Yes and we're blindsided due to lack of verifiable intell! And that is because folks with egos bigger than ballrooms, believe they can read people/criminal intent!?

If we had better check point security, replete with some covert racial profiling, metal detectors, and spage age lie detectors, that #1, examines the subject's thermal image, when a subject is questioned and even where a psychopath is able to routinely beat a lie detector with butter wouldn't melt in the mouth response, there is simply no way for the same subject preventing the brain lightening up in certain specific areas.

Moreover, the camera lenses can be deployed unobtrusively!

And #2, Computer asisted facial recognition technology is able to see the super revealing tiny telltale facial movements, that even the most experienced eye misses.

Those folk who brought down the twin towers, all entered as student visa holders, some where even Christian, and came from an ally, Saudi Arabia.

They were clean shaven, smiling and and affable, and allowed to consume alcohol and act as completely westernized, if that made them more inconspicuous!

However, had they been covertly and routinely examined as suggested above, a computer program could have dropped a red flag and consequently saved all those lives!?

Dogs can be trained to respond to explosives, and strategically placed metal detectors expose all other weapons!

And fear or other strong if cleverly concealed emotions, are also exposed by trained dogs and that's why they're disliked by the psychos!

The we know best security experts have thus far, allowed all the killings and carnage to happen; and need to be replaced by folks who know they can't read murderous intent just on, however useful, body language alone!

It's not just a rethink that's required, but a replace the failed personal as well paradigm?

And that should see a cleanout in top bureaucratic ranks, Of the folks who are only saved from being exposed as hopelessly incompetent recalcitrants by several excellent super competent assistants?

However if egos allow that (and this) advice to be routinely ignored, then expect more of the same!?
Rhrosty.

I'm not sure whether I understand what Mal is getting at. But given his statement "My point is that tolerance should not mean that we abandon or apologise for our heritage and core values." it seems that he feels marginalised.

So how can people like Mal be supported? Is he justified in feeling marginalised?

Its important that these issues are addressed because as we know people who do feel marginalised by society can look elsewhere for validation and meaning, something all too pleasing for proponents of radical ideologies.

salaams

the multi culturalist have again inflicted the obvious fruit of their pig headedness and stupidity on Belgium. Their hatred of Christianity has resulted in a very warped interpretation of the 'religion of peace'. I am wondering when they will be apologising to Wilders. Don't hold your breath.

I keep hearing of the "war against terrorism".

In a war, enemy sympathizers are rounded up and interned for its duration. This, together with attacking radicalization in cyberpace and a direct appeal to Islamic youth as valued, wanted Australians, first and foremost, are not happening.

Do we just keep living through outrage after outrage, dusting ourselves off each time while humming Kumbaya? We must start with rooting out radicalizing influences, and promoting positive ones, overtly and covertly.

Je suis tired of this.

Luciferace,
I may agree with your sentiments if i had a better idea of where you are coming from.

Just let me make one observation. You stated:

"Do we just keep living through outrage after outrage"

This remark could easily have been made by a Palestinian, Chinese or a Burmese Muslim.

Of those in the West who feel marginalised, there will always be some who turn to "a very warped interpretation of the 'religion of peace'" (to quote Runner)-- namely Wahhabism propagated with oil money of Saudi Arabia-- to find purpose and meaning.

So given your sentiments are shared by many, it is a good opportunity for the many to gain insight into the process of radicalisation.

This is not to deny that there are also psychos who need no "process of radicalisation" to inflict harm. These psychos need to be isolated by their communities, while the falsity of their teachings is exposed.

I marveled at the midday ABC TV news today. In all the reports of the islamist bombing of Belgium no one uttered the words Islam or muslim? The dopey professor they had on went through all sorts of mental and linguistic gymnastics to avoid any mention of either word.
What an absolute joke! The ABC is a Quisling organisation in Australia and needs to be shut down for extensive repairs.
I hate the thought of this bombing happening here but when it does, blame should be fairly apportioned. Muslim councils and the ABC should be severely punished with their funding stopped. Closing of all mosques and muslim schools until we can be sure they are not being used to support terror. This is still a free country and you are free to go somewhere else if it is not to your liking and leave all Centrelink payments behind you.

Quote: "our concerns should centre more on how well we think we can integrate people into our more effective core values – and how we measure that integration, without becoming petty or spiteful."

YOU CAN'T!Islam is not compatible with Western values. Muslims' values are those of the Quran, Hadith and Mohammad. They do not believe in freedom of religion, they do not believe in free speech and equality of humankind. If they say they do, the are ignorant of their own dogma and therefore worthless to us as friends.

The Quran tells Muslims that we are "lower than animals" and to attack us until we submit. They cite the example of their prophet who waged war on peaceful villages and neighbors for 10 years. Can you find a so-called moderate Muslim that will acknowledge these simple, basic facts? Can you find a Muslim who will admit that Islam itself is the primary problem?

Our leaders and elites are basically worthless. They care of only their egos and prestige. They put "tolerance" and "kindness" (in their own eyes) above our lives and the future of our children. A pile of broken, dead bodies means nothing to them, just an occasion for more sweet, silly words about integration and common values -- and they let more Muslims flood into the West, people who consider a man that said "I am made victorious with terror" to be a great moral example.

Damn their evil, stupid, blind souls. May they rot in hell!

