian - oh yeah, nearly forgot - and white..., thanks for reminding me how superior white people are Jay, I would never have been able to tell from your example.

You're in good company Joe.

Lego’s Quotes 3 of 3, Loudmouth and Jayb

I suggest that you look at the detailed translations of the verses 2:190-194; 22:39 and 60:8-9 to see as the self-defence to be the only condition to go to war reinforcing FACTS 1, 2 and 3 outlined in the beginning of this message.

I also suggest that you read life history of Muhammad (Saw) through the pen of a mainstream scholar.

Karen Armastrong’s “Muhammad – A Prophet of Our Time” would be a good starting point. There are many other Western writers of the current age you can read. Will help you shed the baseless hate-material one finds on hundreds of hate-sites today.

Karen Armstrong also takes up the issue of Jews killed for their treachery in face of a written treaty and holds it perfectly valid (like many other mainstream historians) according to prevailing tribal laws of time and the land. A notable fact is that the decision was announced by an arbitrator appointed by the concerned Jewish tribe themselves. Read real history.

On your assertion of violence in Quran on no grounds whatsoever, will you tell us why you omit the real violent injunctions of other scriptures or you want me to point it out for you?

Finally, still no reference from you on << Muhammad demanded that Abu Safyan become a Muslim or he would chop his head off>> (your post 27 Feb). You will NOT find one from reliable biographies of Muhammad (Saw).

Loudmouth,
Your post of 1 March 8:13 AM.

You have refused for the 4th time (I will update the count every time you repeat your question) to assure me that you will answer my questions after I answer yours.

Still you hope that I will answer your question without your assurance.

Some hope!

Same question: what world do you live in?
More importantly, what are you?

Jayb: Your answer for Loudmouth counts for nothing. He can write, can’t he? I find your attempt at an ‘intelligent’ answer to be quite unimpressive! Will come to your questions when I get time from ongoing exchange.

NC: I suggest that you look at the detailed translations of the verses 2:190-194; 22:39 and 60:8-9 to see as the self-defence to be the only condition to go to war reinforcing FACTS 1, 2 and 3 outlined in the beginning of this message.

Here's how moslems really interpret those Sura's. If they deny this then it is Taqiyya, or Lying for Allah. That is permitted.
See the Hadith collection of Bukhari, vol. 4, book 52, numbers 268/9 & 271).

268:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle called,: "War is deceit".

269:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
The Prophet said, "War is deceit

271:
Narrated Jabir:
The Prophet said, "Who is ready to kill Ka'b bin Ashraf (i.e. a Jew)." Muhammad bin Maslama replied, "Do you like me to kill him?" The Prophet replied in the affirmative. Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say what I like." The Prophet replied, "I do (i.e. allow you)."
Using taqiyya, deceit in warfare, to put his enemy at a disadvantage.

Using taqiyya, or deceit in warfare, to put his enemy at a disadvantage.

2:190. Create trouble buy demanding the people convert. If they refuse, say you are defending Islam & kill them.

2:191. Start insisting the people convert. If Allah is rejected that is a reason to kill them.

2:192. If they accept Allah then don't, kill them.

2:193 Kill them all if they don't convert.

2:194. moslems are not to fight in the prohibited month unless the people try to kick them out then kill them.

22:39. If the people don't convert, kill them.

60:8. Move into an area & create trouble by demanding the people change their Culture. If they don't, Kill them.

60:9. If the people don't like your Culture or Religion & try to kick you out, kill them.

I think all that's pretty straight forward, don't you. This is how moslems really see their struggle to convert the unbelieving World.... or else.

Jayb,
given that NC is a Moslem and he has said several times that he does not see the world the way you claim that "moslems really see their struggle" then it's pretty obvious that you have about as much insight about Moslems a I do about congenital idiots who post crap they know nothing about.

The old Irish advice about not opening one's mouth to avoid removing all doubt about one's status as a fool seems to have avoided your ear.

Hi NC,

A lot of words there. How about a simple 'yes' or 'no' to my simple question ?

Joe

Yeah, white supremacy rulez, eh Joe?

Can you hear that whirring sound of someone spinning in her grave?

You need to find an altogether better class of friends mate.

Hi Craiog,

What has racism got to do with whether or not the Koran sanctions the deeds of ISIS ?

Get a life.

Joe

"given that NC is a Moslem and he has said several times that he does not see the world the way you claim that "moslems really see their struggle" then it's pretty obvious that you have about as much insight about Moslems a I do about congenital idiots who post crap they know nothing about."

Craig a couple of other alternatives.

1/ NC actually sees it that way but can't speak for how all other Muslims see it. For a local example I'd put that in a similar category to a Uniting Church member's views on christian teaching telling us about a fundy christian's view of the world.
2/ The oft pointed out references to support for lying to infidels as a legitimate Islamic practice.

I don't know which it is but to suggest that because NC claims it to be so demonstrates that " it's pretty obvious that you have about as much insight about Moslems a I do about congenital idiots who post crap they know nothing about" is missing the point.

R0bert

@Loudmouth,

The point that is repeatedly being made, is that the Quran doesn't. To say it does is a perverted interpretation of people in ISIS and people like you, two sides of the same coin. How slow are you?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3Y2Or0LlO6g

Exactly Robert,
I can direct you to credible, articulate Muslims who hold completely different views to NC and can back them up with scripture and scholarship.
What Craig and the other middle class Dhimmis are doing is what they always do, side with ethnic minorities against the White working class, they know that in the short term it will work but in the long run it'll come back to bite them. Craig doesn't even admire Islam much less support it, it's just a tactic he can use to lord it over "bogans" and "rednecks", but he and his ilk are in for a shock because it's them, not us that the Jihadis are targeting..remember Tori Johnson.

CM: Jayb,given that NC is a Moslem and he has said several times that he does not see the world the way you claim that "moslems really see their struggle" then it's pretty obvious that you have about as much insight about Moslems a I do about congenital idiots who post crap they know nothing about.

I lived in Malaysia for 3 years mate. I was told by a noted Imam that unbelievers have no Allah therefore it is OK to kill them as they are only animals. Actually I do know a lot about Islam, from personal experience & what I see daily from the various TV News, E.g; Al Jazeera. etc.

I take it you are a devoted moslem too. You & NC didn't say that you disagreed with my interpretations so I guess they must be right. Either that or you could Taqiyya, Ay.

So how does NC really see the world. Last time I looked he said that the World was attacking Bombs ect. He didn't mention all the murderers of moslems committed by fellow moslems not being able to sort out who is & who isn't right.

Don't come to Australia, insist on Converting us, then when you are rejected, say that we are attacking your Religion by rejecting Allah, therefore you have the right to fight us. That's what the Sura's say to do.

Much appreciate the author who is capable of seeing and saying the truth. Sorry for those who are continuously distorting facts to make (or try to make) their point and deliberately not allowing themselves to see the obvious.

To NC.

My first point is, that I provided four quotes from the Koran which clearly displayed that the Koran instructs Muslims to make war on non Muslims for the purpose of spreading Islam. Your response, is to claim that these quotes are misinterpretations. OK, so why didn't you post up the "correct" interpretations which you claim display that Muslims only go to war in self defence? That would have demolished my point and proven yours. Instead, you say that I should do all the work and read a bunch of Islamic scholars books who will give me the correct interpretation. That sure looks like humbuggery and stonewalling to me.

My second point is, that you are trying to justify Muhammad's genocide on the Medina Jews who would not convert to Islam, by claiming that the Jews were "treacherous." That sounds like anti Semitism to me, and it is probably the basis for the traditional Muslim hatred of the Jews. But in any case, according to the writings I read, Muhammad gave the Jews a choice, to convert or die. They chose death. That is forcible conversion. Muhammad broke Islamic law, if you claim that there is no compulsion in Islam to convert. You failed to even mention the "Jizya" tax which is another compulsion based upon a monetary penalty for not being a Muslim.

As for the case of Abu Sayyef, Muhammad's quote was "Had you not accepted Islam, I would have cast your head under your feet." That is compulsion. If this is a "misquote", then post up the "correct" one yourself.

As a Muslim, you would be better off admitting the truth that your religion is violent and evil, and start reforming it, instead of making up laughable excuses which you know are untrue.

Jayb, Loudmouth

Jayb: You post 1 March 6:55pm

Quran 2:190- Fight in the way of Allah against those WHO FIGHT AGAINST YOU, BUT BEGIN NOT HOSTILITIES. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

Your translation <<2:190. Create trouble buy demanding the people convert. If they refuse, say you are defending Islam & kill them>>

Quran 2:192- But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Your translation <<2:192. If they accept Allah then don't, kill them.>>

Is it not OBVIOUS now that you participate in this discussion ONLY to DISTORT the TRUTH.

The TRUTH is what all (Theists, Atheists and Agnostics etc) seek. Their sincerity in this search is far superior to their angle vision which could be different from yours or mine.

But in your case, unfortunately, TRUTH is what you blatantly try to suppress. This shows me conclusively what you are.

You are one of those the article under discussion warns against as potential threat to society, the other side of the coin which has the likes of ISIS on one side.

Knowing you now gives me a stopping point of my good faith effort to bring facts to your attention.

None of your ultra-extreme views can find expression, let alone the acceptance, in the mainstream.

As for me, from now on, I will totally IGNORE anything you write on this or any other thread whosoever it is addressed to.

I wish that you see one day how wonderful the sincerity in the search for truth is!

Loudmouth,

This is your 5th refusal to answer my question and hope that I will answer yours. Some hope!

NC,

So what was your question again ?

Hypocrite,

So, when someone questions something, that's an attack on it ? It's not right to ever question anything, is that it ?

So, if the Koran is the unquestionable and literal word of god, not one word of it can ever be changed, and everything in it is forever the command of god ? Is that it ?

So any sort of re-interpretation, however minor, is tantamount to apostasy ? Is that it ?

We shouldn't even be 'discussing' this topic, it's flirting with apostasy, is that so ?

Bloody hell, no wonder people are stuck in the Dark Ages.

Joe

NC: Quran 2:190- Fight in the way of Allah against those WHO FIGHT AGAINST YOU, BUT BEGIN NOT HOSTILITIES. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

Your translation <<2:190. Create trouble buy demanding the people convert. If they refuse, say you are defending Islam & kill them>>

I don't see anything wrong with my translation. The moslem problem is that an attack on, say, a mosque in France is a "Declaration of Hostilities" that can be acted on in anywhere in the World because we are all unbelievers. Such is the moslem mind, is it not.

A Hostility could be anything that a moslem declares is hostile to Islam. E.g.:
Refusal to be allowed to build a Mosque,
Refusal to move a Pig farm after a Mosque is build on the neighbouring land,
Refusing to grant a special day for moslems & screen off an area for moslem women at the Local Swimming Pool,
Refusal to put a screen around the Local Pool because the sight of so many naked bodies is offensive to moslems.
Refusing to pay to have a food declared Halal.
Declaring that the Burka or other such women's clothing inhumane.
Declaring that Sharia Law is forbidden.
Declaring that a moslem can only have one wife.
& many, many more are considered to be "hostile acts" against Islam & therefore moslems have the right to "defend" themselves or fight the unbelievers by killing innocent civilians anywhere in the World. E.g., Lindt Café. The Policeman in Victoria, ect, ect.

NC,

Found them:

* what world do you live in?

Australia, 2015.

* More importantly, what are you?

My only answer will be: a human being, living in 2015.

Now you can answer mine: are ISIS terrorists acting in accordance with the Koran, or not ?

You can obfuscate and prevaricate and engage in pedantics and sophistry and what they used to call casuistry, which will be taken as a 'yes',

or you can answer: yes or no.

It's up to you

Lego,

Your message 2 March 3:03 AM

YOUR MISUNDERSTANDING NO. 1

Quran does authorise Muslims to resist force by force and there can’t be anything wrong with it. Re-read my quotes of 1 March.

Doing this <<for the purpose of spreading Islam>> is your insinuation for which you cannot furnish any evidence from Quran.

Any resort to arms is heavily hedged by qualifiers, as shown in my quotes and many other verses of Quran which I have not quoted yet. These strict conditions must be satisfied in all armed conflicts.

Quotes from parallel injunctions of other scriptures will show you the difference in how Quran abhors war and requires it to be limited to the minimum essential level.

YOUR MISUNDERSTANDING NO. 2

<<Instead, you say that I should do all the work and read a bunch of Islamic scholars books who will give me the correct interpretation.>>

I had suggested you that “Karen Armastrong’s “Muhammad – A Prophet of Our Time” would be a good starting point…”

You see her as <<a bunch of Islamic scholars>> ?
An ex Catholic nun, she has secular views, presently, I understand – definitely not a Muslim.

The problem with you and your associates is that you distort facts – even those which have been recorded and can be reproduced like this one.

What would you do the previous history is quite obvious.

Re-read about Armstrong’s treatment of the issue of a Madina (Jewish) tribe who violated a written treaty with Muslims in the state of war. The fact is clear to the mainstream scholarship of today, the hate-site stuff excluded.

Abu Safyan (now you say Abu Sayyef?), an important Quraish leader has his conversion recorded in hundreds of mainstream biographies of Muhammad (Saw) and you don’t find any element of a forced conversion. Read real history

JIZYA is a tax on non-Muslims, just as the tax on Muslims that their religion prescribes. Now some citizens should not pay tax because they are non-Muslims? You can’t be serious!

Loudmouth,

Finally you have answered what you thought was my question – your post of 2 March 5:25 pm.

I will now entertain your question.

Remember, I wanted your assurance that you will answer my question when I raise one. I see a change in your position, which can help this exchange.

On your question.

<<are ISIS terrorists acting in accordance with the Koran, or not ?>>

ISIS are terrorists and NO, they are NOT AT ALL acting in accordance with Quran.

I know they claim to be acting according to the teachings of Islam. But they are a mislead bunch who are misleading many.

Many others have made similar FALSE claims, as we know.

The man in recent history who unleashed a war on millions of civilians had said “God said to me George…”. I don’t think God said to him what he thought was said to him.

I don’t blame Christianity for his crimes, just as you cannot blame Islam for the crimes of ISIS.

Now my first question to you:

Has the emergence of ISIS anything to do with US invasion of Iraq and its actions that followed there?

Remember, our exchange can continue as long we remain rational and avoid mudslinging.

You may have differences with Islam and religion in general, being an Atheist. I respect your right for choosing your outlook just as I have the right to choose mine.

I may differ with your view of life, but I must NOT ridicule it. By the way, I have seen wonderful people among Atheists and Agnostics. I can say the same about Christians and Jews and people from other belief systems.

NC,

No. You do NOT dictate to me.

So: 'ISIS are terrorists and NO, they are NOT AT ALL acting in accordance with Quran.'

Thank you. That's all I wanted to know.

Joe

NC, please enumerate the "crimes" of George Bush Junior, or senior, prior to 9/11.

NC: Quran does authorise Muslims to resist force by force and there can’t be anything wrong with it.

Yes but if the force comes from moslems, in the form of unreasonable demands, that are against the Local Populations Culture. Those demands being "rejected" by the Local Population is seen as "force" being used against moslems. (moslems can't get their own way.) You are saying that that gives moslems the right to use force on that Local Population. That's what's wrong with it. Which is what is happening all over the Western World where moslems have invaded. (Falsely sought Asylum)

NC: JIZYA is a tax on non-Muslims, just as the tax on Muslims that their religion prescribes. Now some citizens should not pay tax because they are non-Muslims? You can’t be serious!

Why should non-moslems pay the Jizya to moslems? A lot of other Religions pay a Tithe (or Jizya) to their own Religion so paying a Jizya to moslems should "not" be nessessary. But, moslems still force them pay it to moslems, Why?

NC: The problem with you and your associates is that you distort facts.

No we don't that's the problem you can't accept.

NC: The man in recent history who unleashed a war on millions of civilians had said “God said to me George…”. I don’t think God said to him what he thought was said to him.

The West has the same problem with Mohammed, "The man in ancient history who unleashed a war on millions of civilians had said “Allah said to me, Mohammed…”. I don’t think Allah said to him what he thought was said to him. In fact Mohammed was running a Scam on a Grand scale & that Scam has been running ever since.

Cont.

NC: ISIS are terrorists and NO, they are NOT AT ALL acting in accordance with Quran.

Arrr.... sneeky, Note the "NOT AT ALL" but ALL do think so, even if some moslems don't think so. Mainly Shia, I would say, but the Shia are the ones being made War on in this area aren't they. In other areas the Shia are picking on the Sunni using the same rules only to their advantage.

I would say the West should stay out of the entire situation. Seal the Boarders so no one can escape, Women, kids, infirmed, any one who wants in, let them in, keep the heart wrenching Media out of it, & let there begin a free for all among themselves.

Just what are the other Islamic Countries in the area doing, NOTHING. They are calling on the West to do all the hard work. Then, as you do, blame the West. That way it doesn't cost them anything & they can point the finger at the West later.

moslems are sneeky Hypocrites

gawd you're a tit.

To NC

Could you please explain how these Koranic quotes are purely defensive? Do not demand war on non Muslims? And do not compel non believers to convert to Islam or die?

Koran 9:123: “O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the pious.”

Koran 9:73
Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their Home: an evil fate.

8:39: “And fight them until there is no more disbelief in Islam and the religion will all be for Allâh Alone...”

Sura (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

"I am with you: give firmness to the believers, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them

Sura (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."

If these are "misquotes", then the onus is upon you to provide the correct quotes.

AP news had an article that covered some of the issues which I think sums it up fairly well. "How Islamic is Islamic State group? Not very, experts say" http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_306481/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=NbmKo0GI (from @AP)

I think its clear that many of IS's extremes are rejected by many but the rejections all to often are issues of detail rather than rejection from an entirely different worldview.

