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...