Just a short observation, when European people carry out political violence or terrorist acts they and any sympathisers are collectively subjected to literal persecution from the state whereas Muslims are treated with kid gloves and if anything allocated more resources when such attacks occur.
Apologists of Islam always love to bring up the IRA and as an example to point and squeal at and it perfectly illustrates my point, what was the response by the British government to Irish political violence?
Well it involved military occupation of nationalist neighbourhoods, assassinations, internment of republican militants without charge and the tolerance of loyalist paramilitaries and death squads.
Maybe walling off Mollenbeek and installing Gaza style checkpoints, CCTV on every corner, internment of suspected radicals, targeted assassinations and turning a blind eye to reprisals by Belgian Neo Fascists would be an appropriate way of subduing the threat of Islamic extremism in Brussels?
After all everyone's equal right? By the time the IRA had achieved a body count in the hundreds the Brits and the Loyalists were coming down on them like a tonne of bricks, rinse and repeat for ETA, Red Brigades etc.

Yes Rhosty you are right, however step one should be to rid all English speaking nations of islam. Because until we do this nowhere is out of bounds for these thugs. Given our lawmakers are so concerned with political correctness, and dare not risk offending anyone, I doubt this will ever happen, not at least until many more of these attacks happen.

How we go about that I do not have a clue, but the first step is to stop cowering to their demands and wanting to achieve peace with the Muslim leaders in our own country.

Multiculturalism activists and supporters, take a bow!

Its time we forgot about these calls of being racists and take action against what is real, and fast action at that.

This religion has pretty much ruined every country it has been allowed in to and we just sit back waiting for our turn, that's if its not already too late.

Actually Islam is about freedom of religion and tolerance. The historical record speaks for itself. Those who choose to ignore these facts are the enemies of these values.

There is need of a reset of the mindset of non-moslems.
Moslams are NOT the victims !
It is ALL other countries that are the victims of Islam since the 6th century !

It started with the neighbours of Mohammad then the rest of the Levant
including Israel. They then invaded Nth Africa & India where they
killed multi millions. They have been repeatedly invading Europe over the centuries.
Remember the Palestinians are the invaders, again the reversal of history.

Remember that the crusades were about expelling the invading moslems
not the way they try to blame the crusaders.
The current invasion by immigration has an Arabic word for it.

It IS about time our politicians had the guts to call a spade a
bloody shovel and declare war on The Islamic State Caliphate.
That will give them the legal power to engage in carpet bombing of
Islamic areas.

There is no humane solution except to deport all muslims, born in
Australia or not.
True it will mnake some stateless, but so what, we have no other
choice, the moslems have made that decision for us.
If we do nothing it will change nothing, just more bombing.
It is the way they wage war, they are not able to wage conventional war.
They will just rebreed more Jihadists when we think we have removed
all the local Jihadists.
All mosques and bookshops will have to be closed if we do not deport all moslems.
Anyone professing to be a moslem should be deported.

There is now no option; War is War !

How amusing. I remember the attacks in the 70's, by the PLO. I also remember clearly, Yasser Arafat.
Well as time went by, Arafat took on the royal glow of respectability! All past evils of terrorist acts committed by the PLO, faded into a distant haze of respectability: all forgiven.
Then he was ceremoniously paraded out, as the flagship of left wing ideology, a hero of the downtrodden Palestinians, a David against the Goliath of Israel.

ISIS is another Ho Hum in reality. Soon to be paraded by the left wing, as heroes of a lost cause.
That's when, I suspect, that sad element finish with the advance of their terrorist attacks on society, and a love affair with the downtrodden homosexuals! Keep watching!

Bazz..

What a load of crap...

'Actually Islam is about freedom of religion and tolerance'

you must be a leftie Grateful believing that if you say something often enough it makes it true. Islam and secularism have much in common.

JoM, that is exactly what is needed.

I'm not into the semantics of whether or not IS has some moral right to do what it does in the western world (so, sorry grateful, try someone else).

Just blunt them, kill them, it's war. Nothing for moderates to fear Radicals watch your back.

No more "Je suis" crap.

Runner and Dan, what do you know about Islam or its history? It cann't be much if you would associate the actions of these extremists with its teachings and history practice.

To cite one obvious example, if ISIS were simply following the teachings of Islam, there would not be any Yazidi's to enslave and kill. Simple common sense would save you from your bigotry and make you constructive human beings.

Mal
You seem to be of the belief that attacks like this are just because "they hate us westerners". Never mind the war, bombs, terror and death we have rained down on them for fifteen years plus. Never mind the governments we destabilised or destroyed. Never mind the massive support for apartheid israel and its murderous, land stealing ways. Never mind the imprisonment and torture and humiliation of many of those now controlling isis.

What the hell do you people expect?
That they will just go "oh well never mind lets just forget about it"? "Dont worry we dont mind being bombed and our lives destroyed".
"We love your Mclives so much we would never fight back".
Some seriously dumb people in this world.

You talk about tolerance but only if people conform to your ideas of core values and "norms".
Doesnt sound very tolerant to me.
What if I dont follow your "core norms"? Do I get kicked out? Locked up? Why only immigrants?

You dont define what these "core values" and "norms" actually are but we can guess cant we.
Speaka de engalish and pull your head in. Wog. Dont wear your funny clothing. Dont build a mosque near me. Immigrants and reffoes and people who speak funny should know their place right?
Like it was in the good old days.

Pretty vile to use the deaths of people in a deadly bombing to try to argue your intolerant, backward ideas.

Grateful;
Are you not aware that we ARE at war ?
It looks like a war, it walks like a war and it kills like a war !

The nature of war has changed, no longer is it about large armies
moving on a front of hundreds of miles and sweeping up all the enemy
forces as they go.
The last time war was fought on that scale was in Korea.

Now it is urban warfare by the bomber.
Islam is an evil philosophy that demands others submit or die.

That is the bottom line and any waffle about it being a tolerant
kind religion, with just a few ratbag naughty boys, is just the mad
trendy waffle that most people see it for what it is.
It has until now being too embarrassing to speak out like this and
I have myself been reluctant to speak up for PC reasons in social
occassions but no more.