I'm not of the view that all muslims pose an risk but I have little time for those who claim that the extremes of IS have nothing to do with the religion.

If muslims want that position to be believed the religion as practiced needs to move a long way further away from some of its current positions and be far more clear in its rejection of those who would lay the groundwork for extremism.

R0bert

gawd you're a tit.

Posted by Craig Minns

Thank you Craig. Tits are nice. They serve a great purpose by nourishing children & helping them grow. So, I'm glad to be of service to you by explaining true Islam.

Oh, Jayb, what a witty response...

Oh, Igor, what a witty response...

Ah, I hear the distinctive morning chorus of Corvus Dementicus (the white crow, sometimes known as the senile cuckoo for its habit of regurgitating its sh1t into other people's nests).

Better, Frank?

Igor, do you have anything to offer but vapid inanities ?

Robert,

I can appreciate that people raised in a non-discussing environment, one in which dogma is taken for granted (especially the dogmas of a thousand years ago), may be having great difficulty in coming to terms with the modern world and its openness and freedoms, no matter how imperfect they may seem to us who are accustomed to them. To question their True Book must be excruciatingly difficult for them, if only because there is always the threat that 'questioning' may be akin to apostasy, and risk, if not execution, at least expulsion from the community of believers.

It must often be very difficult to reconcile taken-for-granted beliefs and practices with those of a more open society such as Australia's. Multiculturalism is not a problem-free zone, obviously, but it's what we have to make work.

As part of that (since it is so topical around the world these days), we need to put it on notice that something as barbaric as Shari'a law will never, never be adopted in Australia, not one tiny part of it.

We must defend the rights of every Australian, no matter what country they come from, or religion they follow, to equality before the law, no matter how imperfectly it may be applied in reality, and that secular law, the law of the majority of Australian expressed through our parliamentary representatives, must trump any religious law 100 %, forever.

Joe

Lego,
Your post 3 March 1:10 AM

You have repeated verses and also included two new ones.

On your new quotes
Your translation of 8:39 is

<<8:39: “And fight them until there is no more disbelief in Islam and the religion will all be for Allâh Alone...”>>

The actual translation is (easily verifiable from the internet – other than the hate-sites)

8:39- And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.[Translation Pickthal]

See the difference?

1. Your source replaces ‘persecution’ by <<disbelief in Islam>>, which makes a whole lot of difference; and more importantly

2. Your source omits the part of verse which holds real significance to the point in issue. ‘But if they cease’, tells an average intelligence that the authorisation is to resist the force by force and must be end as soon as the aggression ‘ceases’.

Here is strong case for you to discard this source of yours for good.

Your translation of 8:12

<<Sura (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them">>

The actual translation
8:12- When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger. [Translation Pickthal]

This verse and few previous ones relate to the STATE OF WAR and aim for the hearts of the oppressed to be at rest in face of much bigger aggression they faced for years. This is a perfectly understandable handling of the challenges of war.

More importantly, is all about RESISTING FORCE by FORCE.

Let us conclude discussion on your new references before we revisit the ones already covered in my post of 1 March (9:123; 9:73; and 9:5).

Tell me in particular what you have to say about your misquote of the verse 8:39

Luciferase,

On your

<<NC, please enumerate the "crimes" of George Bush Junior, or senior, prior to 9/11.>>

You would agree, that I am not evaluating the actions of junior or senior Bush, although it can be a topic in itself (TII). Without calling their actions ‘crimes’ one can question the validity of the oft-repeated ‘US global interests’ and 'the new world order' by the senior and junior Bush (interestingly, the phrases seem to have disappeared from US foreign policy assertions) and the consequences of their policies the world is still confronted with. But this TII requires a discussion not connected to the point in issue.

The point in issue was (and is) the justification of one’s horrible actions with the help of the symbols of respect- a deviation covering a ‘motivation’ with a ‘justification’ aptly pointed out by Craig Minns in a different thread.

ISIS uses Islam to justify their crimes and Bush used God to pursue his objectives. This comparison is independent of Bushs’ actions prior to 9/11.

Joe, nicely said.

R0bert

"You would agree, that I am not evaluating the actions of junior or senior Bush"......."The point in issue was (and is) the justification of one’s horrible actions with the help of the symbols of respect.."

NC, you use the "crimes" of USA to bring us to why it is not a holy book, your symbol of respect, that should be on trial along with its extreme adherents. If you're going to be doing that, state the crimes. The US had no intention of sending troops into the ME before 9/11, a crime you don't want to talk about (as it interferes with your narrative?).

Also, from a previous thread, please state which ME nations have no control over their assets, as that was a charge you made against the West as further justification for the behaviour of ISIS. ISIS is not a nation, whatever its aspirations, yet is busily separating citizens from their share of national assets by stealing them and/or killing the citizens.

Yes Joe, a good comment, very much in line with my own viewpoint and, I suspect, that of the majority of Moslems in this country.

As a nation of immigrants we've been through all of this before and we'll probably go through it again. It gives old women something to talk about and old men something to get their blood flowing. Then the old men and old women die off and we're all just Australians together.

Nothing to see here, move on folks...

Discussion Adrift !

The article being discussed by the Forum quotes the Prime Ministers's security statement promising to clamp down on those "who incite religious or racial hatred" and those who participate in "blatantly spreading discord and division".

The author also points out the fallacy of the en vogue trend to associate everything Islamic with everything anti-western and thereby everything un-Australian. He warns that this recurring theme is starting to promote hate, disenfranchising people and sowing the seeds of discord in society, which is not good for Australian society and for its democracy.

A brief look at the prevalent environment is necessary to make sense of the points being raised in the discussion.

Australia compared with other countries is an island...of peace and tranquility, yet being part of the global village is effected by the chaos in the world. The world is an arena of competing national interests with ever raging quest for resources and increased influence. The stronger nations are engaged in the pursuits of economic, territorial, or geopolitical advantages, but they mask these dictates of real politick behind more palatable phrases of pursuit of peace or destruction of WMD and war on terror etc. The current turmoil in the Middle East is rooted in the West's desire to control the resources of the region; invasion of Egypt by Israel, Britain and France in 1956 over nationalization of Suez Canal and removal from power the elected prime minister Mosaddegh in a coup on 19 August 1953, by the CIA and MI6, and later
installation of Shah of Iran, are two glaring examples. The mass scale terrorism was introduced for destruction of main rival of the Western World; The Soviet Union. Mujahideen were created by the West and were pumped up to defend their faith Islam with the world behind them. Brzezinski who was US National Security Advisor at the time, addressed the Afghan Mujahideen as soldiers of God and said " your cause is right and God is on your side". http://youtu.be/uhFleLinwEM. "People we are fighting today, we funded" (US Secretary of State http://youtu.be/LNB4jtFrg1E.)

Continued..

Continues:-
Then the greed for the oil of the region triggered the occupation of Iraq and the world was told it was to destroy the WMD...... Iraq never had any. Iraq or its regime at the time had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq was a secular nation; having nothing to do with Islam or Islamism.
Then Libyan government was toppled with the assistance of Western recruited mercenaries, who spilled over to Syria, where the "opposition" has been actively supported by the West. IS is armed with US weapons and was raised by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, as divulged by the US Vice President, who later retracted his statement. Finally the role and interest of Israel is a major factor in the Middle Eastern environment. It is viewed as illegal occupier of Arab land and has caged the Arab population, subjecting it to genocide , and in the words of Jimmy Carter, apartheid

Public opinion maters. Therefore a proper propaganda strategy has to be in tandem with every geopolitical initiative. Remember, both Eisenhower and Nixon had decided, on two separate occasions, to nuke North Korea but both failed to do so, because of one reason; insufficient public support at home. The public opinion has to be prepared first, and facts are twisted and concocted, if necessary.

Richard Perle’s strategy of “de-contextualization is one such effort of misleading the public opinion. ” Perle, a leading neoconservative militarist (and a prominent advisor of the Likud party of Israel), coined the term “de-contextualization” as a way to explain both the desperate acts of terrorism in general and the violent tactics of the Palestinian resistance to occupation in particular. He argued that in order to blunt the widespread global criticism of the Israeli treatment of Palestinians, their resistance to occupation must be de-contextualized; that is, we must stop trying to understand the territorial, geopolitical and historical reasons that some groups turn to terrorism for. Instead, he suggested, the reasons for the violent reactions of such groups must be sought in the arenas of culture and/or religion—in the Islamic way of thinking.

Continued...

Continues:-

De-contextualization strategy has been part of a well-orchestrated effort to divert attention from the root causes of terrorism.
Samuel P Huntington expanded the same argument to coin his theory of “the clash of civilizations,” implying that Islam is inherently irreconcilable with modernization and Western values.( the argument reverberated on this Forum too) He argued that international conflicts erupt not because of imperialistic pursuits of economic, territorial, or geopolitical advantages but because of non-Western civilizations’ reactions to Western power and values.

It is this environment in which this Forum is discussing the article. To recapitulate, the environment is:-

. Stronger nations are engaged in the pursuits of economic, territorial, or geopolitical advantages

. The aggressing nations do not confess that they are engaged in these pursuits but coin palatable phrases, to mask the real aim.

. Blatant lies are told to deceive the public opinion at home and abroad. And gullible of the world are ready to believe in the lies like the Iraqi WMD. People at home enraged by the 9/11 are made to acquiesce massacre of 1.5 million even though the victims had nothing to do with 9/11

. Propaganda or disinformation strategy is in tandem with every strategic initiative.

. Top intellectuals assist in twisting the facts and providing propaganda themes.

. Definitions are changed to project any one as friend or foe, at will. Afghans fighting the Soviet occupation were "Soldiers of God with the World Behind Them" and same Afghans were terrorist when fighting the US/NATO occupation. And the gullible believed.

. Military Coup d'état in Egypt is the "Way to Democracy"and the gullible believe.

. Qaddafi was a despot and had to be removed....others in the region are not despots and the gullible believe.

. A vast majority swallows as truth, what ever lies are rammed down their throat by the main stream media. Some zealots get so worked up that they kill Sikhs as Muslims. This class is so full with their ignorance that they feel no need to have their facts straight, first hand. They are the lot that spreads hate.


Continued...

Continues:-

. Some people make effort to find facts to discern truth, in order to make their own judgement. They are a minority yet provide hope for the sanity to prevail. Lesley Hazleton is one such person who devoted three weeks to study Quran first hand and actually ended up spending three months in doing so and then came out to tell others how false were the allegations on this book. http://youtu.be/3Y2Or0LlO6g

Australia is relatively an island of peace and tranquility. Should its peace and tranquility be preserved or should the fire of hatred kindled by falsehood elsewhere be imported in to burn it. That is the question before the Forum.

What is relevant to the topic is that is it good for Australia to incite religious or racial hatred and to blatantly spread discord and division?
And is promotion of hate, disenfranchising people and sowing the seeds of discord, good for Australian society and for its democracy?

These are two questions. Please take a position on these points under discussion. Squeers, has taken a position in his/her post of Wednesday, 25 February 2015 3:41:01 PM "The idea that we're, "a people of community, of equal rights and believers in a fair go" is patent nonsense perpetuated by colloquial history and pc propaganda. We're actually a nation of mean-spirited ethnocentrists and racists, by and large."

That is an opinion, I do not agree with, but respect the person for honesty.
The honesty, some others who have posted hate, have not shown. They have gone.....we hate Islam and Muslims because...... "Because", here is irrelevant. Every one has a "because" the killers of Sikhs, taking them as Muslims had their " because". Those who fired at their temple in California, unable to differentiate it from a Masjid, had a "because" and the hater who took the lives of three bright young students, the other day, had his " because". No "because" can justify hatred.

Please keep the justifications to yourself, these are totally irrelevant to the discussion. State with honesty that you are for or against hatred.

.


Concluded.

Luciferace,

Your post of 3 March

The right context will avoid confusion.

ONE: In the current discussion, you use the word ‘crime’ on my behalf even though I responded to you with “Without calling their actions ‘crimes’ one can question the validity of..” for US policies prior to 9/11;

TWO: The word ‘crime’ does apply to the killing of about one Million civilians in the war unleashed in Afghanistan and Iraq. You think it was not a crime, it is your outlook and in contrast with the ongoing effort in UK Parliament and by some in the public to try Toni Blare for that crime.

THREE: Now you bring in the previous thread! The main contention, to remind you, was your insistence of forcing your ‘secular’ democracy on other countries where I maintained that the choice of running their governments is the prerogative of each nation.

FOUR: Also on the previous thread, I pointed to the universal right of every country to have control of their resources to which you responded with your famous observation ‘you have fully bared your teeth’, but then retracted in part, but you have not still answered my question as to what made you think that I had bared my teeth – apparently you jumped to my perceived support for the so-called Islamic state, which was a huge error of judgement.

FIVE: Now your <<please state which ME nations have no control over their assets>> seems to have to do with the item FOUR above. Please see that to take this further, I will have put the description in its right context which will require for me to reproduce your comments in response to my contention – luckily every word is recorded and can be readily quoted from the previous posts. Please let me know if you want me to do that.

From your perspective then, McAdam, you would support Islamicists' retaliating against the West, in self-defense?

NC, on 2 March 2015 8:04:28 PM you called it "crime" so I guess you meant crime. I guess also that you are with McAdam on justifications for the killing of westerners by Islamicists, i.e. you sympathize.

Going into Iraq was the mistake, based on misinformation, but millions of Shiites and Kurds were spared Saddam's (Sunni's)genocide, and despotism was replaced with democracy, albeit still developing. I support going into Afghanistan and anywhere else people are being trained to kill westerners. Get them before they get me, I say, and too bad if you are offended.

RE assets, which ME nations (as in those that are members of the UN) are dispossessed? Explain yourself on the matter instead of waving your arms about and expecting agreement.

Raising justifications for the existence/behaviour of ISIS to deflect criticism of the Quran is s slippery slope. Be careful

Luciferase,

"From your perspective then, McAdam, you would support Islamicists' retaliating against the West, in self-defense?"

What is this question?......and where has it come from?
Does it emanate from my writing or is it your hallucination? If it is from my writing, then please quote where I suggested such a thing.

Do you really believe that Islam or Muslims are waging a war against the West, through a few goons, armed with Western supplied arms and waving huge flags for photo sessions? Is that your understanding of warfare? Have you ever observed a real war or ever read warfare?
Have the sentries in war, ever carried 4 feet by 4 feet flags, along with flag poles on their shoulders, rendering them unable to use their weapons? Have the drivers ever driven in war, with big flags interfering with their field of view?

Barring MacArthur's landing at Luzon-Lingayen Gulf, can you quote an example from entire military history, where the belligerent soldiers manifested such a staged behavior?

Quote me a single example from the history of warfare, where a force comprising of tanks, armored cars, soft vehicle and foot soldiers, denuded of air cover, faced with the dominant hostile air power in desert environment; with no overhead cover/protection and with no effort to camouflage, survived so long without anti air capability. Particularly with omni present and ever watching drones.

And then you post again;
" I guess also that you are with McAdam on justifications for the killing of westerners by Islamicists, i.e. you sympathize."

Now where has this come from?
My statement?
Which?

It is a blatant lie that you are telling.

I said nothing like this nonsense that you attribute to me.
It is only the creation of your fears and sickness of your mind, that you have exposed. This is pricely the caveat in the article, that hatred and fear harms the individuals and the society. These things make people sick, like you appear to be, right now.

I seriously doubt your sound mindedness, unless you substantiate your allegation; ball is in your court.

Good luck.

Luciferase,

The confusion that your post of 4 March creates warrants reference to the previous thread that you brought in earlier.

I said (NC post 12 Jan 8:29 PM):

“There is nothing wrong with the Muslims, like other nations in the post-colonial era, to aim for controlling their own resources.”

To which you responded (Luciferase post of 12 Jan 9:22 PM):

<<"There is nothing wrong with the Muslims, like other nations in the post-colonial era, to aim for controlling their own resources."

Finally bared your teeth fully, NC. Go The Muslim nation, Islamic State, The Caliphate! Go you good thing!

Why dint'cha just say that in the beginning?>>

Now look at my statement, that you have repeated;
and then look at what you see in it:

1. <<Finally bared your teeth fully, NC>>;
2. << Go The Muslim nation, Islamic State, The Caliphate! Go you good thing!>>;
3. << Why dint'cha just say that in the beginning?>>

Luciferase, YOU SEE ONLY what is in your mind, because none of it is in my statement.

Despite my repeated reminders (and I ask you once again to show me how you see all that in my statement), you have not answered this question, could have helped the readers.

And now you come up with another delusion of YOUR mind: <<I guess also that you are with McAdam on justifications for the killing of westerners by Islamicists..>>

You can’t find this in any of my posts, still you have the guts to make this statement. Amazing!

McAdam seems to have similar issues with your delusions (McAdam post of 5 Mar 11:58 AM.)

For me, frankly “you have bared your teeth fully”. So much for the “secular” broad look of yours.

Your post of 4 March carries other false conclusions/statements.

Now my problem is what should I answer? A question must be rational to attract a reasoned response.

Please revisit your style and write something reasonable to work with.

The poor old Aborigines must have wondered who the extremists were plundering their country way back and then giving them the so called white fella religion when they had the dreamtime which possibly was far better.
Now we have white fella Muslim trying their hardest to bestow extremist Allah on white fella religion, when all said and done white fella religion at present is better, like dreamtime.
What a queer?, oops, stupid world we live in.

McAdam, "What is this question?......and where has it come from?" You've banged on and on about the evil West, across threads. Why?