The moslems have made the decision to wage this war to spread Islam
as their religious obligation, so we have no choice but to engage in this war.

Many like Diver dan will ignore what Islam is until his own family
are blown up on the way to school or work.
Then he will demand that "someone" do "something" !

He would have been a great companion for Neville Chamberlain.

Well doesn't Grateful take the cake ?
It is proof that Islam is tolerant and kind is that they only killed
thousands of Yazidis and took their girls as sex slaves !

uuurrrgghhh

Well said, Bazz.

But in this case simple facts and logic does not apply.

Bazz.
Your rage is blind. Muslims are not the problem, the good O'l Stars and Stripes is the problem.
Get ready for more Muslims in Australia, not less. Rage at American failure to acknowledge the real cost of its interventionist policies.
It's why we need a Donald Trump in Washington.

Dan
Please accept my apologies for my previous. i misread your post.

Just a note on your original post: i would have placed Arafat along side Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir. Here is a partial list of the activities of the organisations that were a part of: (source: Haaretz)

There is no room here to mention all of the activities for which these organizations took responsibility, but here are a few typical cases: On 4.11.1937 - five dead and eight wounded in shooting at a bus in the Jerusalem suburb of Romema; 16.7.38 - 10 killed and three wounded including four women, a boy and young girl, by a bomb hidden in a basket of vegetables; 26.7.38 - 27 killed and 46 wounded when a bomb exploded in Haifa's Arab market; 29.5.39 - five killed and 18 wounded when mines were detonated in the Rex Cinema in Jerusalem, and among the seriously wounded were a Jewish man and woman; 20.6.39 - 78 killed by a bomb in the Haifa vegetable market.

And we have not mentioned the best known incidents - the explosion at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, the massacre at Dir Yassin, the executions of Jews who were suspected of cooperating with the foreign occupier (at least 10 cases ), and the assassinations of some of the representatives of His Majesty's government and of the international community in the region or in the country.
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/are-begin-and-shamir-also-considered-terrorists-1.369342

As for ISIS, the comparison would be better with the Tartars after invasion of Baghdad, the Crusades or Inquisitions.

So ISIS and the PLO were/are, if anything, products of a Western tradition...not an Islamic tradition

Good one grateful...

Exactly the point I make...lifted from your link...

**However, my methodological mistake does not alter their(terrorists at the time), biographies. Many people who headed movements of national liberation adopted violent and indiscriminate methods of resistance that brought death and injury to the innocent and the wicked alike, to civilians as well as soldiers, and which deliberately sowed panic among the public. We have to be sorry but not to deny this, and those who do the rewriting should not be hopeful. Later on, the terrorists became legitimate leaders, presidents and prime ministers; and Begin and Shamir are among these.**

This succession of ISIS attacks on the public, follow a set tried and tested form. Well done for pointing that out grateful!

Gorilla attacks like these are impossible to eliminate. The West has form here! It follows a simple formula, keep your friends close, but your enemies "closer"!

Left wing ideologists will be used to befriend the enemy, ISIS this time too. A contrived move to keep the enemies of the West closer, and the status quo intact.
And since the machinery of the West operates for that purpose, the influence of Donald Trump will be eliminated at an appropriate moment, he is bad for business: the business of the Capitalist THE status quo that matters!

Bazz,
Your ability, or perhaps willingness, to reason is severely limited so i will try to explain in more detail.

Firstly, you argue that the actions of ISIS represents Islamic teachings. You argue that their actions can be traced back to the example of the Prophet and that this has been the tradition of Islam. But you fail to see the contradiction: If what you are saying about traditional Islam is true, then all other religions--- people and their places of worship --- would have disappeared long ago.

Is Donald Trump your answer? Well, if you thought victory of Hitler, Mussolini or Putin would have been a good thing for the values you stand for then your answer is likely to be yes. If you think the only solution is to declare war on all Muslims then again your answer is likely to be yes.

However, it sounds to me that you are repudiating Australian values, not upholding them. As a reminder, these are the values immigrants are asked to commit to:
• respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual:
• freedom of religion;
• commitment to the rule of law;
• Parliamentary democracy;
• equality of men and women;
• a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect,
tolerance, fair play and compassion for those in need and
pursuit of the public good;
• equality of opportunity for individuals, regardless of their
race, religion or ethnic background

Aligning with Trump would be a repudiation of these values. Indeed, if people like Trump so much, then go live in the US,... or Russia... or any place but here.

Australia doesn't not need your type breaking up communities and teaching kids to hate.

personally I think Trump would be aweful unless you of course compare him with Hilary. Then he looks much better.

" If what you are saying about traditional Islam is true, then all other religions--- people and their places of worship --- would have disappeared long ago."

Yes, let's not forget one's options, convert to Islam, be taxed and give up your sons for indoctrination into Islam, or die.

I just posted this below a few minutes ago, on the Muslimah Next Door Blog at the patheos.com site. It is a comment about the post Where we mourn in which she declares that terrorists such as in Brussels are not really Muslims...
Here goes....

Actually they, the terrorists, swear allegiance to the precepts of the Quran and cite the example of their prophet -- a man who, they say, "never stopped attacking his enemies". After all, they are just doing what Allah orders: Quran 9:111.

Muslimah, you can write deep-in-denial "this is not my islam" stories until the cows come home, and it will change nothing. Some Muslims will continue to kill, based upon clear dogma in both Quran and hadith, and others will pretend it has nothing to do with Islam.

And we all sink deeper into a hell of hate and violence.

BTW, here is the link:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/muslimahnextdoor/2016/03/where-we-mourn/

This is just an experiment.

Grateful, Asking to commit is not committing.

The fact is that Islam is poorly suited for coexistence with non-Muslims. You talk about values, but exactly how many of the values listed conform to Islamic doctrine and practice?

• respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual (No, the slander against non-Muslims seeps from the pages of the Quran)
• freedom of religion (Blasphemy and apostasy laws)
• commitment to the rule of law (Which is better -- Sharia, Allah's perfect law, or those of fallible humans?)
• Parliamentary democracy (Not exactly an islamic tradition)
• equality of men and women (Any questions, here?)
• a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect,
tolerance, fair play and compassion for those in need and
pursuit of the public good (the treatment of religious and ethnic minorities in Islamic societies is well-known);
• equality of opportunity for individuals, regardless of their
race, religion or ethnic background (Actually, Muslims, are according to the Quran, the best of peoples, and we, poor infidels, are lower than animals. Non-Muslims are, by law, second class citizens, just below Muslim women.)

As I have been saying here at OLO for 10 years, Muslims cannot live in peace, in numbers, as equals, with nonMuslims. Their values are those of Allah (I will cast terror) and MOhammad (I am made victorious with terror).

"Yes, let's not forget one's options, convert to Islam, be taxed and give up your sons for indoctrination into Islam, or die."

Luciferase, this is not part of the teachings of Islam. If you disagree, then share your source and we'll see if it bears up to serious scrutiny.

Kactuz (every 2nd night?), since you have spent 10 years on this forum venting against Muslims you would have accumulated a number of resources upon which you base your assertions.

Would you like to share your sources with everyone? My guess is that you will not share your sources for two reasons. Firstly, you know they will not bear up to serious scrutiny. Secondly, they will link you to hate-mongers and bigots.

Its for you to prove me wrong!

Google "devshirme".

Google "millet ottoman" Perhaps look at http://www.academia.edu/2362427/How_Just_was_the_Ottoman_Millet_System amongst others.

Some relativistic argument that, by the standards of the time, the Ottoman empire and earlier caliphates guided subjects by a benign hand can be proffered, I suppose, but the argument that the spread of Islam by violence rather than by force of argument is simultaneously sustained.

Islam must go through a reformation before it can coexist with other religions of the world, a kind of new testament if you like. As things stand, Imams can come to whatever diametrically opposed interpretations they wish based on the holy books of Islam, much as can be done with the Old Testament of the Bible.

Grateful said;
If what you are saying about traditional Islam is true, then all
other religions--- people and their places of worship --- would have
disappeared long ago.

This would be true except that the crusaders resisted, the Polish army
at the gates of Vienna defeated the moslems.
Chambelain drove the moslems out of France.
Ferdinand & Isobella acted and drove the moslems out of Spain.
It has been going on like this from India to Spain.
India had to be divided. The Sudan had to be divided.
This is why they have not succeeded in their aim.

Generations of the peoples of Asia and Europe have resisted the
demands of Islam and it is now our turn to resist.
Unfortunately we now have them as a fifth column.
How long before one European country has to turn its army onto the
moslem enclaves of European cities ?
It cannot be far away, already the Government of France has an official
list of urban areas where French law does not apply.

Britain even has official Sharia courts !

And you believe it is a non problem !

All these attacks are allowed to happen because they promote a narrative that puts an agenda on the table for a military response in Syria. Is all bs, and you people eat it up and can't get enough..

"Mmm yummy can I have another serving of steaming hot feces please?"

Morons...

All of the suggestions you have submitted are just band aid solutions, Mal Fletcher.

The very first thing that the western world must do, is to ban all Islamic immigration into our countries. That includes "refugees". Do what Australia has done. Buy boats and put the "refugees" into them and tow them back to where they came from. Tell them that the problem in the Islamic world is there own stupid religion. And that the Muslims had better do something about it instead of just jumping ship and bringing their evil religion with them. Islam is the problem. Islamic people should solve it.

It is time for every western politician to tell the whole damned Islamic world that their religion stinks, their imams and ayatollahs are evil, and that their religion is preventing their social advancement and prosperity.

Instead of having stupid referendums on idiotic topics like making aboriginals a special race in order to fight racism, have one on whether those people who wish to fight for Islam should be stripped of their citizenship and put on a boat 5 kilometers off the Somali coast. If you love Islam, go and live there. Don't live in public housing on Centrelink, and then tell us how superior your culture is.

Of course the ABC types will scream bloody murder. But since their multicultural ideals are crashing down around their heads with every new terrorist outrage, why would normal people want to listen to the idiots who got everything wrong? Let's hope that the next terrorist outrage occurs in an ABC office, or the gay mardi gras, and hopefully they might all grow a brain.

It is said that people can always be relied upon to think rationally and sensibly, after every other means has failed. Well our Human-Rights-will-solve-everything ideology has well and truly failed, and now it is time to start thinking straight. The Golden Rule of Guerilla Warfare is, if you are not definitely winning, you are definitely losing. If we want to win, we had better think in terms of doing what is effecivre.

The modern bourgeoisie looks at the Brussels cell and compares them to himself or his own sons and wonders what could drive a man to such extremes?
He must be mad, he must have been misled, the material conditions of his upbringing must have shattered and demoralised him to the point that he felt he had no other option but suicide bombing.
That's but one of the bourgeois fallacies doing the rounds, no the Mujahideen is nothing like the post modern European, his type hasn't been seen on the continent for generations, since perhaps the days of the Waffen SS or the partisans opposing them.
The Mujahideen commits his soul to eternity with a smile on his face, his comrades joyfully shout "God is great!" as they watch him detonate his suicide belt or as he's cut down on the battlefield.
The Mujahideen does what he does to make the world a better place by following the example of his forebears and his prophet, the European bourgeoisie merely signals his social status with his calls for tolerance and harmony, his vain exhortations to respect the religion of peace and mercy while the Mujahideen has total belief in himself, his faith and his laws.
The bourgeoisie is vain, opportunistic and self serving, the political soldiers like Leon DeGrelle or Osama Bin Laden are a breed apart, they are incomparable to the vapid "modern" and his sons and those "bleeding hearts" will never understand what makes such men tick.