These recapitulations of your historical perspective are for what purpose? Ultimately they are supposed to be swallowed whole as a defense against the accusation that the Quran is a basis for Islamicist violence.

NC adds his claim of asset dispossession for the same purpose, but errs in asserting yet again (above) that these belong to Muslims rather than ME nations, as if they are one in the same. This is the mindset of ISIS. Furthermore, he offers no example of a ME nation which does not control its assets, i.e that is dispossessed. Just like you, he presumes the agreement of all with his narrative and goes crackers at anybody reading into it.

BTW, the citing of light-weight authors/speakers with rose-tinted glasses, who have been critiqued all over the internet, adds no ballast to either of your arguments.

Luciferase,
"McAdam, "You've banged on and on about the evil West, across threads. Why?"

Evil West?
I said that?
Where?
Please quote.
And if you can not quote, which you never will be, because I never said that, as I recognize the immense good done to humanity by the West and its people being essentially good, would it not be proof of your unsound mental condition, that you take your thoughts to be actual events. You do hallucinate, it appears.

Mind you, the substantiation of your earlier allegations on me for having said things that I never said, is still due.

Then you go on to say;

"These recapitulations of your historical perspective are for what purpose? Ultimately they are supposed to be swallowed whole as a defense against the accusation that the Quran is a basis for Islamicist violence."

Recapitulations are an attempt to understand the real reasons for the world events so that we are not mislead by likes of the the people who told us of Iraqi WMD.
How is the attempt to understand real reasons for world events, linked with Quran? It beats me.
I can not fathom, how your twisted mind works, but what you write is utter nonsense.

Please see for yourself, the havoc hatred plays with the beholder. It saps the faculty of reasonable thought. Please have pity on yourself and stop hating and fearing fellow humans. The world would be lot better, without hatred; the basic point of the article we are discussing.

I can carry on discussion with you, only if you base it on facts with proof and not ask me to chase the wild goose of your suppositions and unsubstantiated assumptions.

Take car

I been away for a few days upgrading my computer & cleaning up a yard for a lady whose mother has gone into a home. Nothing but Bougainvillea & rusted Washing Machine Pot Plant & Brown Snakes. Really good fun stuff. Did I miss anything?

I'm just trying to understand exactly what is meant by "Persecution, Oppressed & State of War," according to the Koran & Hadith.

8:39- And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.[Translation Pickthal]

N.C: 2. Your source omits the part of verse which holds real significance to the point in issue. ‘But if they cease’, tells an average intelligence that the authorisation is to resist the force by force and must be end as soon as the aggression ‘ceases’.

By Persecution does that mean anything that moslems declare as persecution to Islam. E.g.:

Refusal to be allowed to build a Mosque,
Refusal to move a Pig farm after a Mosque is build on the neighbouring land,
Refusing to grant a special day for moslems & screen off an area for moslem women at the Local Swimming Pool,
Refusal to put a screen around the Local Pool because the sight of so many naked bodies is offensive to moslems.
Refusing to pay to have a food declared Halal.
Declaring that the Burka or other such women's clothing inhumane.
Declaring that Sharia Law is forbidden.
Declaring that a moslem can only have one wife.

& many, many more are considered to be persecution of moslems. Therefore they have the right to "defend" themselves or fight the unbelievers by killing innocent unbelieving civilians anywhere in the World. E.g., Lindt Café. The Policeman in Victoria, ect, ect.

So If moslems are refused any of these things then that means that unbeleivers have declared War on Islam & moslems.? Is that correct?

Cont>

>Cont.

N.C: The actual translation
8:12- When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger. [Translation Pickthal]

This verse and few previous ones relate to the STATE OF WAR and aim for the hearts of the oppressed to be at rest in face of much bigger aggression they faced for years. This is a perfectly understandable handling of the challenges of war.

So if moslems are refused any of the above then they are being oppressed by unbelievers & "a State of War" has been started by unbelievers on moslems. Is that correct?
So in this verse I believe it is saying that if all of the Refusals mentioned above are stopped & the moslems get their own way, E.g.:

They are allowed to build as many Mosques as they like.
Pigs or Pork Products are Banned in Australia.
Moslems can have special days & special areas screened for moslem women.
Swimming Polls must be screened from the Public so moslems can't see unbelievers swimming.
The Halal Tax must be payed to muslems on every peice of food produced.
All women must wear a Burka os similar clothing.
Sharia Law must be introduced in Australia as the only Legal Law.
Moslems can have as many wives as they can afford even some temporary ones.

When this all happens & the unbelievers will have ceased making War on moslems by giving into all of their demands, then the War will be over. Is this correct?

LUCIFERASE,

Your post of 5 March 4:29 PM

On my earlier statement “There is nothing wrong with the Muslims, like other nations in the post-colonial era, to aim for controlling their own resources.”:

The statement obviously implied Muslim nations and Muslim countries, which is perfectly in line with the Language-of-the-Day.

Pick up newspapers, hear world politicians speak, follow world forums, read books you will hear these words used every day all across the globe.

You think that I have the ISIS mindset because I use these words.

Can you dare call anyone from a forum where you can be seen for who you are, carrying << the mindset of ISIS>> just because they used these words? Can you? Do answer me.

Are out to set language-standards for the world?

Is this task not a little too large for someone operating with a pseudonym in an infinitesimally small part of gigantic world media? Think about it!!

You indicated your problem before by insisting earlier (and will still do, I am sure) on a permanent prefix of ‘secular’ before the world ‘democracy’, where ever it is to be found or used or talked about etc.

But this latest gaffe of yours beats even that.

My problem still remains. How can I talk to you? I need something rational to respond to!

Religion is the cause of all the pain & suffering that is in the world, it always has been and always will be until the human race realises there is no proof that imaginary beings exist, even here we have writers quoting Bible passages and Koran passages, I look forward to the day when writers can show proof and not quote from books of a very dubious writing long ago, both supposedly of love but both cruel in their many passages, until the Governments of the world stop being contradictory as we are seeing now, lighting candles for two drug mules so they will not be shot but sending three hundred extra soldiers to Iraq perhaps to be shot in the same manner, not only them but civilians as well, when will all the candles be lit for the civilians killed, the answer being never, after all the Government created the legitimate scene for heads to be blown off, but cry not for them, only for two drug trafficking mules who knew what they were doing in the first place, what a farce.

Well NC, that's two of my Posts that you have refused to answer or just plain ignored because, the truth hurts. Ay.

Putting it an Islamic scenario;

I have made a demand, in a "Get my own way" Islamic manner & you have refused that demand therefore, you are the aggressor. I am being oppressed by your refusal. In your terms that's that mean that you have declared War on me. I now have the right to defend myself by throwing fear into the hearts of you who oppress & persecute me. I now can smite the necks and smite of you each finger. Is that right?

That's how it works? Isn't it?

WHAT IS GOING ON ?

The raging bull takes the red rag to be the real enemy. Public opinion can also be deflected. Discerning minds should instead be able to see, the bull fighter waving the red rag.
It requires vision nurtured with effort, because those who put themselves at the mercy of vagaries of media can be manipulated to remain focussed on the red rag.

I attempted to explain the reality behind the Middle Eastern Turmoil, but that was seen, by one, as if I was justifying the terrorism or I was favoring the killing the Westerners; how unfortunate, how unfair. That has necessitated this second attempt.
This is an attempt, to understand the method in the madness all around, in order to remain on the side of sanity rather than allowing ourselves to become part to of the madness; please bear with me.

Mutual competition or constant state of struggle is in the nature of life. Survival of the Fittest (Herbert Spencer). Natural Selection or Evolution (Darwin). Conquer or be Conquered (Hamlicar, father of Hannibal)

Nature improves itself through competition; the fitter survive. It is an ongoing phenomenon in the plant kingdom as well as in the animal kingdom.....and of course it applies to humans too. The definition of fitter, in case of humans is a tricky question. We'll come to it later. First, let's try and understand the phenomenon by an example of sports. The actual aim of sports is improvement of human health and fitness. Competitions are a means to that end. Those who keep the real end in mind, work hard and try to better themselves. That is in accordance with the real aim; betterment. Some short sighted fools take the mean ( winning the match) as an end in itself and become willing to do anything to win; doping, bribing, match fixing and physically targeting the opponent player (Stabbing of Monica Seles), all appear fair to them. These are the misguided ones. Their effort does not help the ultimate purpose; to bring out the best, in the players. It does just the opposite.

Continued..

Continues:-
The dopers, match fixers, bribers, or knife users on the opponent player, are the examples which bring out the worst in the sports arena. In actual struggle of life,the extremists, terrorists, haters and people who use blatant lies to mislead and misguide others are their counter parts.

Sports is one example to illustrate the point. Nations or civilization do not interact exactly as sports teams. There is no Olympic Committee in their case. They interact autonomously, with power being the ultimate legitimizer. International dealings are anarchic. . Most of us err in judging the actions of the nations by the standards that guide communities and individuals. There is a huge difference. Individuals and communities live, like the animals in a dairy farm, where the state acts as the farmer giving each its share. The odd one out who tries to grab some one else's share can have his/her leash tightened. Nations have no farmer taking care of them, they interact as the wild life in the jungle. They have to grab their grub. If carnivores for example, did not kill, they would perish. But killing for food in the context of diary farm is unacceptable crime.
This is the dilemma of the leaders, when they are compelled to act in accordance with the dictates of "jungle" and then are required to justify those actions in the frame of reference of "dairy farm". They are compelled to tell them. They are going after WMD, world peace or war on terror etc because people at home would not acquiesce killing or being killed for "oil".

Now the question; what is unfit and what is fitter in case of humans? This is a tricky question which is faced by the humanity, since the beginning and has been addressed by all religions. There has never been a consensus on the answer. To assume, that there would be one, as a result of this post, is unrealistic. and unlimited greed for wealth. This attitude is so self centered that the beholder sees everything else and every one else as a consumable resource.
Continued..

Maybe we're not communicating effectively on this thread because some of us are using different rules or conventions about how to communicate, what discussion means, what a debate means. Like Jayb, I perceive 'discussion' as being evidence-based, truth-seeking, quite deliberately NOT bringing the personal into the discussion, but trying to keep on topic.

As well, some people seem to think that to even question something means that you are either attacking, or (to pre-empt the 'discussion') lying. No, to question merely means to question, to query, to raise issues that one is not clear about. But for people embedded in a more dogmatic world-view, to question is to attack. And as you suggest, Jayb, from this warped point of view, to attack is therefore seen as persecution, justifying a counter-attack.

How does one raise issues if one side perceives such queries as grounds for violent counter-attack ? How can one get across to such people that it is permissible, even imperative, that queries be allowed ? How does one learn but by asking questions and exploring whatever is put up as 'evidence' ?

I think we've got a hell of a long way to go yet.

Joe

Continues:-

The beholders of this attitude only keep feeding themselves and become too big and unsustainable dinosaurs. Nature discards them and moves on with the help of leaner and sustainable specimens.
Second point is the focus of nature's improvement in humans; is it physique? Is it mind? Or is it both in the right balance? The last appears to be the preference of nature. Nature appears to favor the gentler souls who are mindful of fellow creatures. They live and let live. They do not waste, they dot destroy. They use natural resources to the minimum and care for sustainability and diversity. Improvement in humans is not in physical sense only but in character and in mental faculties too, that is the focus of all religions. This makes sense when Bible says "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." Methew 5:5

I am aware that the last lines will not be well received by some. Please don't let that be a distraction. Don't start a side debate on this point, please go ahead and stick to your belief but remain focussed on the main point. The main point is that this mutual struggle must bring out the best among us and not the worst. The negatives like; hatred, suspicion and fear must be discouraged. That is the point that the article makes. We are different and so shall we remain. We must learn to live with and accommodate each other. Now a point about West.

Continued..

Me thinks Joe there is a long way to go for the writers on OLO, everybody has a different opinion to your opinion, some agree, some don't, that is what makes OLO interesting, let's keep the bullets at bay and leave it to the extremist Governments, they are all very good at it.

Hi Onjab,

No, I certainly don't expect all that many readers of OLO to agree with me on anything, but I'm trying to understand why and how people on this thread are sort of talking past each other, not on the same wavelength. And I do think it is a symptom of, not necessarily a 'clash of civilizations' as Huntington would have suggested, but certainly of different views - perhaps different civilizational views - of what counts as evidence, the interpretation of reality, the salience or not of divine revelation - different views on what counts as truth.

Not only that, but this also involves the perception of who is entitled to speak, to make pronouncements - in a standard Western environment, everybody is theoretically entitled to flap their lips equally, to express their opinions, to put their views to all and sundry and to put up with disagreement; in other, more dogmatic (can one say 'more backward'? perhaps not) cultures, questioning is forbidden, 'truth' is already there, revealed in magic books, or in books passed down by imaginary gods (and in a sort of magic language that few can read: sounds like Latin in the Middle Ages).

Here we are in 2015. The Enlightenment has been in painful process for two or three hundred years in the West. It has spawned revolutions, and in turn, reactions. As a human construct, if not the most crucial human construct, it is imperfect, unfinished, never rounded off and completed. Dogmatists hate it, fear it, on both left and right. But it opens the way to human discovery, to the overthrowing of crap ideas, and with them, outmoded authority structures.

So it is vital to get this 'discussion' onto the right track.

Joe

I'm only trying to genuinely understand, from an Islamic point of view, just what constituted an act of Hostility, or Persecution.

Is an Act of Hostility against Islam the drawing of a Cartoon of Mohammed?

Would an Act of Hostility be, the People of a Country, asking Moslems to leave that Country, after having accepted them as Asylum Seekers. The reason being that a number "Lone Wolfs" Islamist Fanatics have taken to killing random innocent unbelieving civilians. It is found that a lot more of these random killings are planned?

Would an Act of Persecution be any one of my previous posts reasons? See Page 18 Monday, 2 March 2015 1:51:24 PM. & Page 24 Thursday, 5 March 2015 8:37:43 PM.

Your Answers NC would go a long way in helping me, indeed a lot of us Infidels, to understand the Islamic mind & the interpretations in the Koran as seen by moslems.

Jay if the scale and intensity of reaction is anything to go by drawing cartoons is apparently a far greater act of hostility than chopping of the head of an aid worker in the name of the faith or the kidnapping of school girls as brides by those claiming to be of that faith. Perhaps that different world view but I consider the actions of those who do evil in the name of a belief or cause I value as doing the greater wrong than outsiders mocking.

R0bert

Continues:-

West has done a lot of good and the humanity as a whole has benefitted from it immensely. History would always record with gratitude, the leadership to modernity it has provided. It's people are mostly hard working, fair minded and law abiding. They are charitable and more tolerant of diversity than possibly any other people. Others have some good in them too, that West can benefit from, in humanity's quest to find answers to the challenges currently faced, but that is a separate topic.

Humans are competitors but more like the fellow athletes in the Olympic Village. We must not view each other as enemies and not go at one and other with knives. We should instead focus on ourselves to be as good as we could be. That is the right way to win and that is what nature wants from us all. We have to overcome our weaknesses and we must constantly endeavor to do so. What will ultimately matter is how have we made ourselves better; individually and collectively. Good individuals result in good society, as society reflects the individuals it has. : “Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure there is one less rascal in the world. ( Carlyle)

Concluded

The silence from our moslem friends is deafening.

I take the questions I asked are correct. moslems consider any refusal of any of their Demands as an Act of War on Islam & Persecution. Therefore they have the right to kill any Innocent Australian Civilian they please.

I suppose that jailing that moslem guy for marrying & having sex with that 12 year old is Persecution & an Act of War too.

Hi Jayb,

You suggest: 'I suppose that jailing that moslem guy for marrying & having sex with that 12 year old is Persecution & an Act of War too.'

Surely not ! Surely NC and McAdam would agree that abiding by the law and protecting the right of young children are paramount, and that it was not just illegal but an evil thing for that man to abuse that child in that way, 'marriage' or not.

And they would probably agree that any marriage celebrant who approved that abuse should also be prosecuted. Even if somebody could find support for such abuse in the Koran, NC and McAdam would surely agree that that was then, this is 2015, where the rights of children are far better protected.

Wouldn't you, NC ? McAdam ?

Joe

Could we, as Australian Law abiding Citizens, claim that moslems are being hostile towards Australia's Secular Society by demanding Sharia Law be introduced? Or, by building mosques where the people don't want them. Could those people be seen as being persecuted by being forced to have a mosque built in their neighbourhood? Could Australian people be persecuted & forced to swim behind a curtain in shame because moslems don't like to see "naked" bodies?

Should Australians consider these demands as hostile Acts? Should Australians be forced to defend ourselves until these moslems convert to a Secular Culture?

So many questions. So few answers from the vocal moslems on OLO.

There is no silence, as there is no need for it.
I am willing to respond to any question, provided it is relevant to the topic under discussion, and the topic being that fanning religious or racial hatred and spreading discord and division is not good for Australia.

Passing references and hypothetical assumptions are no questions.

Hardly hypothetical, McAdam - the topic relates directly to the nature of democracy and attacks on it, subtle as they may be, by extremists.

Democracy in Australia directly involves the protection of the rights of all Australians, including Muslim girls and women. One of those rights is the right not to be abused and exploited.

One corollary of those rights involves the right of young girls not to be married off before a statutory age, and not without their full concurrence.

So the question remains: do you or don't you support child, i.e. under-age, marriages ? Yes ? No ?

Joe

Loudmouth: So the question remains: do you or don't you support child, i.e. under-age, marriages ? Yes ? No ?

More to the point McAdam as Australia is a Democracy & the people in Australia have Laws against Child Abuse.

McAdam: The topic being that fanning religious or racial hatred and spreading discord and division is not good for Australia.