Did you pick up on this bit from Armchair Critic ?

All these attacks are allowed to happen because they promote a narrative - - etc

This seems on a par with the "It has nothing to do with Islam" narrative.

Brussels and Paris have now had a sample of what Israel has put up with daily for decades. So ironic that it was so close to the Israel hating UN. They won't learn from it because regressives are totally stuck in their narrative. Very sad.

I agree Runner, what those that are making excuses, blame shifting,
making all sorts of excuses just simply do not understand is

ALL THAT DOES NOT MATTER A DAMN !

It is a war and it is survival for one place at a time.
We have to forget all the rights and wrongs some may think have been
done to the Middle East, all that is irrelevant.
The rules have changed and it is now boots and all.

Our problem is there is no one in government we can expect to take off
their trendy rose coloured glasses.

If we have an incident like Belgium or Paris who would you want to be Prime Minister ?

Malcolm Turnbull or Tony Abbott ?

.Armchair Critic
All these attacks are allowed to happen because they promote a narrative that puts an agenda on the table for a military response in Syria. Is all bs, and you people eat it up and can't get enough..

And what does the West gain by an attack on Syria.
Putin is the one who can finish off the Syrian conflict and the Isis one because he
Is not held back by only bombing military targets like the West.

See the gains the Assad government has made in taking back territory
Since Putin entered the war.

Also Isis is losing previously taken territory as well.

As the chief Australian defence Analyst said on Q&A one night,
We could defeat Isis in a week but we can't bomb civilians.
Putin does bomb Isis held cities which flushes them out of their
Hiding places.

Assad is the one America should be on side with.
Because it was the so called moderate Muslims who stormed Damascus in large
Numbers.
As we've seen in Europe you can't hold large numbers back with cotton wool methods.n
Assad retaliated with force to protect Damascus Aleppo and the people who live there.

Bazz,
<We have to forget all the rights and wrongs some may think have been
done to the Middle East, all that is irrelevant.>

I agree?

The trouble is the Australian media spent years, parroting what The Arabs
told them
But the Arabs never mentioned the very large part they played in starting these
Conflicts. They never mention the 6day war when 4 Arab states raced over and
Attacked Israel, They then demanded the land that Israel took as a buffer zone
Back, calling it the occupied territories, when Israel beat them in six days.
Because every Israelie, even the women do national military training. Something
They learnt was prudent after what happened in Germany.

The talk of the occupied territories is a one sided propaganda version put out by the Arabs,never mentioning their attack on Israel. The media never mentions it either, they'd have to do some historical reading and they don't bother, even though it only happened
about 60years ago. So they only mention the occupied territories too, thus putting Israel in the spotlight as the evil occupier.

Also, the Ottoman Empire,, again the Muslims, just about ethnically cleansed all the Large groups of European Christians out of the Middle East in the middle 1800s.
Over Time the Europeans fought back and re-established some non Muslim areas in the Middle East.
So the Muslims have along history of ethnic cleansing and agression in the Middle East.
They also secretly plotted with Hitler.

The Western media never prints or talks about the other side of the story because they never go and look up the history, they just take the easy way and believe what Muslims tell them about the histor
Of the Middle East. Of course the Muslim version never puts in the bits about their wrong doings.

Dear Bazz, runner, Kactus, Luciferase

I offer you an opportunity to demonstrate your commitment to Australian values.

You all maintain that the violence we have been seeing is the outgrowth of Islamic teachings and continuation of a tradition that can be traced back to the Prophet.

Against this argument I offer you the words of Bernard Lewis. He has been one of the most eminent scholars of Middle Eastern and Islamic studies. And far from being an apologist for Islam, he was the one who coined the phrase “Clash of Civilisations” (used by Huntington). He aligned himself with the pro-Israel lobby in the US and later the Neocons in advocating for the invasion of Iraq to topple Suddam Hussein. when Bush and Chaney were dismissing advice of their Arab experts, they we consulting with Lewis.

Yet what Lewis has to say about Islam completely undermines the cases being prosecuted by you guys. Read on,

“Muslim fighters are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged unless they attack first; not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners; give fair warnings of the opening of hostilities or their resumption after a truce; and to honor agreements. In the medieval juristic literature, there are interesting discussions about the lawfulness of missiles, such as mangonels and catapults, and of chemical warfare, in form of poison-tipped arrows and poisoning enemy water supplies. Some jurisits permit, some restrict, and some disapprove of the use of these weapons.

At NO TIME did the classical jurists offer any approval or legitimacy to what we nowadays call terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism as it is practiced nowadays.” Source: Bernard Lewis “Islam: the religion and the people” p. 151

The test now is for you guys (Bazz, runner, Kactus, and Luciferase) to either concede to undisputed authority or to somehow launch a challenge to this authority. But don't do a runner (pun intended). A runner would not only be cowardly, but represent a betrayal of the values you claim to be defending... Australia would be best served if you just kept running.

Challenge the authority of a Neocon court vizier? Gladly.

History as it's taught in the academies is always subjective and ideologically tainted, history is not a science and it's not about relaying facts rather it's about passing on a set of values.
Modern academia has dedicated itself to the destruction of European majority nations all paid for by the globalist capitalist networks, there's no reason for the European diaspora workers to give consideration to any information coming from historians or social scientists.