Is Australia's Refusal to allow moslem men to marry & have sex with underage children, spreading discord, racial hatred, and division?

Does Australia's jailing of moslems who marry & have sex with underage little girls constitute Persecution & Oppression of moslems?

Sheesh, now every Muslim's a paedophile!

Obviously, every Pom is too, because...Jimmy Saville, Gary Glitter...

Let's not mention any of the Australian rock-spiders...

On the other hand, I'd be prepared to bet my life that only a generation or 3 ago the ancestry of all of you holier-than-thou ratbags contains mothers who were 12 or not much older.

Fair dinkum, you lot are nongs!

Reductio ad absurdum, Igor. Who ever said that all Muslims are paedophiles ? Is that how you understand questions about child marriage ?

But while we are on the subject, what's YOUR take on it ? Do YOU support child marriage ? Even 'only' for Muslims ?

Let's get to the nub: do you support different rights (and, for girls, fewer rights) for Muslims than for other Australians ? Do you understand the notion of the separation of culture/church and State ? That people can believe what they like, and ALL still come under the same laws, especially those regarding the rights of women, especially children ?

And if their beliefs don't quite mesh with those laws, then tough, suck it up: re-examine your beliefs to see how inequality and injustice can have a place in them.

Joe

CM: Sheesh, now every Muslim's a paedophile!

No Craig you have deliberately misunderstood. You are probably right about the past though. E.g Mary, the mother of Joshua (Jesus) was only 13 when she gave birth to him, 12 when she was inseminated. But, this is not about the past. The World has moved on. Well, at least in the West.

CM: Let's not mention any of the Australian rock-spiders.

Yep & we send them to Jail. The Australian "Western" population doesn't think they are being Persecuted or Oppressed. There-in lies they difference or is that a bit hard for you to understand without deflecting the point.

Sick TENDENCIES and awkward INHIBITIONS 1 of 2

On Loudmouth’s post (7 March 3:49 PM) addressed to Jayb

Loudmouth, during his ‘rare fits of decency’ complains about
<<not communicating effectively on this thread because SOME OF US ARE USING DIFFERENT RULES or conventions about how to communicate>> (his earlier post)

On DIFFERENT RULES: he likes to ask questions, but avoids/refuses answers to my questions – my posts are full of evidence. Do you need to be reminded Loudmouth? There is about a week old question you have NOT UNASWERED yet(NC post 2 March 8:04 PM)

Now he has thrown another one about marrying the underage. The law of the land must deal with any deviation from it, beyond any doubt.

This is not the issue. The issue is his tendency to tie the acts of the deranged with the teachings of Islam. He has tried it so many times that it is hard to see him part with this sick tendency.

In picking up acts of the deranged he would skip the likes of:

• Elisabeth Fritzl (born 6 April 1966), who told police in the town of Amstetten, Austria, that she had been held captive for 24 years in a concealed corridor part of the basement area of the large family house by her father, Josef Fritzl (born 9 April 1935), and that Fritzl had physically assaulted, sexually abused, and raped her numerous times during her imprisonment. The abuse by her father resulted in the birth of seven children and one miscarriage;

• Peter Scully (Melbournian) the operator of a global paedophile ring who has been arrested for inflicting sexual terror on girls as young as 1.

• A British father who raped his two daughters repeatedly for more than 25 years and had nine children by them has been sentenced to life in jail;

• A daughter who was 14 when father first kissed and sexually touched her, began having sex regularly and first son was born in 2002, and the father jailed for four years after admitting 16-year incestuous relationship.

Sick TENDENCIES and awkward INHIBITIONS 2 of 2

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of disturbed minds in all societies who commit unspeakable crimes on humanity. But there crimes cannot be and must NOT be extended to the belief systems they follow or societies they live in.

Criag Minns (8 March 8:50 AM) points to the same fact.

But the Loudmouths love to make this exception for criminals belonging to Muslim background.

This is a SICK TENDENCY rightly addressed by the article under discussion and rightly resisted by the sane minds.

I see McAdam (7 March 11:01 PM) say << There is no silence, as there is no need for it … I am willing to respond to any question…>>

While I appreciate McAdam’s patience, I regard a communication to be meaningful only as long as stays sensible.

Loudmouth MUST answer my questions when I answer his. Every time he addresses me (given his past conduct, he most likely will), I will remind him of his awkward inhibition of refusing to answer and expecting an answer. He MUST overcome his awkward inhibition for a meaningful exchange that I am all willing to undertake.

Loudmouth MUST NOT USE (in his own words) <<DIFFERENT RULES or conventions about how to communicate>>

Jayb is light years out of sync with anything remotely rational, as observed from his wilful distortions of Quran (NC post 2 March 7:40 PM).

Therefore, pursuing an interaction with some chance of meaningful exchange ONLY, I will do as I said before about Jayb:

<<…I will totally IGNORE anything you write on this or any other thread whosoever it is addressed to.>>

This, from me, is the ONLY appropriate response to Jayb’s posts.

NC,

Your irrelevant question back then ? About the US invasion of Iraq ? Yes, I marched against it, here in Adelaide- the biggest demo I'd been on for thirty years. Fantastic !

Was that it ? Your 'question' ?

But I support your principle against child marriage: 'The law of the land must deal with any deviation from it, beyond any doubt.' Thank you. Are you agreeing that, if there is any support for it in the Koran, it must be opposed ? That, if necessary, the Koran must be questioned and reformed ?

You cite some cases of vile treatment of children. I suspect that a recent case of murder-suicide near Toowoomba may have involved similarly vile practices. Perhaps you could extend your quite correct condemnations to the recent revelations of hundreds of children abused by a Pakistani paedophile ring in England ?

Yes, abuse of children, including child 'marriages', must be severely punished wherever they occur, as you say. But I don't think, and I've never said, that the perpetrators are 'deranged', I think they are usually perfectly sane, utter b@stards, but sane.

And I'm sure that you, like me, would oppose child 'marriages' whenever and wherever they occur, even if someone could find spurious 'support' for them in the Koran.

'Awkward inhibitions' ? Perhaps, I'm a very shy person, but I'll do my best to overcome that :) Fire away. Don't ignore something just because it is inconvenient.

Joe

Let's leave out one protected fish, where is the trial, there will not be one, HRH accused of underage sex for fun, protected and protected in all things they do, if it is ok for him, then it is ok for everyone else.

ojnaB : HRH accused of underage sex for fun, protected and protected in all things they do,

I’ll deal with this first before getting on to NC.

Of course they protect Royalty. They have protected the ME Princes from rape charges in Washington, London & Wellington recently too, & they were straignt out Rapes. But this is a Diversion & Deflection as is the usual moslem tatic (101). Used when getting too close to the truth & the person (usually moslem) doesn’t want to answer the question directly.

Now to NC. I can see why you don’t want to entertain my Questions. Just because Loudmouth didn’t answer one of yours some time ago is no reason not to answer mine. We are different people, you know.

NC: as observed from his wilful distortions of Quran (NC post 2 March 7:40 PM).

Now as far as interpretations go. I have tried my best to understand the Verses, as written. Are you saying that they don’t really mean what they say? What I have asked you to do is to answer “Yes” or “No.”

If “No” then explain to me where my interpretation of that particular verse is wrong, without quoting another verse from somewhere else.

Pulling a sulky because you don’t like a question is noway to have a conversation & frankly rather juvenile.

Cont>

Loudmouth,
"So the question remains: do you or don't you support child, i.e. under-age, marriages ? Yes ? No ?"

You assume that there are two opinions on this point?

Have you heard of "Girls Not Brides statement on UN General Assembly resolution on child, early and forced marriage"?
This statement was co- sponsored by a number of countries including; Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde,Central African Republic, Dominican Republic,Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea,Germany, Ghana, Guinea, Kyrgyzstan,Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Maldives, Mali,Morocco, Somalia, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan and Zambia.

There is universal consensus against child marriages, which is banned in most countries including Muslim countries. Can you quote the countries, that still consider it legal?
Do you see how outdated and removed from reality is your knowledge on the subject?

Then you imply that child marriage menace is exclusively Muslim problem. Please have a look at the following reality:-

1. According to UNICEF's "State of the World's Children-2009" report, 47% of India's women aged 20–24 were married before the legal age of 18, with 56% marrying before age 18 in rural areas. The report also showed that 40% of the world's child marriages occur in India.

2. Child marriage is common in Latin America and the Caribbean island nations. About 29% of girls are married before age 18.The child marriage varies between the countries, with Dominican Republic, Honduras, Brazil, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Haiti and Ecuador reporting some of the highest rates in the Americas.

3. According to UNICEF, Africa has the highest incidence rates of child marriage, with over 70% of girls marrying under the age of 18.

4. The countries with the highest observed rates of child marriages below the age of 18 are Niger, Chad, Mali, Bangladesh, Guinea and the Central African Republic, with a rate above 60%. Niger, Chad, Bangladesh, Mali and Ethiopia were the countries with child marriage rates greater than 20% below the age of 15, according to 2003-2009 surveys.

Continued...

Continues:-

5. Child marriage, as defined by UNICEF, includes cohabitation. According to a 2010 report by National Center for Health Statistics, an agency of the government of United States, 2.1% of all girls in the 15-17 age group were in a child marriage.

Do you see that the child marriage is a world wide problem. A world wide campaign is already on against it, yet a concerted and sustained effort, is required to completely eradicate the old and world wide problem.

Do you see, how inadequate is, your knowledge and how one eyed is your approach on the subject ?

Then you say
" Are you agreeing that, if there is any support for it in the Koran, it must be opposed ? That, if necessary, the Koran must be questioned and reformed ?"

You keep insisting that you are an atheist. If you are, then how come you pick on the Quran only? Is it honesty?
Should you not be saying instead, that the scriptures that support child marriage should be questioned and reformed? That is, if you are honest.

Now assuming that you stand for acting against any scripture that advocates child marriage, please quote me from Quran, where child marriage is mandated, encouraged or even allowed. That is, if you are sane.

I am conscientious that I have used a harsh word but please tell me, is not insane to level an allegation, without having one's fact straight first?

OK, let us take the discussion to the logical conclusion. Tell me, will you lead the campaign with equal zeal against Christians and Jews if the child marriage is found to be sanctioned in Bible and Torah? That is, if you are honest?

Lastly, do you see how your mind has been messed up by the propagandists who aim to keep focussed the mad bull of your hatred on the red rag of "Islam"? That is if you are rational.

I have answered your question because I promised to do so, glossing over the fact, that I find it totally irrelevant to the topic under discussion.

Concluded.

McAdam,

No, I don't assume there are only two 'opinions' on the subject of child marriage, that's partly why I asked the question.

And yes, nations overwhelmingly oppose child marriage and enshrine the rights of the child. It's not my job to find countries which don't support those rights of the child, why do you think that ?

By the way, there may be some difference between a child of twelve and a young woman of eighteen: in most countries, if a girl is seventeen, or even sixteen, and perhaps has been working for a while, she may be given permission to marry, if it is clearly of her own free will.

To ask a question is not to 'attack', or to show signs of 'hate', or of being 'one-eyed': it is simply to ask a question, to find out, to clarify, to learn. We learn by asking questions, McAdam :) This is not necessarily some childish one-up game.

Of course, if you think you know everything already, I can appreciate that you may find questions threatening, even insulting. But that's how learning occurs, to enquire, to explore, to ask - not just to be told.

I think I AM fairly sane, there's no need for insults. And it's not my task to locate verses in the Koran which support child marriage, such as that of Aisha. But it may well be up to you to square that with your professions of opposition to child marriage. In other words, it's not my problem, but it may be yours.

I'm sure that if Jews or Christians could be bothered to locate verses in their books in support of chid marriage, they would condemn them - I say 'bothered', because I'm fairly sure that the vast majority of Jews and Christians are totally opposed to chid marriage and would denounce any mention in their books of it as vastly out-of-date. Can you say the same for Muslims ? Any Jews or Christians getting ten-year sentences lately ? Well, you asked :)

Joe

Loudmouth,

You say;
"I think I AM fairly sane,.... And it's not my task to locate verses in the Koran which support child marriage"

You had, thus called my explanation on it, earlier ;
"Are you agreeing that, if there is any support for it in the Koran, it must be opposed ? That, if necessary, the Koran must be questioned and reformed ?"

Now please, pause and look at your conduct with a cool mind. You frame a charge against Quran and call for reforming Quran, because of some thing allegedly wrong contained in it, and now declare that it is not your responsibility to care if your charge is right or not. Is this a convincing example of sane behavior?

I do not mean to insult any body. It is that people insult themselves, by baring their ignorance and blindness, inflicted upon them by the hatred and by the falsehood they have foolishly devoured.

Hatred is no good, it destroys the reasoning of the beholder. Hatred must never be embraced or fanned, that is the point of the article and the point is right.
Let hatred not blind people in to opposing a perfectly sane advice, just because it appears to come from a Muslim.

Good luck, take care.

MAdam,

Can you tell the difference between a question and a declaration ? I was simply asking you " .... if there is any support for [child marriage] in the Koran, it must be opposed ? That, if necessary, the Koran must be questioned and reformed ?"

I asked because I am curious about the morality in the Koran, and to what extent it is totally out-of-date, out of step with the morality of the modern world. I was not declaring something to be so, simply asking. I was not calling for the urgent reform of Islam, that's really your job :)

So all your spewing about hate and blindness and intimations of insanity is really quite misplaced. If that's the only way you know how to carry on any sort of discussion, then there is not much I can do about it.

If you ever decide to join it, welcome to the modern world.

Joe

And the White Crow flies off into the sunset, leaving another pile of regurgitated crap for someone else to deal with...

<cont

Quran 2:190- Fight in the way of Allah against those WHO FIGHT AGAINST YOU, BUT BEGIN NOT HOSTILITIES. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

My translation <<2:190. Create trouble buy demanding the people convert. If they refuse, say you are defending Islam & kill them>>
I'm just trying to understand exactly what is meant by "Persecution, Oppressed & State of War," according to the Koran & Hadith.
That’s how I sawmy Translation it in relation to:

By Persecution & Oppression does that mean anything that moslems declare as Persecution or Oppression is, to Islam. E.g.:

Refusal to be allowed to build a Mosque,
Refusal to move a Pig farm after a Mosque is build on the neighbouring land,
Refusing to grant a special day for moslems & screen off an area for moslem women at the Local Swimming Pool,
Refusal to put a screen around the Local Pool because the sight of so many naked bodies is offensive to moslems.
Refusing to pay to have a food declared Halal.
Declaring that the Burka or other such women's clothing inhumane.
Declaring that Sharia Law is forbidden.
Declaring that a moslem can only have one wife.

By those Refusing any of the above list, Does that mean that a “State of War” exists? “Yes” or “No.”

Quran 2:192- But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

My translation <<2:192. If they accept Allah then don't, kill them.>>

Another attempt at that particular Translation;

If moslems get their own way, ("desist" refusing them)
“But if they desist,” from the unbelievers, regarding the above list , Allah will forgive them for refusing in the first place “Allah is Forgiving” & won’t kill them.” (Merciful”

Is that better. “Yes” or “No.”

Loudmouth to McAdam: "So the question remains: do you or don't you support child, i.e. under-age, marriages ? Yes ? No ?"

McAdam: You assume that there are two opinions on this point?

Two pages of waffle & you didn’t answer, “Yes” or “No.” Which is it?

Responsibility of making RESPONSIBLE STATEMENTS

Loudmouth,

I was about to ask you the question McAdam has just asked for a reference from Quran, for your statement that Quran <<support[s] child marriage>>.

And you answer with:

<<And it's not my task to locate verses in the Koran which support child marriage, such as that of Aisha.>>

I will revisit the issue of Aisha’s age, but let me ask you first:

Are you saying that it the responsibility of someone else to defend your statements?

Well, if that is the case, you have immense freedom to make statements!

And this ‘presumed freedom’ of yours allows you to make untrue, fabricated, deceitful and deceptive statements you have been making so far, and most likely will continue making.

No Loudmouth, your statement is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

You MUST provide a reference from Quran for what you have alleged or apologise as an honorable man, if you are the one, that is.

Don’t you realise Loudmouth that your war is against TRUTH. You think that your false statements will be accepted without a demand for their proof? Can you do this in this age of reason which happens to be the age of information as well? Just ask yourself!

Now chances are that you will use slick words trying to wriggle out of your responsibility to furnish evidence. And if you do, I assure you that I will bring you back to your original false statement and the fact that you refuse to defend it.

More than your superficial knowledge of history and religion, your absurd statements on Islam spring from your hatred of Islam and Muslims. The fact shows itself in so many of your posts recorded at this site. You seek permission for these statements on the pretext of asking questions. You must know that we know that your statements like Quran supports child marriage in NOT a QUESTON.

Continue

The Question of Aisha’s age 1 of 2

Quran does not support child marriage and Aisha was not a child when she married Muhammad (Saw).

BASIC FACT 1: Aisha’s age of 9 years when she was married to Muhammad (Saw) is reported by ONE source ONLY against a host of sources reporting that age from 14 to 21 years.

BASIC FACT 2: Marrying a 9 year old girl was not an Arab practice even in the period in question.

BASIC FACY 3: There should have been a surprise, dislike or protest recorded in that time if Aisha was 9 years old. A complete absence of any of this conclusively shows that she was much older than the reported 9 years of age at the time of the marriage.

ON THE ONLY SOURCE [Bukhari (d 870 ad)]

• The age of 9 years was reported on narration of one person (Hisham ibn urwah) ONLY. He is one of the hundreds of people recorded as narrators of Hadith;

• Hisham lived in Madina first 71 year of his life, and NO ONE from Medina narrates the age of 9 years to Bukhari or a number of other Hadith collectors. Hisham experienced memory problems in his old age, and has been widely observed to have reported incidents inconsistent with historical facts when he was in Iraq. Scholars have warned against his narrations during his old age.

Continued ..

NC,

Again and again, I have to point out that I was asking a question, not making a declaration: I did NOT state that the Koran was so backward that it supported child marriage, I simply asked if it did. Do you understand the difference between one and the other ?

That's a question by the way, not a declaration: whether or not you CAN understand the difference will be seen in your response.

And frankly, I don't care whether Aisha was two or twenty, that was then, this is now: time and circumstances and societies change (usually), so the question is far more to do with whether or not people would blindly follow the Koran NOW, IF it supported child marriage.

Or amputations.

Or beheadings.

Or burning people alive in cages.

Or raping and enslaving non-Muslim women and young girls.

Are any of those abominations in accord with the Koran ? [NOTE: a question].

And, IF SO, should any sane person blindly follow those precepts, merely because they were ? [NOTE: another question].

And, IF THEY DID, would everybody be justified in questioning whether or not the Koran sanctioned the most vile terrorism ?

To those last four questions, I hope not :) I hope Islam can one day become a religion of peace, reason, enquiry, harmony and love for our fellow-human beings, regardless of what god they may believe in.

Joe

Loudmouth,
To err is human. We all can err. So committing a mistake is not insanity, but insisting on one's mistake and repeating it again and again, definitely is.

You raise outrageous questions about Quran, in such a way, that a casual reader can be mislead that, it was the actual content of Quran. You did that in case of Child marriage, giving the impression to the uninformed reader that Quran mandated child marriage. When confronted, you took ignorance as plea for defense. Ignorance as defense? How ridiculous.

If you don't know what is written in Quran, why don't you read it yourself and get the knowledge first hand. Like Lesley Hazleton did http://youtu.be/3Y2Or0LlO6g

Do you think, it is a sane method of learning Quran, to level a heap of allegations, without doing the basic spadework necessary, even to frame a sensible question, and then put the onus on others to dig the truth for you. The responsibility to educate ourselves is ours and not of others.

Now again you have posted this crap:-
" so the question is far more to do with whether or not people would blindly follow the Koran NOW, IF it supported child marriage.

Or amputations.

Or beheadings.

Or burning people alive in cages.

Or raping and enslaving non-Muslim women and young girls.

Are any of those abominations in accord with the Koran ? [NOTE: a question]."

Now please tell me, if you are rational, won't the reader assume from this question, that Quran supports all these atrocities?

What else am to say than to request you to please quote from Quran, where this nonsense is supported?
I know and you should know too, that none of this rubbish is supported by Quran and none of it is Islam.

Continued..

The Question of Aisha’s age 2 of 2

Loudmouth, This is to complete the ongoing subject. Will address your post of 9 March 9:37 AM when the page permits another post from me.

1. Aisha was engaged to son of Mutam about 9 years before her marriage to Muhammad (Saw), according to Tabri (historian – d923) – Mutam refused for Aisha to live in his house because Aisha had accepted Islam (Aisha’s father requested this as he wanted to migrate to Habsha to avoid persecution in Mecca). This suggests that she was about 19 years old at the time of marriage.

2. According to most historians the older sister of Aisah (Asma) was 10 years older than her. It is an established fact that Asma was 28 years old at the time of hijra (1 or 2 years before Aisha’s marriage). This suggests her age of about 19 when married.

3. Tabri also reports that all four children of Abu Bakr (Aisha included) were borne in pre-Islamic period. This suggests Aisha’s age at the time of marriage to be 14 years or more.

4. Ibn Hisham – the historian (d833 ad) reports that Aisha accepted Islam before Umar ibn Khattab. This also suggests her age to be 14 years or more when she got married.

5. Ahmad Bin Hanbal (d 855) reports that the lady (Khaulah) used the Arabic word “bikr” for Aisha, when she suggested Muhammad (Saw) to remarry after the death of his wife. The word ‘bikr’is used for an unmarried lady as opposed to the word “jariyah” which should have used for a young 9 year old girl, if that was Aish’s age then.

6. According to Ibn Hajar (d1449) Fatima was 5 years older than Aisha. This suggests Aisha’s age of 14 years or more at the time of marriage.

There are other references confirming the above and NONE supports the age of 9 years as reported by the single narration through Hisham ibn Urwah at the age he had the widely known memory problems.

NC,

I don't think there is such a thing as an 'outrageous question', simply because you can dispose of it with a simple answer, 'yes' or 'no'. In my world, anybody can ask any question, simple as that. You still don't seem to understand the difference between an inquiry and a conclusion, i.e. a question and a declaration.

I wonder if that is deliberate, as a ploy not to answer a question. Actually, all your stuff about this or that authority declaring that Aisha was nine or twelve or twenty - it doesn't matter too hoots, but the question really is: does the Koran condone child marriage, and if so, does that carry any weight these days ?

IF, IF, IF it does, does that mean that the Koran needs drastic reform ? That's a question, not a declaration. And if the Koran CAN be used to justify other crimes, does this mean that, for those reasons as well, the Koran needs drastic revision ?

All you have to do, NC, is declare that the Koran does NOT condone such crimes, and we can take more notice of it, particularly if it is brought more up to date.

Does the Koran condone such vile crimes as those listed above ?

Joe

McAdam: Child marriage is common in Latin America and the Caribbean island nations. About 29% of girls are married before age 18.The child marriage varies between the countries

But older than 14.

McAdam: "Girls Not Brides statement on UN General Assembly resolution on child, early and forced marriage"?

47 Islamic Countries signed it. Yet only recently in Lebanon & Gaza there was a mass wedding of Child Brides. Two of the Countries that signed the Resolution. But we all know how much a Un Resolution is worth. Nada.

The point is, regardless of weather it's in the Koran or not.

Do you McAdam, CM, or NC support Child marriages in Australia. "Yes" or "No."

If "Yes," then is a "refusal" to allow such a Marriage in Australia a Persecution of Islamic Values. "Yes" or "No."

I'm sure we would all like a straight one word answer. "Yes" or "No." Not a convoluted deflection or diversion. Please, I can't make it any simpler that that.

Loudmouth,

Your posts of 9 March

McAdam is spot on when he reproduced your questions and asked you

“Now please tell me, if you are rational, won't the reader assume from this question, that Quran supports all these atrocities?”

OBSERVATION: Your Islamopobe statements are what they are whether you place or don’t place question marks after them. This message is too loud in your posts for you to hide in the cloak of a genuine questions. Genuine questions stand out for their genuineness.

After having been confronted, now you say:

1- <<I did NOT state that the Koran was so backward that it supported child marriage>>; and

2- <<And frankly, I don't care whether Aisha was two or twenty, that was then, this is now: time and circumstances and societies change (usually)>>

Are you saying that you mean what you said in 1 and 2 above? Let us know to try to give a constructive turn to our discussion, if we can.

Your question <<Does the Koran condone such vile crimes as those listed above ?>> is there again despite my previous answers and REPEATED quotes from Quran that it does not support anything vile.

You repeat it despite clear answer from McAdam today << that none of this rubbish is supported by Quran and none of it is Islam.>>

This only confirms my OBSERVATION above that you are in fact an Islamophobe trying to hide your hatred under your right of asking questions.

As an ordinary Muslim, who has tried all his life not to harm anyone and there are millions upon millions of Muslims like me, I find myself under attack from two sides:

• by the terrorists who use my faith to justify their horrific crimes, on one side; and
• by the extremists who use the terrorists to distort of the peaceful face of my faith, on the other.

The infuriated Muslim masses are mobilising their governments against the terrorists.

Are you with the extremists who spread hate against Muslims? This would be my second question for you.
Answer before you ask next question.

NC, very well said.

Igor, most fools know enough when to stay silent.

NC,

What readers might make of my questions and McAdam's responses, is up to them, not me. I'm not making statements or declarations, I'm simply asking questions, which you and McAdam dodge.

I'm seriously wondering if you and McAdam can tell the difference between an statement and an assertion or declaration, and a question, a query, or an inquiry. I am asking, not declaring - can you understand the difference ? [that's a question, not a statement]

Perhaps it has something to do with different frames of reference, a revelatory rather than an inquiring framework, an epistemological discord. Like a simple-minded version of Socrates, I'm trying to ask questions, but you/McAdam insist on asserting that I am making statements or declaration.

No, I'm not: I'm asking if the Koran supports vile practices such as child marriages, or those perpetrated by ISIS, and you insist on assuming that I am asserting that the Koran supports those practices. I don't know if the Koran does, that is why I am asking. Asking, not stating. [that itself is a statement]

Can you see the difference ? [that's a question]

I suspect that you do [that's a statement], and that you are deliberately obfuscating, prevaricating [look them up, Igor] in order not to have to answer. But that's only a suspicion, how you respond will demonstrate it one way or the other. [that's also a statement] :)

Joe

I see the white crow still has crap to regurgitate.

Continues:-

Loudmouth,

The way you have framed your question, shows that the the flag waving goons hired to tarnish the image of Islam are succeeding in convincing the gullible of the world. Succeed they should, considering the investment. Did you know that the six “rogue states”—Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea—have a combined annual military budget of $15 billion. The U.S. budget for covert operations alone is double this amount, (imagine the budget of the Western World). Where are all those billions going these days? Any guess?
Mind you, this success to spread falsehood is short lived, as truth does prevail, as it shall. One day you would know the reality of these "WMD" too.

Do you see? I guess, you still don't. After all there is an all out effort to make the gullible raging bulls to see the red rag only and not the hand behind it.

It is up to you if you to choose to remain to be the beast....ultimately destined for the dinner table of the hand, waving the red rag; the oligarchy running the world.


And then you say;
"I hope Islam can one day become a religion of peace, reason, enquiry, harmony and love for our fellow-human beings, regardless of what god they may believe"

Why don't you find out yourself what Islam is about, by using the primary source? Why are you dependent on secondary sources of questionable reliability for the important questions in your mind?

The basic point is that the propagandist that aim to keep you focussed on the red rag of Islam, will continue to treat you like a beast and will continue to exploit your ignorance, unless you develop the habit of seeking the truth and verifying the crap being fed to you.

Good luck.

PS; you think you are asking questions like Socrates?
Please have mercy on that sage.
He asked genuine and serious questions. If you disagree, please quote a single question, that he ever asked, answer of which was already written in a book?
Or if he ever made ill founded allegations.

Concluded.

What's the fuss?
For the umpteenth time everyone is in violent agreement that, the rule of law of this land must be obeyed and no one has the right to take away someone else's right to choose

The scare mongering tactics of yelling Sharia law and Muslim takeover are annoying cheap deflections and non issues. To the bigots who don't get this, spell out the first statement repeatedly until it finally sinks in.

Despite a common ground for common respect, some on this post can't help their insatiable hate. Like ground hogs day trapped in an episode of the twilight zone, these bigots continue to carry out cheap attacks of misquoting Quranic texts and searching for the one bad apple as a pre-text for burning the entire orchard. When a rational response is awarded, they pretend no response was given, blocking their ears and yelling like a perpetual child.

The incident in Sydney around a 27yr old marrying a 12 year old in the modern day is genuinely regrettable. I for one cannot bring myself to support it.

But to see the bigots using this to indulge their hatred for the 1.6 billion human being who are muslim, is the tragedy that I think this article is trying to point out.

Do they not know that the 'current' legal age for marriage in the state of Massachusetts in the United States is 12?

Do they not know that the Age of the Mary was 12 when she married Joseph who was 90 (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia)?

Do they not know it was only 1832 that age consent was introduced in the French penal code and was set to 11 years old?

The close minded, hate filled hypocrisy is self-evident for any independent educated observer

The paradox is that these bigots are precisely what they claim to hate. They belong in the dark ages with their single minded bigotry, they are threat to the modern world and all that is peaceful. Pathetic little un evolved humanoids masquerading as civilised.

Jayb,

"Do you McAdam, .. support Child marriages in Australia. "Yes" or "No."
If "Yes," then is a "refusal" to allow such a Marriage in Australia a Persecution of Islamic Values. "Yes" or "No."

Can you please tell me how is the question that you ask, related to the topic under discussion?
To refresh your memory, the topic we are discussing is that inciting religious or racial hatred and blatantly spreading discord and division disrupts the community, and is harmful for Australia.

Please stick to the topic and let me know your stand on the topic.

As for this non issue, that you are trying to re raise, it has been dealt with comprehensively, already.

I state it categorically that this question does not arise.

Please do not ask me to make it more explicit, lest you too feel that some one was insulting you.

Good luck

Very interesting to see that the person asking the question is not trying to understand the clear and repeated answer; rather playing with the definitions of “A Question” and “A Statement”. So defensive he has become!
I wonder how simple-minded version of Socrates this is! Not able to understand the answer to his question but try to take false defense behind definitions!

Thank you Hypo for answering at least one question.

Hypo: Do they not know that the Age of the Mary was 12 when she married Joseph who was 90.

Thank you again Hypo. I brought this up earlier. Mary was betrothed to Antipas, Herods son & Agustus Ceasars friend. Agustus raped Mary in Rome & Herod murdered Antipas because he thought Antipas was after his Throne. Mary was quickly married off to an 90 year old Sacrificial Firer Tenderer (Joseph) fron the Temple. Mary’s aunt Ann was married to one of the Temple’s High Priests. Just to fill in the story.

Hypo: these bigots continue to carry out cheap attacks of misquoting Quranic texts and searching for the one bad apple as a pre-text for burning the entire orchard.

The problem is that there is more than one bad apple in the carton & these bad apples are being devoured by most moslems & the whole carton of apples is going bad fast. Remember the Quote by Charodry & other noted Imams, “There are no moderate moslems, only moslems.”

I don’t hate anypeople or any Religion. Yes, I’m an athiest. What I hate is the Dogma. Most Christians give a cursory glance at Christian Dogma, but moslems “live” Islam to the max, even moderate ones. That’s what the worry ‘s in the West

Hypo: They belong in the dark ages with their single minded bigotry, they are threat to the modern world and all that is peaceful. Un evolved humanoids masquerading as civilised..

I do take it you were talking about you fellow moslems here? The West is already living in the modern enlightened World unfortunately the West believe the World is round & it goes around the Sun.

Do you? “Yes” or “No.”

Do you McAdam, .. support Child marriages in Australia. "Yes" or "No."
If "Yes," then is a "refusal" to allow such a Marriage in Australia a Persecution of Islamic Values. "Yes" or "No."

McAdam: Can you please tell me how is the question that you ask, related to the topic under discussion? To refresh your memory, the topic we are discussing is that inciting religious or racial hatred and blatantly spreading discord and division disrupts the community, and is harmful for Australia.

I will refer you back to: & also Post on Pg26

Quran 2:190- Fight in the way of Allah against those WHO FIGHT AGAINST YOU, BUT BEGIN NOT HOSTILITIES. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

I'm just trying to understand exactly what is meant by "Persecution, Oppressed & State of War," according to the Koran & Hadith.

“Fight against you” includes, “Persecution & Oppression,” as explained in an earlier post by one of you.

By Persecution & Oppression does that mean anything that moslems declare as Persecution or Oppression is, to Islam. E.g.:

Refusal to allow a moslem to marry & consumate that marrage with a child under the age of 16,
Refusal to be allowed to build a Mosque,
Refusal to move a Pig farm after a Mosque is build on the neighbouring land,
Refusing to grant a special day for moslems & screen off an area for moslem women at the Local Swimming Pool,
Refusal to put a screen around the Local Pool because the sight of so many naked bodies is offensive to moslems.
Refusing to pay to have a food declared Halal.
Declaring that the Burka or other such women's clothing inhumane.
Declaring that Sharia Law is forbidden.
Declaring that a moslem can only have one wife.

Does Refusing any of the above list mean that moslems are being Persecuted, Oppressed or that a “State of War” exists? “Yes” or “No.”

I suspect that the answer to the questions must be "Yes." as they avoided, diverted &

Jayb,

We are engaged in a discussion, on a topic. This discussion has to stay focussed. No one can be allowed to twist or high jack the discourse or simply side track it, as you clearly are trying to.

Please establish link of your input to the topic and I will,surely respond.
If you can not or you do not, then you are free to post what you like.
I can not be a party to wasting every body's time on non issues.

Good luck and regards

McAdam: The topic we are discussing is that inciting religious or racial hatred and blatantly spreading discord and division disrupts the community, and is harmful for Australia.

Please establish link of your input to the topic and I will,surely respond.

That is exactly what moslem demands are doing, blatantly spreading discord and division disrupts the community.

Demanding to allow a moslem to marry & consumate that marrage with a child under the age of 16,
Demanding to be allowed to build a Mosque anywhere they like,
Demanding to have a Pig farm moved after a Mosque is build on the neighbouring land,
Demanding a special day for moslems & screen off an area for moslem women at the Local Swimming Pool,
Demanding a screen be put around the Local Pool because the sight of so many naked bodies is offensive to moslems.
Demanding Companies pay to have a food declared Halal.
Demanding that women wear the Burka or other such women's clothing.
Demanding that Australia allow Sharia Law.
Demanding that a moslem can have more than one wife.

This is an example of what Islam eventually has in planned for Australia. http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2388.htm. & you know it.

These demands are what is spreading discord and division & disrupting the Australian community, and are harmful to Australia.

There was no discord or division in the Australian Community until the arrival of Islamic hordes. Now we have division & discord aplenty.

There is your “Link” McAdam.

So answer the Questions, as you said you would respond.

Unless you have Taqiyya 'ed, again. Which we all expect anyhow.