Understand that it's impossible to save parts of Europe, there will be no deportations or some miraculous reconquista, the security services have all but given up because they can't cope and more and more indigenous Europeans are becoming openly hostile to the bourgeoisie and their globalist backers.

The only demographic which counts is young men, women and the elderly are irrelevant in politics, Matt Bracken:

“It won’t be the end of the century, that’s very optimistic, because you can’t go by the absolute majority like when 51% are Muslim compared to 49% ethnic Swedish. It will happen much sooner than that because the demographic bulge of young men is the only demographic that counts. Girls can’t make themselves pregnant, and old people can’t be pregnant, and girls can’t fight men. These are realities, ok? …So the only people that count are men under the age of 40, and already they’re getting, in major parts of European cities, close to being 50%. And the cities also have more gravity than the countryside. It doesn’t matter if… 60% of France does not live in a city, if the 10 major cities are taken over by Muslim factions that will control the entire country. The countryside can’t unite. Individual peasant farmers have no power.”
http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2016/03/RIR-160322.php

Jay: "These are realities, ok?"

OK

Grateful, what are you talking about ?
We all know about the lovely words.
We have all read them, like honouring women, be charitable, the rules of war etc etc.

It is all meaningless. How compatible are those highly desirable rules
of war etc with setting off a bomb in an auditorium, setting off
bombs in airports to say nothing of aircraft at 30,000ft ?

How do they measure up with what Arab Islamic armies did in India ?

It is the likes of you that are the problem, who want to believe Islam
is all lovey dovey and the height of intellectual thought.
The best thing they can do for us all is to stop marrying their
cousins and start repairing their genome.
It will take hundreds of years but the problem is so widespread that
it will require a complete restructure of Islam.
The Immans could start that program but they are restricted by having
to deny their writings. That is blasphemy. You know the penalty for that.

Bazz, I was originally going to reply to Grateful by pointing out the elements of Islamic history that academics always ignore, namely that most if not all the meagre achievements of the "classical" Islamic world are attributable to converts or non Muslim subjects of the Caliphs and Sultans.
I'm not surprised to learn that in an era when European Janissaries and mercenaries were the backbone of Islamic armies that they behaved in a more chivalrous manner and designed codes of conduct for their troops.
The same phenomenon can be seen in Syria and Iraq today, the civil war and the Jihad are a magnet for mercenaries and adventurers from all over Europe and the near East. We've even seen a few Australians head over to fight for the different factions and all sorts of foreign governments are sending in their elite troops and paramilitaries to "blood" them in combat so that they can be more effective trainers and leaders.
The most effective and disciplined units of the Arab armies are those led, trained and equipped by Western or Russian troops, we're even seeing reports of North Korean and Chinese special forces embedded with Assad's army.

Yes Jay, well the whole mess is being complicated by the PC waffle waffle.
I think one measure is that the Arab countries have just three Nobel Prizes
and Israel has dozens if not a hundred, forget the exact numbers.
Most European countries have significant numbers of Nobel prizes.

I really cannot see a long time solution to it all other than the
suggestion I made a while back, ie put an electronic wall around
the Middle East and let no one out. Just deport as many as possible
back to the ME. Pretty drastic, if not impossible, but at least it
should be attempted.
If anyone does not like my suggestion let them come up with a better solution.
After all nothing else has worked in the last 1400 years.

There were eight terrorist attacks in the last month and the pace
seems to be picking up. Just how long can this go on without a
backlash of some sort.
We have all seen videos of Baghdad bombing add infinitum and now
the same pictures are coming to us from Paris and Brussels.

It is the way they wage war, so we have no choice but to react.
It will be interesting to see what the reaction of the French & Belgium
governments will be when the next attacks come.
See if I am not right; they will suck their thumbs, but vigilanties
will come into existance, like the Viking gang in Sweden.

Another foiled bombing attempt in Brussels.
When will they ever learn ?

Bazz and Jay

Have you ever had the opportunity to think critically? to analyse, evaluate, and improve on your own thinking?

Firstly, you assert from the existence of Janissary corps and terrorist claiming to act in the name of Islam, that these acts do comply with Islamic teachings. But neither of you have presented proof despite being requested to do so.

Bazz, you're assertion is contradicted by an eminent scholar:

“At NO TIME did the classical jurists offer any approval or legitimacy to what we nowadays call terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism as it is practiced nowadays.” Source: Bernard Lewis “Islam: the religion and the people” p. 151

You have not provided any evidence to the contrary. A person committed to critical thinking and the truth would provide evidence to support their views or admit to a mistake, and be glad to do so because it points to a solution: communicating the true teachings of Islam to avoid further harm being inflict on innocents.

Clearly, if you are not prepared to engage is a fair and honest dialogue then you are nothing more than " a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance." Merriam-Webster definition of a bigot

You are a person who is "obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false." http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Bigotry

And Jay, where is the support for your assertion that the Janissary corps comply with Islamic teaching?

Would you like to share your sources? My guess is that you (like Kactus) will not share your sources for two reasons. Firstly, you know they will not bear up to serious scrutiny. Secondly, they will link you to hate-mongers and bigots.

Bazz and Jay, your behaviour has been cowardly and as fellow Australians embarrassing and such a poor example for the next generation (not that you guys seem to care).

"...concede to undisputed authority." Is that the sum total of your argument, grateful, appeal to authority?

How does your authority account for Islamification of North Africa, for example? Was it missionary zeal, or was it the fact, as history records, of murderous military conquest?

Did those that opposed being Islamified, simply by their opposition, allow the Muslim armies to justify war on the basis of self-defense, as is terrorism?