I await you reply, but I surely wouldn’t want to be hanging by the short & curlies.

Loudmouth,

Your post 9 March 6:06 pm

The fig leaf has been LIFTED. Your ploys now stand exposed.

Thanks Craig Minns for your comment.
Thanks JIDS for your observation.

Loudmouth, the comments of these two wise people provide you an answer to your
<<What readers might make of my questions..>>, can you see the writing on the wall? NO FIG LEAF above you anymore!!

You have avoided answers to my two questions contained in my post of 9 March (3:22 pm).

Why? Because it would partly obstruct your strategy to place Quran, Islam and dreadful practices of all kinds in the same sentence and make it look like a question.

As a guileful Islamophobe, you have done this ONLY all along. And you will (most likely) keep trying to do it despite the fact that your malicious questions have been answered more than once by McAdam and by myself clearly that none of the vile practices you keep referring to are supported by Quran.

This brings me to my 3rd question:

Why do you repeat the questions which have been answered already?

Is there a reason other than your crafty technique of placing message of Islam and despicable practices of all kinds in the same sentence or paragraph to leave an engineered impression (you hope for) in the minds of the readers?

Your struggle, Loudmouth is against the TRUTH – the TRUTH of what you are trying to do and the TRUTH of what you are trying to hide.

And the TRUTH is a formidable adversary for whosoever you are.

You WILL answer my three questions so far, as I DO plan to bring them up (every time I address you) along with any further questions that your deceitful strategy necessitates.

Jayb,

"There is your “Link” McAdam.
So answer the Questions, as you said you would respond.
Unless you have Taqiyya 'ed, again. Which we all expect anyhow.
I await you reply."

I watched the video on the link of MEMRI. That is the "red rag" that enraged people like you, are made to see.

Now see the hand waving that red rag, if you can:-

"The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is a not for profit press monitoring organization with headquarters in Washington, D.C.MEMRI publishes and distributes free English language translations of Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Pashto, and Turkish media reports. The institute was co-founded in 1998 by Yigal Carmon, a former Israeli military intelligence officer and Meyrav Wurmser, an Israeli-born American political scientist."
(Google it yourself, if you like.)

There is an apparent commonality in the genesis of ISIS and organizations like MEMRI. One waves a flag on the crime scenes to make the ignorant believe that Islam stands for beheading, burning people alive etc and the other aims to scare the gullible that they will get up one morning and see Shariah imposed upon them.

A person with average knowledge knows that the law is in the domain of people themselves and it has to be in accord with their ethos. Any thing imposed in conflict with their values can not function as law.

Those with even rudimentary knowledge of Islam know that the Prophet, peace be upon him, did not descend on his people with "though shall not" commandments. He spent twenty three years gradually preparing people for improvement in steps. And laws were framed in accordance with the values of the people. So the idea that Sharia can be imposed from top, on unwilling people, is absurd.

Now sir, how do you claim that the video you post, is the representative of Muslims in Australia?
What is the basis of this claim?
Any Australians making this demand?

A video posted by a site created by Israelis and having a zealot in UK make foolish claims, is by no stretch of imagination, representative of Australian Muslims.

Continued..

"other aims to scare the gullible that they will get up one morning and see Shariah imposed upon them"

I suspect for most its more a concern that it's death by a thousand cuts rather than waking one morning and finding Shariah imposed on them.

Lots of litle concessions each either adding a restriction on the freedom of others and or a cost born by all to support the wants/demands of the few.

For many we have already been through that we the damaging control the christian church has had on laws impacting on all in the past (and some still impacting). If muslims want to impose restrictions on themselves go for it as long as you don't try and pass the consequences of those choices onto others but I don't get the impression that the goal is just freedom to practice their faith an leavng others free to make their own choices.

The latter seems unlikely with a faith/cultural grouping where even senior leaders give credance to the uncovered meat approach to rape and womens attire.

R0bert

McAdam: A video posted by a site created by Israelis and having a zealot in UK make foolish claims, is by no stretch of imagination, representative of Australian Muslims.

The site is an Israeli Organization but the speaker is a well known spokesman for Islam & he was speaking about the aims of Islam in Britain. Was he not?

The organization, like any Media outlet, is just broadcasting the views of the speaker. They are not the views of the Organization reporting it.

McAdam: Now sir, how do you claim that the video you post, is the representative of Muslims in Australia?
What is the basis of this claim? Any Australians making this demand?

Below are Videos by moslems, about moslems, to moslems. These people represent Islamic interests in Australia & their plans for the future.

Muslim Sharia Law in Australia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN7eQyrDt-U

They think the Islamic Flag will fly over Australia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAPmJexGvIc

Radical islam in Australia , Vigilante's to enforce Sharia Law. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gkI9__ipX4

Muslam Leader admits Islam is not a religion of Peace. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0XNcPNXS1I

Islamic Sharia Law push down under. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOlOq8-qQlI

Islam a problem in Australia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsiKVc028I0

Islam in Australia & what it’s wants in Australia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvHt94EGrac

How to treat non-moslems. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VyaALS1H3A

Australian Islamist: We Will Establish a Caliphate, Instate Sharia, Make Arabic Official Language. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZINdCAmdXoQ

Muslim Warning/Information | Australian Immigration | Fundamental Islam January 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5Oy0vVk5UI

This is why I don’t believe Islam is a Religion that should be allowed to flourish in Australia. It is much too dangerous to all non-moslem Australians.

Hi NC,

I certainly hope that you are right when you say: "The infuriated Muslim masses are mobilising their governments against the terrorists." It would be wonderful to get some evidence of that.

To your question: "Are you with the extremists who spread hate against Muslims?"

Of course not: I am most certainly with the infuriated Muslim masses who are mobilising their governments against the terrorists.

Please don't confuse questions with statements. You and I and everybody else have the right to ask questions. That's how we learn from each other :)

For example, here are two more yes/no questions, easy to answer: Does the Koran promote the equality of men and women in accordance with the rule of law in Australia ?

And do you yourself believe in the equality of men and women in accordance with the rule of law in Australia ?

I just want to be clear that we are initiating a discussion on the basis of similar foundations.

Thank you, NC.

Joe

Loudmouth,

Your post of 10 March 2:55 pm

I will start with pointing out that you have not answered my following questions yet.

Question1: Do you mean what you said in the following statement?

1- <<I did NOT state that the Koran was so backward that it supported child marriage>>; and

2- <<And frankly, I don't care whether Aisha was two or twenty, that was then, this is now: time and circumstances and societies change (usually)>>

Question 2: Why do you repeat the questions which have been answered already?

Also you have not provided a direct answer to my question:

"Are you with the extremists who spread hate against Muslims?"

Let me introduce Question 3 here for you for a specific answer. Will have to repeat the question if you avoid a direct answer:

“Do you think extremists who spread hate against Muslims must be condemned or not?”

I have made a statement of fact about Muslim countries mobilising against the terrorists. Don’t expect I will waste a second of my time trying to educate an Islamophobe on the details that he must dig himself from the press of the Muslim countries.

On your new question:

<<Does the Koran promote the equality of men and women in accordance with the rule of law in Australia ?>>

Let me point out the findings of an open minds (Karen Armstrong)

“The Quran gave women rights of inheritance and divorce centuries before Western women were accorded such status”

Are you sure you can expect about 1500 year old scripture to match “the rule of law in Australia of the year 2015”. What about other countries of the west, east, north and south, and what about other times?

You restrict a ridiculous question like this for Islam ONLY. Obviously other scriptures are not your concern. And your guileful Imslophobia is the only explanation for this.

Let us leave my personal beliefs for a later time when I would like to know aspects of your 'faith' as well, after we have handled the questions under discussion.

Will wait for answers to my questions

NC,

In answer, I may have to repeat myself, perhaps three times:

1. 'To your question: "Are you with the extremists who spread hate against Muslims?"

Of course not: I am most certainly with the infuriated Muslim masses who are mobilising their governments against the terrorists.'

2. 'To your question: "Are you with the extremists who spread hate against Muslims?"

Of course not: I am most certainly with the infuriated Muslim masses who are mobilising their governments against the terrorists.'

3. 'To your question: "Are you with the extremists who spread hate against Muslims?"

Of course not: I am most certainly with the infuriated Muslim masses who are mobilising their governments against the terrorists.'

I hope that is enough for you. Now you can answer my two questions:

* Does the Koran promote the equality of men and women in accordance with the rule of law in Australia ?

* And do you yourself believe in the equality of men and women in accordance with the rule of law in Australia ?

I'm a very curious person, everybody says so. But I hope you say 'yes' to both questions, or at least to one of them.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,

Your post of 10 March 4:56 PM

Show me where you answered my following questions or answer them.

Question1: Do you mean what you said in the following statement?

1- <<I did NOT state that the Koran was so backward that it supported child marriage>>; and

2- <<And frankly, I don't care whether Aisha was two or twenty, that was then, this is now: time and circumstances and societies change (usually)>>

Question 2: Why do you repeat the questions which have been answered already?

Question 3 “Do you think extremists who spread hate against Muslims must be condemned or not?”

Will attend to your questions after you answer mine, including showing you how I have answered them already.

Continues:-

Jayb,

The person shown in the video is niether a well known scholar, nor a representative of the community. There is similar hate rubbish by people of other faiths, posted on the net.
And if we both kept posting the hate material, would that not be fanning the hatred?

Your fears and allegations are ill founded and your language fans hatred and dissension. You are in fact doing, what you blame imaginary Muslims for. See the words you use:-

. "This is an example of what Islam eventually has in planned for Australia..... & you know it."
I do not know it but you claim to be sure that I know it...... How?

. "These demands are what is spreading discord and division & disrupting the Australian community, and are harmful to Australia."
Is there a bill in the assembly? .....Where have these "demands""come from?

. "There was no discord or division in the Australian Community until the arrival of Islamic hordes...." See the word "Islamic hordes" as evidence of hatred you spew.

Finally, what is this Taqiya nonsense that you allege so scandalously? Do you know what Taqiya is?.... Please tell me quiting the authentic sourse and not the unverified hate site filth.

If you believe that Muslims lie to non Muslims, then what is the purpose of this dialogue?

Please have your facts straight, as I see no point in conversing with a person who doubts my sincerity and truthfulness.

I can tell you the sure sign of a lier, though. And that is that he levels allegations without conclusive proof, makes statements without being sure of their truth, exaggerates and twists facts. And you Jayb, fit that description.

I have responded, because you asked me to, but I have not seen how have you established the link with the topic. Are you saying that Muslims spread hatred?
What are you spreading?
If it is hatred that you are spreading and every one can see you are, what is your justification for doing it?

Please do state clearly; your stance on the topic.

Good luck

Concluded

Jayb,

"The site is an Israeli Organization but the speaker is a well known spokesman for Islam & he was speaking about the aims of Islam in Britain. Was he not?"

You are quoting a video posted by an Israeli Organization as an authentic voice of Islam.

You must be familiar with Richard Perle’s strategy of “de-contextualization that he devised to mislead the public opinion. ” Perle, a leading neoconservative militarist (and a prominent advisor of the Likud party of Israel), coined the term “de-contextualization” He argued that in order to blunt the widespread global criticism of the Israeli treatment of Palestinians, their resistance to occupation must be de-contextualized; that is, we must stop trying to understand the territorial, geopolitical and historical reasons that some groups turn to terrorism for. Instead, he suggested, the reasons for the violent reactions of such groups must be sought in the arenas of culture and/or religion—in the Islamic way of thinking and Islam be projected as inherently incompatible with modern world.

Now misleading the public opinion about Islam and projecting it as inherently incompatible with modern world, is the declared policy of Israel and you are using an Israeli site to tell us the real Islamic point of view?

So much for your awareness, intellect and analytical ability, Jayb.

This may be appearing a reliable Islamic source to you but it is rubbish in fact and is amply clear to every reader on this Forum.

And about this nobody you are calling a "well known spokesman for Islam" is suggesting conversion of Buckingham Palace into a mosque. This idiot does not know that never in the history of mankind a place has ever been converted into a mosque. Why? Because it can not be, as Masjid is a specialized building and palace is utterly unsuited for it.
So much for your general knowledge, awareness and ability to discern truth from the propaganda.

I doubt very much Jayb if you can be relied on for any truthful information or sensible input.

Good luck.

" This idiot does not know that never in the history of mankind a place has ever been converted into a mosque. Why? Because it can not be, as Masjid is a specialized building and palace is utterly unsuited for it.
So much for your general knowledge, awareness and ability to discern truth from the propaganda."

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Hagia_Sophia?qsrc=3044
"From the date of its construction in 537 until 1453, it served as an Eastern Orthodox cathedral and seat of the Patriarchate of Constantinople,[1] except between 1204 and 1261, when it was converted to a Roman Catholic cathedral under the Latin Empire. The building was a mosque from 29 May 1453 until 1931. It was then secularized and opened as a museum on 1 February 1935.[2]"

and at http://www.hagiasophia.com/

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/10/22/muslim-group-to-use-former-catholic-church-as-a-mosque/

A number of other references to significant numbers of former churches being converted to Mosques however the sites I saw covering that issue were not ones I had confidence enough in to want to reference.

R0bert

NC,

In answer to your questions:

1 (1) Yes.

1 (2) Yes.

2. Because you haven't answered them.

3. Your question was: “Do you think extremists who spread hate against Muslims must be condemned or not?”

My answer is: of course. And the same goes for Muslim extremists who preach hatred against anybody else, such as Jews or Christians.

Can you give me any examples of any extremists who spread hate against Moslems ? I'll condemn them up hill and down dale, if you like. Just as I would condemn any Muslims who preach hate and incitement to violence against Jews or Christians or Yazidis or Assyrians or Chaldeans or Copts. Scum, either way.

Now you can answer my two questions:

* Does the Koran promote the equality of men and women in accordance with the rule of law in Australia ?

* And do you yourself believe in the equality of men and women in accordance with the rule of law in Australia ?

Joe

The Mosque-cathedral of Córdoba (Spanish: Mezquita–catedral de Córdoba), known as the Mosque of Córdoba (Spanish: Mezquita de Córdoba), whose ecclesiastical name is the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Assumption (Spanish: Catedral de Nuestra Señora de la Asunción),is the Catholic Christian cathedral of the Diocese of Córdoba dedicated to the Assumption of the Virgin Mary and located in the Spanish region of Andalusia.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosque%E2%80%93Cathedral_of_C%C3%B3rdoba/

There are many examples of churches being converted to mosques and vice versa.
No example of a palace being converted into mosque, to the best of my knowledge. Please correct me, if any one has an example to quote. And that is what was said, that Palace is a complex structure with reception areas, banquet halls, residential areas, entertainment areas, service areas, staff quarters and security set up. All unnecessary and impossible for a mosque to maintain, which essentially is a prayer hall and abolition area. These two structures, the palace and mosque are not interchangeable. Church and Mosque are different. Both are places of worship of God and one can easily be converted to the other.

Actual point is that an effort is on to mislead people to hate each other, and Muslims are the current target. The discerning eyes should be able to see the deception in the Israeli site posing to be advocating the Muslim cause, and an imposter posing to be a Muslim scholar and saying such an outrageous thing as converting Buckingham Palace into Mosque.

Good luck

NC: your new question: <<Does the Koran promote the equality of men and women in accordance with the rule of law in Australia ?>>

Let me point out the findings of an open minds (Karen Armstrong) “The Quran gave women rights of inheritance and divorce centuries before Western women were accorded such status”

The art of Deflection!

I think I see where the problem lies. To you that is an answer, to me it’s not. That is a statement “around” the Question. I suppose it’s a cultural thing. I have noticed that questions are never answered directly. Wheather or not women got Inheritance & devorce rights centuries ago is a start & good to see. It doesn’t quite work like that from what I’ve seen if Islamic widows loft to fend for themselves & ending up in prison.

But, what about now, in Australia. If a moslem woman wanted to go out alone (without a male relative), have a say her own right in things like; finances, raising of the children, education, working, wearing a head covering, what she wears out to the shops, joins others, including males, at the local pool wearing an Australian styled bathers, drive a car on her own & other things that the average Australian female takes for granted.

Is it right that her husband “forbids” her to do those things, or is it wrong. The crux of the matter stands on the word “Forbids.” That type of Australian Equality is what we are talking about.

That’s, I believe, is what Loudmouth meant by equality of men & women. How do you feel about that Australian type of equality as compared with moslem equality?

McAdam: Are you saying that Muslims spread hatred?

Yes. (gee, that was easy.) As I have shown by the many talks I have shown from utube & many others that are given by your learned Imam Scholars.

What are you spreading?

I’m not spreading hate. I’m only showing the hate your learned Imams are spreading & insisting that moslems must follow. Are you saying that by exposing them I’m spreading hate?

Jayb,

Equality means, broadly, more or less, that whatever rights men have, women have. So let's turn that paragraph of yours around and see if we can discern the slightest sign of equality:

' If a moslem man wanted to go out alone (without a female relative), have a say, his own right in things like; finances, raising of the children, education, working, wearing a head covering, what he wears out to the shops, joins others, including females, at the local pool wearing Australian styled bathers, drive a car on his own & other things that the average Australian male takes for granted.'

Bizarre, isn't it ? And the degree that none of that makes sense, is the degree of Muslim women's inequality. I wonder if NC/McAdam would agree that that situation would be intolerable.

It used to bug me that, in stories about sultans and whatever seeking out beautiful women, and their trials and tribulations before they eventually had their way, there was rarely any consideration about the willingness of the women involved. THAT's inequality.

NC/McAdam, Can we talk yet about any group of women raping and enslaving men, selling them on to other women ? I can't recall. THAT's inequality.

Are Muslim boys and men barred anywhere from getting an education, the sort and quality of education that Malala Yusufzai is so courageously championing for women around the world ? I haven't heard of it. THAT's inequality.

Divorce in the Koran ? On the same terms as for men ? The same inheritance laws for women as for men ? Blow that one out of your rear end.

So, when do you reckon, NC/McAdam, Muslim women will get equality with Muslim men in Muslim countries ? Yes, in Australia, where (thank goodness) medieval Muslim law does not apply, and I hope never will.

You can divert, bluster, make absurd accusations all you like, but I don't think you will answer those questions. Yes, I understand that to ask questions in a reactionary mind-set is not permissible, but we're in Australia where it is. Get used to it.

Joe

Loudmouth,

Your post of 10 March 10:16 PM

You have agreed that:

Quran does not support child marriage and you don’t care about Aisha’s age as in your words <<time and circumstances and societies change>>.

Let us see how long to stick to what you have agreed to.

More importantly, you say that extremists who spread hate against Muslims must be condemned.

Now this is the heart of the article under discussion that you have spent so many hours crying against. What was all that?

Now you ask:

<<Can you give me any examples of any extremists who spread hate against Moslems ?>>

My answer is quite a few. But I start with YOU.

You are an Islamophobe INSIDE OUT.

You have been listing any conceivable human vile practice along with the word ‘Koran’ in hundreds of your sentences so far, without ever quoting Quran in support of any of the vile practice you have so frequently repeated.

This is Islamophobia in simple words.

Who fits better the definition of an <<extremists who spread hate against Muslims>> than an Islamophobe?

I have answered in a previous post, your unnecessarily repeated question: << And do you yourself believe in the equality of men and women in accordance with the rule of law in Australia ?>>. I may or may not like to share my personal beliefs with someone like you.

Can you cite an Australian law/practice which can require me to share my personal beliefs with someone I don’t seem to have much common with?

See the next post for your other repeated question.

Continue

Continued from the last post

Loudmouth,

I answered your question <<Does the Koran promote the equality of men and women in accordance with the rule of law in Australia ?>> in my post of 10 March 4:31 pm

But you have repeated it, as you do invariably.

Will make the last attempt to explain my answer for the simple mind of an Islamophobe.

Quran gives guiding principles out of which laws have emerged in different times for different societies and culture. The principles never carry details. The details vary for societies in time and with the pressure of prevailing cultural practices.

Karen Armstrong concludes that Quran gave women the rights of property and divorce centuries before European women had these rights (my post of 10 Mar).

A quote of Justice Pierre Crabites (d1943) American Jurist and Chief Judge at International Court of Justice, from “Things Muhammad Did For Women”, acknowledges:

• “Mohammad was probably the greatest champion of women's rights the world has ever seen.”; and

• “Muhammad’s outstanding contribution to the cause of women, resides in the property rights that he conferred upon the wives of his people….The Moslem spouse in so far as her property is concerned, is as free as a bird. The Law permits her to do with her financial assets whatever she pleases without consulting her consort. In such matters he has no greater rights than would have any perfect stranger”

The two quotes alone must answer your question.

You will find most of this and similar other views (there are many) of people who have really read about Muhammad (Saw) and Quran directly opposite to the stuff you have been regurgitating in your mindless ignorance of Islam.

This completes my answer. Any repetition from you will get a three-word response from me, see previous posts.

Now you give me a quote from Quran that you think is against the women rights. Remember Muhammad (Saw) has gradually lifted a wild society from its repulsive practices.

Now my question for you:

“Do you consider an Islamophobe to be an extremist who spreads hate against Muslims?”

This shows the true intentions of Indoneasians towards Australia. Do you consider that by exposing this I’m spreading hate?

http://sheikyermami.com/2014/04/indo-foreign-minister-the-world-belongs-to-allah-and-muslims-have-human-rights-to-invade-australia/

http://www.theage.com.au/world/bali-nine-executions-indonesian-minister-threatens-to-release-human-tsunami-of-asylum-seekers-20150310-140dhn.html

http://www.doamuslims.org/?p=1999

High Risk Moslem Terrorists on a hunger strike.

McAdam: You must be familiar with Richard Perle.

I have never heard of him.

McAdam: you are using an Israeli site to tell us the real Islamic point of view?

I was unaware it was an Israeli site untill I went back & looked at it. However the site was only showing the hate Moslems believe. There is a difference.

McAdam: And about this nobody you are calling a "well known spokesman for Islam" is suggesting conversion of Buckingham Palace into a mosque.

According to the video he is well known in Sydney at least where he is a Cleric.

McAdam: The person shown in the video is niether a well known scholar, nor a representative of the community.

Anjem Choudary is a well known spokesman for Islam & a Judge of the Sharia Law Courts (UK)

I repeat. I’m not spreading hate. I’m only showing the hate your learned Imams are spreading & insisting that moslems must follow.

Are you saying that by exposing these articles I’m spreading hate?

Jayb,
"I’m not spreading hate. I’m only showing the hate your learned Imams are spreading & insisting that moslems must follow. Are you saying that by exposing them I’m spreading hate?"

You are fanning hatred then, an,t you?

There are innumerable genuine imams with messages of peace and harmony on the net and in the media, you ignore them and only pick the imposters and fanatics and spread their word.
And then you say, you are not spreading hate; some logic, that is!

Problem is with your honesty, as I see in your actions.
You spread hate but don't confess. You fan hate by disseminating cheery picked hate material but don't accept, doing it.

The hate has blinded your rational thinking to the level that that you post an Israeli clip featuring an imposter making an outrageous suggestion of conversion of Buckingham Palace into a mosque and then you assume that readers will buy your argument of this being an imminent threat to the Australians.

Your hatred is oozing out of the terms you use, like the "Islamic Hordes". And look at this proof of your hatred that you pick on Quran only, ignoring the severer injunctions on the same topic in other scriptures. You hate Islam and Muslims but lack the honesty to say so.

You are against the suggestion of the article that inciting religious or racial hatred and blatantly spreading discord and division disrupts the community, and is harmful for Australia, but lack the courage to openly take a position on it.
Why don't you confess that you are a hater and are engaged in fanning hate; that is, if you are honest.

If you choose to remain blinded by hatred and keep basking in the cesspool of lies, it is your choice, go ahead but say what you stand for;........ hatred.

Good luck Jayb, the Hater.

NC: << And do you yourself believe in the equality of men and women in accordance with the rule of law in Australia ?>> Can you cite an Australian law/practice which can require me to share my personal beliefs with someone I don’t seem to have much common with?

Why didn’t you just say “No?”

NC: “Do you consider an Islamophobe to be an extremist who spreads hate against Muslims?”

Do you consider a Secularphile to be an extremist who spreads hate against non-moslems?

My appologies McAdam the Buckingham Palace should have been Choudary & the “The person shown in the video is niether a well known scholar, nor a representative of the community.” Should have been Ibrahim Saddiq Conlon. Cut & Past mistake.

McAdam: You are against the suggestion of the article that inciting religious or racial hatred and blatantly spreading discord and division disrupts the community, and is harmful for Australia, but lack the courage to openly take a position on it.

No, I agree with the article. Racial Hatred does spread discord & disharmony. That’s why I posted those videos.

McAdam: There are innumerable genuine imams with messages of peace and harmony on the net and in the media, you ignore them.

Of course there are. All with the same message, “Islam is the Religion of peace providing you convert. If not, we’ll kill you.”

McAdam: and only pick the imposters and fanatics and spread their word.

These learned Imams ARE examples of moslems who ARE disrupting the Australian & Western World Community. To say Choudary, (Judge Sharia Law Courts (UK), Dr Zaku Naik, (Persident of Islamic Research Foundation), Siraj, Wahhaj, (Leader of the Islamic Alliance, ISNA Board Member) Maulana A.K. Hoosen (Noted Islamic Scholar) & Kalid Yasen (ISNA Board of Directers) are nobody’s is beyound belief. Or, just convienient. Oh, & Jusuf Estes Islamic Cleric & Speaker.

Should I tell them what you think of them?

All these Imams are keen to explain what should happen to non-moslems. All spreading hate towards non-moslems. I am against moslems like them. Are you?

Loudmouth,

"Divorce in the Koran ? On the same terms as for men ? The same inheritance laws for women as for men ? Blow that one out of your rear end.
So, when do you reckon,...McAdam, Muslim women will get equality with Muslim men in Muslim countries ? Yes, in Australia, where (thank goodness) medieval Muslim law does not apply, and I hope never will."

Some decent language that is, and the user may tell me he is civilized and I am not.

You make two points;
1. Divorce and inheritance laws in Quran
2. Australia having more opportunities for women than in the Muslim countries where medieval Muslims law apply.

Second point first. The word limitation of the post will not allow comprehensive comparison. Just tell me when was a women elected to be prime minister in a Muslim country and when was she in Australia and how many women have been US Presidents?
Have you ever heard of Razia Sultana, the female ruler or the ruling ladies of Bhopal state? Perhaps not, because you are so full of knowledge throgh watching fiction dramas of Sultans. And look at your approach to study of history. You compare Sultans with present day blokes and not with their contemporaries that a sane person should have done and would have arrived at the conclusion that they were very modern compared to the backward Europe of the time.

Second point. Yes you are right, the divorce rights and inheritance laws in Quran are not exact equal for men and for women. What is wisdom of Quranic laws? You don't fathom and you don't care.
But tell me Loudmouth, what are the inheritance rights for women in Bible? In case you did not know; zero
Now tell me what are the divorce rights for women in in Bible? Zero again. Look at the following quotes:-
. "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. (Luke 16:18 )

Continued..

Continues:-

. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:9 )

No divorce rights for men too, if I read it right. Right?

Ever studied the Hindu religion? Do you know what Satti is? burning of the wife alive with the dead body of her husband. A religious obligation, not legal any more.
Do you know the "equal treatment" the current prime minister of India is giving to his wife? If not, please read the Washington Post dated 25,January 2015, Story by Annie Gowen, Titled; "Abandoned as a child bride, wife of Narendra Modi hopes he calls" This is the account of Jashodaben Chimanlal Modi, whom the current prime minister of India married, when she was 17 and abandoned her; without divorcing her yet never giving her a penny's worth of support. He has millions of rupees and she lives hand to mouth. He lives in the Prime Minister's mansion and she in one room hut without a bath room attached. Such inhuman treatment to wives must not be widespread in Hindus, but the majority acquiesce it, that is why they voted him in.

You Loudmouth, pick on Quran, the only scripture that gives right of inheritance and right of getting out of dysfunctional marriage, to women. It granted these rights long ago and Europe took over a thousand years to come close to it. And you ignore the inhumanity being preached in other scriptures and being followed, in some cases, ......to date.

Some honest atheist, you are?
Intellectual dishonesty is too mild a word to encompass the enormity of twist in your personality; completely messed up by the hatred and falsehood you have fed yourself on.
Then you say you are sane and you are honest.

Well done Loudmouth, keep it up. Keep hating as hatred is sure to consume, what ever is left of your sanity.
Good luck.

Concluded

McAdam: "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. (Luke 16:18 )

That’s why we left Religious Law behind & have Secular Laws, so we don’t have to stone our women, like moslems do. Equal rights.

Now there’s a point. Do you think it would be OK for the moslem wife to take a “Tempory” husband. For the night, & divorce him in the morning, like moslem men can do? Equal rights, you know. Or, would that be Adultery.

McAdam: not exact equal for men and for women.

They’re not exactly equal here either mate. The women usually end up with everything. ;-)

McAdam: the only scripture that gives right of inheritance and right of getting out of dysfunctional marriage, to women.

The Sharia Law Courts make it very easy for men to Divorce but very hard for women, though, Ay.

Raziyya al-Din (1205 – October 13, 1240 aged 35) appointed by her father Shams-ud-din Iltutmish to the Sultanate of Delhi in 1236 & they made sure it never happened again. So long ago.

Deflection again. Big deal. Who cares.

Ever studied the Hindu religion? Do you know what Satti is? burning of the wife alive with the dead body of her husband. A religious obligation, not legal any more.

Deflection again. Big deal. Who cares

Hey, your in trouble now. I sent those imposters a copy of your post. Keep a good look out mate. ;-)

NC and McAdam - I admire your resolve
You haven't given up on these haters, even though their mothers gave up on them a long time ago
The mental paralyses they exhibit, would make for good exhibition at the stupidity museum; showcasing the regrettable defects, humanity finally left behind

Interesting read on an Afghani female taxi driver "Afghanistan's only woman taxi driver steers change" http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_306481/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=5PDH8qgK (from @AP)

I think the mix is a lot less clear than either side of the debate would have us believe. There are muslims trying to live and bring change but also far more than muslim apologists would have us believe who cling to dangerous values.

Its clear that other faiths have content in their sacred writings and traditions that demands or condones actions that most would consider barbaric (part of the reason the west has moved away from theocratic rule). It not clear though that other faiths currenty have nearly so many adherants wlling to treat toe parts as relevant in this era.

I'm not aware of any other faith that currently appears able to draw recruits from such a wide selection of countries and cultures to go and fight in the name of that faith and either commit or support the most barbaric of actions (often against others of the same nominal faith).

I personally find the difference in strength of reaction from muslims around the world to the publication of cartoons and a variety of actions carried out in the name of their faith (and widely publicised) pretty telling. The far bigger insult to their faith should be the rapes, the slaughter of non-combatants, the use of extreme forms of torture etc rather than cartoons draw by a non-believer. It appears that perspective is oe not widely held by muslims.

R0bert

Jayb,

" I agree with the article. Racial Hatred does spread discord & disharmony."

Racial hatred and not the religious hatred spreads discord & disharmony; is this what you are saying? Please state clearly, don't mince your words.

"Of course there are. (Muslim Scholars with message of peace and harmony) All with the same message, “Islam is the Religion of peace providing you convert. If not, we’ll kill you.”
Are you aware that you are lying? This is not the message of religious scholars. How could it be, when Quran gives right to people to be of different faiths.
I said, you are lying; it is harsh word, I used it as you will find it out yourself, that you are lying. Don't take my word for it. Don't rely on Muslim scholars. Ask the Christians who have read the religion what the message of Islam is and they will tell you that you are lying.
Start with; The True, Peaceful Face Of Islam By Karen Armstrong

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,175987,00.html

And if you are serious, so far you have shown you are not, list of more non Muslim Scholars could be provided to you.

"and only pick the imposters and fanatics and spread their word."

Yes you picked up the imposter. The video clip you posted is of Anjem Choudary.. Find out his religious education and you would know he is an imposter religious scholar. A man of suspect character, who is viewed by some Muslims in his own country as " an enemy of Islam" and you and your Israeli friends pedal him as a prominent Muslim Scholar." Why, because he says exactly what you and your Israeli friends want said about Islam;
"as far as non-Muslims are concerned they have not accepted Islam and as far as we are concerned that is a crime against God."
Anjem Choudary, BBC HARDtalk (8 August 2005)"

"Hey, your in trouble now. I sent those imposters a copy of your post. Keep a good look out mate."

Thank you for spreading the truth. Let those imposters be exposed like you are exposed

Good luck

Thank you for spreading the truth. Let those imposters be exposed like you are exposed

So you don’t agree that;
Australia should become the Great Southern Caliphate,
All Australians must become moslems,
Sharia Law must never be implemented,
Homosexuals & Adulters must be whipped & stoned,
Women must wear the face Burka or similar covering.

Are you saying you don’t agree with any of that because, that’s what your imposters want.

Well done McAdam. See being harmonious doesn’t hurt & we can all get along. Moslems can do their thing without imposing on Western Culture & we don’t care what you lot do as long as it doesn’t impinge on ANYTHING we do in the West.

Jayb,

"Hey, your in trouble now. I sent those imposters a copy of your post. Keep a good look out mate."

Your threat reenforces my suspicion ,...... that there are people active on this Forum, who are mindful that their posts are being monitored by "their big brother" and if they did not get it right, they could be in trouble.

What else is the explanation of their ridiculous conduct that they hasten to post the hate material against Islam wether it is relevant to the topic or not?......same rubbish on all threads, so much so the wording is the same even though the topics of the threads are poles apart.

And they persist on repeating their falsehood even after it has been proven to be a pack of lies, to every one on the Forum and possibly to themselves too.

Well done Jayab, "they" would be pleased with you.

"Richard Perle.I have never heard of him."

"Richard Norman Perle.. is a member of several think-tanks including ....the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).......Perle has written extensively on a number of issues."...http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Perle

"Richard Perle, a leading neoconservative theorist and architect of the Iraq war,...."http://warisacrime.org/node/21500

The net is full of Richard Perle and his Decontextualization and you claim you have never heard of him. You, who reverberates the words Richard has tried to put in the mouth of the world.

You, who promptly digs out Razia Sultana, feigns ignorance of Richard Perle. And you say instantaneously, "I have never heard of him.", in the style of a criminal, caught red handed; " I've nothing to do with it".

Afraid, that big brother would be unhappy, you blew the cover?

Continued ..

NC,

Dear oh dear. Too clever by half:

I wrote: <<I did NOT state that the Koran was so backward that it supported child marriage>>

which you distorted to mean "You have agreed that: Quran does not support child marriage ".

No I haven't. I did not state that the Koran DID NOT support child marriage either. i.e., neither yes or no. Can you see the difference ?

As for chid marriage, Surah 64: 4 seems to imply that a man can divorce his 'wife' before she has menstruated, i.e. when she is still pre-pubescent. That sounds like 'child marriage' to me.

It's all a bit irrelevant, since what may have been condoned fourteen hundred years ago, n tribal society, is surely not condoned these days. Am I wrong ?

Perhaps I'm taking it all out of context ?