Do you think taxation, devshirme and second-class citizenship were accepted by the subjugated because they saw some great benefit to themselves, other than staying alive?

Your "undisputed" authority must wear rose-coloured glasses if, like you, he believes Islam was peacefully propogated. I recommend the article I linked for you earlier (translated from Russian, I believe, so nothing to do with the West) as a vision aid.

Lol!

Luciferace,

You've got a nerve. Complete contempt for scholarship and the facts.

And still no sources! More claims, but what are your sources?

Are you also of those "obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false." http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Bigotry

Shameless and cowardly behaviour. Is this the future of Australia?

I see our posts crossed, grateful.

It is too cute to separate the historic and present day violent activities of those acting in the name of Islam, entirely from its teachings.

It is not difficult to conjure a self-defense basis for violence if one doesn't exist. History is full of it.

Islam is what Islam does.

BTW earlier I said Chamberlain chased the Moslems out of France.
I should of course said it was Charlemagne.
We will need our own Charlemagne. I wonder if Tony Abbott would stand in ?

Grateful, you are a self important windbag !
Waffle waffle, the Islamists call people like you "Useful Idiots".

Don't you see that it has gone way past academic tete a tetes ?
The Islamists do not even know you are there ?
You can just sit there and fiddle with your references.

It is now all down to the police, military and intelligence people.
You and I are irrelevant, we now do not count in this "game".
The Islamists forced it on us once they brought the Baghdad warfare
model to the west.

We now await the Polish Army.

Actually Bazz you wrong on two counts.

Firstly, you are wrong in assigning the blame for these terrorist acts to the teachings of Islam. You, Jay, Leciferace, kactus effectively concede the point by failing to produce any evidence to the contrary. This is what happens when you hold firm to prejudices in spite of the facts.

Secondly, you are wrong in saying we cann't do anything. Certainly, the police, military and security need to deal with the hardened criminals. But we can contribute to preventing our children from being sucked into this evil ideology, just as we can do something to protect our kids from the evils of gambling,drugs, alcohol, domestic violence, and suicide.

Historically, the teachings of Islam have been the bulwark against tyranny and the spread of Islam has been through good example and teachings (leading historians are unambiguous on this point). so I expect that despite the efforts of extremists and bigots to inflame hatred, that the truth will prevail and expose the illigitimacy of the terrorist movements (and people like yourself).

To illustrate, let me quote from Bernard Lewis again: “Muslim fighters are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged unless they attack first; not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners; give fair warnings of the opening of hostilities or their resumption after a truce; and to honor agreements."

The terrorist are in violation of the Shariah on every count: they are killing non-combatants, they torture and ill-treat prisoners, they obviously offer no warning, and as individuals they are in no position to be making or breaking truces.

So the solution for lasting peace is to lift the veil of ignorance about the teachings of Islam, which you and others on this forum are desperately keen to maintain.

Our children need to be raised on the truth, and not the lies propagated by the terrorists claiming to be acting in the name of God or bigots claiming to be defending Australian values.

70% of the refugees coming into Europe are young fit males.

The evolunary roll of young fit males is that of warrior.
They defend and take territory.

So to let hundreds of thousands of fit men into a country is
Equivalent to letting an army in.

If those males can find a way to arm themselves through underground
means you have an enemy army of large proportions inside your
Countries borders.

If only some of them plant bombs and kill, it is still a huge problem.

Isis kills all the boys and men for a reason.

They realise that if they let them go, they will most probably have to fight them
Again at some point. They don't fear the women in that respect because they
Know the women aren't naturally warriors.
Europe to my mind is already gone, they just don't seem to realise it yet.
But over time it will become obvious.

Grateful says "To illustrate, let me quote from Bernard Lewis again: “Muslim fighters are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged unless they attack first; not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners; give fair warnings of the opening of hostilities or their resumption after a truce; and to honor agreements."
What a total crock. You are asking for evidence that is actually in front of your own eyes.
Europe is a lot more resilient than you guys appreciate. Last century millions were killed and displaced in two wars and that can happen again. Not under the current leadership of course but get some real mettle and it will be a different story. Then the muslim will be the victim, at last, they will get what they always complain about. As sharia law is horrible other just as horrible laws can be enacted.

JBowyer
Bernard Lewis was (he recently passed away at 99) one of the leading historians of Islam in the Middle East and you respond with "what a load of crock"!

Did any of you reach year 8?

I use his testimony because he cannot be accused of being an apologist for Islam. He belonged to the inner circle of the neocons advising Bush in the lead up to the 2nd Iraq war: http://forward.com/news/163089/neocons-gather-to-fete-iraq-war-godfather-bernard/
and

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/04/bernard-lewis-revises-bernard-lewis-says-he-opposed-invasion-of-iraq/

What he says is completely uncontroversial in scholarly circles. If you think you can offer a different opinion, one that is just as authoritative, then please do.

What you guys have to realise is that by discarding the principles of critical thought and scholarship you are betraying values that have made Australian institutions secure from the tyranny of populist like Trump. Trump is not just any old populists but one with a dangerous mental disorder:

"A neuroscientist explains: Trump has a mental disorder that makes him a dangerous world leader" http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/a-neuroscientist-explains-trump-has-a-mental-disorder-that-makes-him-a-dangerous-world-leader/

Is this the future you want for our kids?

Oh god, grateful, "What he says is completely uncontroversial in scholarly circles." And that is why, grateful all real people consider most scholarly circles are so far up themselves to be just like the wahoo bird, & about as well informed.

When you & your lot at the mosque identify every would be terrorist among you, rather than cover for & support them, we just might believe you are actually grateful.