Joe

Loudmouth,

Item ONE: You have not answered my question:

“Do you consider an Islamophobe to be an extremist who spreads hate against Muslims?”

Why are you avoiding an answer?

Item TWO: You discover that <<Surah 64: 4 seems to imply that a man can divorce his 'wife' before she has menstruated, i.e. when she is still pre-pubescent. That sounds like 'child marriage' to me.>>

Here is the translation of 64:4

64:4 - He knoweth all that is in the heavens and the earth, and He knoweth what ye conceal and what ye publish. And Allah is Aware of what is in the breasts (of men).[Pickthall]

I thought may be you switched numbers, so I also looked at 4:64
Here is the translation:

4:64 - We sent no messenger save that he should be obeyed by Allah's leave. And if, when they had wronged themselves, they had but come unto thee and asked forgiveness of Allah, and asked forgiveness of the messenger, they would have found Allah Forgiving, Merciful.[Pickthall]

And you ask <<Perhaps I'm taking it all out of context ?>>.
What do you think?

Don’t you gather ‘dirt’ synthesized by your Islamophobe mind to throw on a faith? Think about it!!

THREE: I asked you whether you mean what you say in <<I did NOT state that the Koran was so backward that it supported child marriage>>

And you said ‘Yes’ you mean it.

Now you say what you meant was <<neither yes or no>>. The new answer came to your mind after your discovery exposed in Item TWO above.

In any case, you are first person that I have come across whose ‘Yes’ means ‘neither yes or no’

Loudmouth, you stand on a week footing.
Discard your hateful resources.
Read real history like thousands of westerners have done which gave them deep respect of Islam.

There must be a reason for Islam to be the fastest growing religion in the west. To find out the reason, you MUST step out of you make-belief world.

I am waiting for you answer to my question in Item ONE above.

Islamic equality:

4:176 "Unto the male is the equivalent of the share of two females."
2:228 "(Women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them."

Taqiya

From Islamic Law:

Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression...

"One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.

McAdam: You, who promptly digs out Razia Sultana, feigns ignorance of Richard Perle. And you say instantaneously, "I have never heard of him.", in the style of a criminal, caught red handed; " I've nothing to do with it".
I didn’t know of her until you mentioned her & I still hadn’t seen or heard of Perle, ever.
Page 36 Posted by McAdam, Wednesday, 11 March 2015 8:11:50 PM: Have you ever heard of Razia Sultana, the female ruler or the ruling ladies of Bhopal state?

I say again:

So you don’t agree that;
Australia should become the Great Southern Caliphate,
All Australians must become moslems,
Sharia Law must never be implemented,
Homosexuals & Adulters must be whipped & stoned,
Women must wear the face Burka or similar covering.

Are you saying you don’t agree with any of that because, that’s what your imposters want, or you don’t want Australian’s to adopt Islam?

Do you agree to wanting these thing or not? “Yes or “No.”

Do you know what Taqiya is?..

Qur'an (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts"

Qur'an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves."

Qur'an (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.

Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.

Hadith

Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar." Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.

Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permissible in order to deceive an "enemy."

Bukhari (50:369) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad's insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka'b's trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered despite putting up a ferocious struggle for his life.

So you are allowed to lie to me. Are you?

Loudmouth,

"As for chid marriage, Surah 64: 4 seems to imply that a man can divorce his 'wife' before she has menstruated, i.e. when she is still pre-pubescent. That sounds like 'child marriage' to me."

What is this?
And what reference is this?

There is no such thing as you allege in Surah 64 Ayat 4 or even in Surah 4 Ayat 64.

Criticism of Quran is your subject and you haven't read the book.
You earlier on made allegations which you could not substantiate. Now you give reference from Quran that has no head or tail.

Do you see, that every one can not resort to cross references? Some may take as truth the falsehood you post. Do you feel the guilt of misleading others?

Do you realize you waste the time of the reader and give proof that you are a non serious time waster who is reckless with his assertions which are essentially worthless.

And how inconsistent you are. When the Forum was engaged in the discussion on Child Marriage, your stance was; "And frankly, I don't care whether Aisha was two or twenty, that was then, this is now: time and circumstances and societies change"

Now when the discussion has moved on, you bring up the issue, you said was non issue.

Are you sane?
I asked you this question earlier on and you claimed you were fairly sane. Is this the proof of your sanity?

Are you in your senses?
Are you sober?
Are you worth wasting one's time on?

Good luck loudmouth and Goodbye.

On NC's remark that there must be a reason why Islam is the fastest growing religion in the West.
I feel, beside other reasons, it is because of people like Loudmouth.

They demonize the religion so much with all the false allegations that when a fair minded person makes a serious effort to understand the religion he/she is pleasantly surprised to see the truth.

Loudmouth I think you may have been looking for 65:4 A discussion on conditions of divorce.

quran.com/65

Sahih International
"And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women - if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah - He will make for him of his matter ease."

An alternate translation at http://al-quran.info/#65 which puts the relevant part as "and for those [as well] who have not yet had menses."

Or http://www.alim.org/library/quran/surah/english/65/MAL
"and the same will apply to those who have no menstruation due to young age or a disease."

R0bert

Continued:-

Jayb,

"Do you know what Satti is? burning of the wife alive with the dead body of her husband. ....Big deal. Who cares"

Who cares, you say, and it is not a big deal, you say. There is a religion that places such a preposterous demand on women; no big deal? It is mandating the burning the wife alive....No big deal? ......WHAT?

Precisely, Jayb, it is no big deal and you don't care, because criticism of out-dated religions is not your subject. You don't care if Bible gives no right of inheritance and no right of divorce to women, you don't care. . It does not concern you Jayb, if Bible addresses men only and Quran addresses men and women both.

You are to hound Islam, no matter what, even though it is the only religion that gives right of inheritance and right to get divorce to women. You faithfully do what "they" have tasked you to and have let you loose on; regardless of merit.

And you don't realize what you have been reduced to and how are you being used.

You stand on the slippery ground of lies and have no guts to state clearly what you stand for; hatred.

You have no argument of support your unsustainable stand and resort to deflection after deflection and at the same time you blame others side for deflection. You are the kind, who can stare a fact in the eye and then deny it exists. You say the most preposterous thing that burning the wife alive with the dead body of the husband is no big deal and that you don't care.

Jayb, people in Japan and Korea, if dishonor themselves to the extent you have done yourself, they commit suicide.

But,..... You don't care. Go on, "they" would be pleased with you.

Good luck.

NC,

Yes, 65:4.

As for your question:

“Do you consider an Islamophobe to be an extremist who spreads hate against Muslims?”

Yes, of course. But someone who constantly tries to discover the truth about Islamist extremism is not necessarily an Islamophobe. Can you see the difference ?

Joe

Jayb,

None of the quotes from Quran you have posted, shows that Muslims are told to tell lies. You did not quote the translation of Qur'an (16:106) - Here it is; Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief - save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with the Faith - but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom(Pickthall)

This too does not prove, what you allege.

On the other hand, Quran stresses repeatedly, that only truth must be told. Read on;
Quran2:42, 3:71, 8:8, 17:81, 21:18 and note that the Harvard University, has the Quran verse 4:135 at the entrance of its faculty of law, as One of the Greatest Expressions of Justice
" O ye who believe! Be ye staunch in justice, witnesses for Allah, even though it be against yourselves or (your) parents or (your) kindred, whether (the case be of) a rich man or a poor man, for Allah is nearer unto both (them ye are). So follow not passion lest ye lapse (from truth) and if ye lapse or fall away, then lo! Allah is ever informed of what ye do."
Muslims tell the truth to Muslims a s well as to non Muslims. They do not practice dual standards; one among themselves and the other with the gentile or Goyam.

Now Jayb, I do not tell lies or make deceptive statements but you do. My question to you of 12 March,7:27:47 AM, remains unanswered. You wrote;
" I agree with the article. Racial Hatred does spread discord & disharmony."
I asked you;
"Racial hatred and not the religious hatred spreads discord & disharmony; is this what you are saying? Please state clearly, don't mince your words."

No answer from you yet!....Why? What is the reason, other than your conceit or deception?

You see Jayb, you mince words, to deceive. Is that not lying? Aren't you lying?
If not, say clearly, are you or are you not for spreading religious hatred?
Speak up Jayb, if you are truthful.....if !

McAdam: You are to hound Islam, no matter what,

No I don’t hound. I reply to your accusations of “Hate.” I’m an atheist. There is “NO GOD.” Mohammed was a Camel Train Robbing thief & Con man who turned his Business into a Political movement into a Pseudo Religion. The Bible is a collection of inaccurate stories from a by-gone era that has no relevance to the Modern World either. God or Gods are non-existent, no matter what you believe. There is no absolute proof of God or Goos.

McAdam: Islam & all Religions are Political movements masquerading as Religions to control a backward people in a backward land. Islam, being the worst, & most dangerous of all. It has no place in Western Society & must return in total to it’s own country in Total.

McAdam: Precisely, Jayb, it is no big deal and you don't care,

That’s right, I don’t care that women throw themselves on the funeral pyre, or that people bang themselves on the head with swords or blowing themselves up. It’s nature cleansing the Gene Pool & the World is better for it.

McAdam: You have no argument of support your unsustainable stand. and resort to deflection after deflection and at the same time you blame others side for deflection

When I present the evidence you ignore it & divert & deflect but never answer the question directly. It’s not me that deflects, it’s you.

McAdam: Don't take my word for it. Don't rely on Muslim scholars. Thursday, 12 March 2015

One minute you’re telling me to learn from moslem scholars next you are saying not to. Confusing.

McAdam: what is this Taqiya nonsense that you allege so scandalously? Do you know what Taqiya is?.... Please tell me quiting the authentic sourse and not the unverified hate site filth.

I answered you here & still you tell me I never offer any proof of my claims.

“McAdam: Do you consider an Islamophobe to be an extremist who spreads hate against Muslims?”

Of course I do.

cont>

>Cont.

I’ve asked you this before. No answer.

“Do you consider an Secularphile to be an extremist who spreads hate against Non-Muslims?” Moslems are well known Secularphiles. Arn’t they?

Here is another one you don’t answer & deflected.

I say again:

So, you don’t agree that;
Australia should become the Great Southern Caliphate,
All Australians must become moslems,
Sharia Law must never be implemented,
Homosexuals & Adulterer’s must be whipped & stoned,
Women must wear the face Burka or similar covering.

Are you saying you don’t agree with any of that because, that’s what your imposters want, or don’t you want Australian’s to adopt Islam?

Do you agree to want these things or not? “Yes or “No.”

Here’s another you have refused to answer 3 times & have deflected every time.

The words, “Fight against you” includes, “Persecution & Oppression,” as explained in an earlier post by one of you. (Hypocrite, NC or McAdam)

By Persecution & Oppression does that mean anything that moslems declare as Persecution or Oppression, is, to Islam. E.g.:

Refusal to allow a moslem to marry & consummate that marriage with a child under the age of 16,
Refusal to be allowed to build a Mosque,
Refusal to move a Pig farm after a Mosque is build on the neighbouring land,
Refusing to grant a special day for moslems & screen off an area for moslem women at the Local Swimming Pool,
Refusal to put a screen around the Local Pool because the sight of so many naked bodies is offensive to moslems.
Refusing to pay to have a food declared Halal.
Declaring that the Burka, or other such women's clothing to be inhumane.
Declaring that Sharia Law is forbidden in Australia.
Declaring that a moslem can only have one wife.

Does Refusing any of the above list mean that moslems are being Persecuted, Oppressed or that a “State of War” exists? “Yes” or “No.”

Jayb,
"Islam, being the worst, & most dangerous of all. It has no place in Western Society & must return in total to it’s own country in Total."

Now you are talking; ......yet indirectly. You have yet not mustered the courage to answer directly what I asked point blank "are you for spreading religious hatred?"

Your indirect confessions have slipped the mask off your face; you are for spreading religious hatred. Look at the hatred you spew; "I don’t care that women throw themselves on the funeral pyre, or that people bang themselves on the head with swords or blowing themselves up. It’s nature cleansing the Gene Pool & the World is better for it."

Sir, I consider spreading hatred a despicable act, that you are so earnestly engaged in. Our respective positions having been clearly defined; can we now agree to disagree?
For you your ways and for me, mine.

I still do not hate you, but disrespect your Hitler like agenda. Go ahead pursue what you think is right. I trust in good judgement of humanity and and am sure that every decent person rejects your agenda.
I disrespect your agenda too and do not wish to be your accomplice, advertently or inadvertently. Please don't bother to address me any more, as I'l ignore all your posts, from now on.

I find Australia to be one of the most harmonious and livable places on earth. Every day, I am greeted with smiles, as I return smiles,, on the street and on the beach; by young and old. No trace of mutual fear and suspicion, may it always remain so.
May this society flourish in its friendliness.
May Australia always remain safe from the Frankenstein of hatred that you and your likes want to unleash, unmindful, what it can do to places. You and your likes are so blinded by the hatred that you can't see what havoc hate and mutual suspicion are playing with Ferguson Missouri and that is what it does, where ever it goes.
May Australia remain safe, from it. Amen

Good luck Sir, and Goodbye

Loudmouth,

The Surah (Chapter) 65 is entitled “Divorce”.
65:4 deals with the ‘waiting-period’ which the divorced women must undergo before the marriage is finally dissolved and they can remarry.

The translation of 65:4 is

65:4- Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same): for those who carry (life within their wombs), their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear Allah, He will make their path easy.

Three types of women have been mentioned:

1. Those who have “passed the age of monthly courses”; and
2. Those “those who have no courses”. Applies to women who, irrespective of their age don’t have monthly courses; and
3. Those “who carry (life within their wombs)”

There is no “child marriage” in any of the above, for a sane observer. Islamophobes are exceptions.

You, the Islamphobe, can see anything in Quran and stick to it even at the cost of your intellectual integrity.

The Islamophobe, by your own admission, is an extremist, from your “Yes, of course” in response to my question “Do you consider an Islamophobe to be an extremist who spreads hate against Muslims?”

But then we are talking about Loudmouth whose ‘yes’ can be <<neither yes or no>>, as he has told us recently.

NC,
'For those who have had no courses ... ' ? Sounds like child marriage to me.

You are a waste of time, NC.

Joe

Loudmouth,

Do you mean that no woman (say) in her twenties or thirties can experience an extended period of time when she has no monthly courses? (few minutes with goolgle will give you enough information)

Be clear with your answer. No ‘yes and no’ stuff.

The verse under question refers to these women and prescribes an alternative time count to determine the ‘waiting period’.

And if it <<Sounds like child marriage>> to you, it is because you bend backward to see it that way. No sane mind can conclude what an Islamophobe like you sees here.

Culture of Arab society of the time is vividly recorded in history. So many westerner writers have written about them. Only you can imagine them marrying their children before their monthly courses start.

Loudmouth, you are in terrible need of real knowledge, because in absence of it you will remain what you are. Your choice!

theHypocrisy,
"NC and McAdam - I admire your resolve..You haven't given up on these haters,...."
Thank you for the support, but
I just gave up on one, after finding out what he really stood for.

It's amazing that there are people who turn away from religion, mainly because of hatred it is alleged to preach and then they themselves become haters, like Hicks who mercilessly took three young lives of bright promising Muslim students. How unfortunate. How ironic. How weird.

The levels to which people can stoop, is mind boggling. Championing the cause of hatred, unmindful, that way of hatred is surely a loose- loose recipe.
But we keep the hoop alive that one day they will realize that it is not by hatred and shutting up but by engagement and communication that communal harmony can be achieved. We should hope that sanity will prevail over insanity as truth has always prevailed over falsehood.

At national level, Australia needs to rethink its policy of playing second fiddle to "Distant West". Current world crisis is unlike sending troops to Korea, Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. It implies importing fire of dissection home.
Insulating home against hatred and maximizing communal dialogue and finding solutions to possible problems through engagement of all stake holders and consensus building is the answer. Harboring hatred and fanning dissection is disastrous. May Australia remain safe from it, amen.

Thanks again.

>Cont

McAdam: "Racial hatred and not the religious hatred spreads discord & disharmony; is this what you are saying? Please state clearly, don't mince your words."

Did I say Racial? Well that does too as well as Religious hatred. Now if we can only get you moslems to stop hating anyone who is a Kuffar & refuses to convert that would be great. Don’t tell me you don’t. You have to. Well, it just says kill them. It really doesn’t say hate them.

It really sounds like you must hate living among all these Kaffars who don’t like your Political System masquerading as a Religion. Wouldn’t you feel better & safer back in your own country where you would be safe from corruption from us Kuffars? Sounds like a plan. Ay.

I took those quotes about Taqiya from an Islamic site answering a questions from a moslem about Taqiya. Now you tell me that the learned Scholar that answered that question for that moslem, who asked the question was lying to him. Wow!

McAdam: You have yet not mustered the courage to answer directly what I asked point blank "are you for spreading religious hatred?"

It must be a Cultural thing. That isn’t hate. It’s just reality.

Am I spreading hatred? “No.”

I have shown moslems Imams & noted Clerics spreading hatred though & you have called them imposters & liars & have refused to acknowledge they were spreading hate. Somewhat convenient don't you think.

I’ve asked you this before. No answer. “Do you consider an Secularphile to be an extremist who spreads hate against Non-Muslims?” Yes, or, No.

Please answer the other two Questions from previous Posts as well. Otherwise, by your silence,& refusal to answer my questions, you do agree with what I have stated in the previous Posts & you do believe that every refusal of a moslem demand is a call to War.

So McAdam, NC, CM, Hypo. It's looks like we'll be saving Democracy from you & your friends. See you at the Lindt Café some time.