We won't be holding our breath, as we know there is not a grateful, or decent bone in the body of the whole lot of you

Grateful,

There are a few indisputable facts:

1 Most ISIS members and Jihadis are long standing Muslims with the remainder being recent converts.

2 The acts of barbarity are committed in the name of Islam,

3 While Muslim faith is based primarily on the Quran, it is also based on Scholarly interpretations, some of which are more radical than others, incl those that preach violence, which is largely the basis for ISIS.

Ipso facto - Islamic state is Islamic terrorism.

Grateful,
OK is the IS magazine "Dabiq" a reliable enough source of information on the Jihad against the West? I read every issue online in English and every exhortation the writers make is extensively footnoted by Koranic scripture.
I couldn't care less what Western academics and their students think, as Bazz said, you're irrelevant, soldiers, mercenaries and vigilantes are the ones who'll deal with the terrorists, just as they do in Iraq and Syria.

"...is the IS magazine "Dabiq" a reliable enough source of information..."

No, the imams of IS disagree with grateful's imams on interpretation of the holy books of Islam.

Moderates who reject the primacy of Islam and the subjugation of all other religions to it need to agitate for a book to cover their peculiar situation, and call it the "New Testament" or some such.

Another 65 Christians slaughtered by the religion of peace in Pakistan. Not much interest from the left as they can't blame disadvantage or Tony Abbott.

Shadow Minister,
My interpretation of your syllogism is as follows:

Most ISIS fighters have received reasonable exposure to Islamic teachings and are committing acts of barbarity in the name of Islam. As a result we can say that the violence finds its inspiration in the teachings of Islam. So it is appropriate to use the term Islamic terrorism.

The conclusion is wrong for two reasons.

Firstly, Islam does not endorse terrorism and opposes it. Terrorism has not been a part of its history nor its teachings. The use of terrorism is a violation of the Sharia’ah. Shayhkh bin Bayyah’s recent "Fatwa on ISIS" is among the many dealing with the issue: http://binbayyah.net/english/2014/09/24/fatwa-response-to-isis/

If the conclusion is wrong then the logic and/or premises are flawed. In this case the logic is flawed.

You are saying, in effect, that we should accept the interpretation of a Muslim (not a novice, but with reasonable exposure to Islam) who is not authorised by any of the schools of Islamic jurisprudence to make fatwas.Would you entrust your health to someone without formal training in medicine? I refer you to the Amman Message which clarifies who is and who is not eligible to be making fatwas: http://www.ammanmessage.com/

cont...

cont..

There also appears to be a double standard here.

Are we to infer from the actions of Christians that Jesus would endorse the spread of Christianity by the sword? ..because that is how Christianity was spread in Europe and Latin America.

The following from is from Christianity Today. referring the the Massacre of Verdun (of the 4,500 Saxon by Charlemagne):

“There's no sense in pretending this was an exceptional missionary tactic; for many centuries, it was the method of choice among Christian rulers and missionaries. The conversion of much of Europe and of Latin America is unimaginable without the sword.” http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-63/conversion-of-vikings-christian-history-interview.html

Bazz holds Charlemagne in high esteem, so lets examine the actions of this goodly Christian king in a bit more detail:

“The Massacre of Verden, or the Bloody Verdict of Verden, was a massacre of Saxons in 782 near the present town of Verden in Lower Saxony, Germany, ordered by Charlemagne during the Saxon Wars. In 782 A.D. some 4,500 Saxon leaders are said to have been beheaded for practicing their indigenous Germanic paganism, having officially, albeit under duress, converted to Christianity and undergone baptism. The river Aller was said to have been flowing red with their blood. Charlemagne's motives were to demonstrate his overlordship and the severity of punishment for rebellion. The effect was that the Saxons lost virtually their entire tribal leadership and were henceforth largely governed by Frankish counts installed by Charlemagne. The Saxon leader, Duke Widukind, had escaped to his in-laws in Denmark, but soon returned. In 785 he, along with his people, was forced to convert to Christianity by Charlemagne.” See Massacre of Verdun: 4,500 Pagans killed: http://www.14words.net/2014/01/massacre-of-verden-4500-pagans-killed.html

This was not an isolated event:

“On the issue of beheading the historian Ramsay MacMullen notes that in 681 a council of bishops at Toledo called on civil authorities to seize and behead all those guilty of non-Christian practices of whatever sort. These massacres were common on both sides throughout the Christianization of Europe, with similar events involving pagan Saxons, Germans and Celts and Christians documented in Britain and Ireland.”

cont...

cont...

Charlemagne was familiar with the Bible, as were the clerics that justified his behaviour.

Does that mean the teachings of Jesus are responsible for the murders and forced conversations that they perpetrated?

Jay states:
"Grateful,
OK is the IS magazine "Dabiq" a reliable enough source of information on the Jihad against the West? I read every issue online in English and every exhortation the writers make is extensively footnoted by Koranic scripture."

so what? See my previous post

"I couldn't care less what Western academics and their students think, as Bazz said, you're irrelevant,"

OMG! This is shocking news

"soldiers, mercenaries and vigilantes are the ones who'll deal with the terrorists, just as they do in Iraq and Syria"

Yes vigilantes will solve the problem!

Does anyone here know how to sustain a polite and well reasoned discourse?

A polite discourse isn't going to produce the solutions we need, we live in a world of multiple polarities and multiple truths, pick a side and join the Jihad or Crusade, Great Patriotic Struggle or whatever milieu suits your temperament.
The overthrow of Liberal, globalist hegemony is the goal, it's universalism and universal conceptions of truth are the enemy so exceptionalism, racism, nationalism and protectionism are the tactics needed to overthrow the old order and usher in a new age.

Grateful,

Firstly please don't misquote me.

Secondly, the vast majority of ISIS members 99% are native muslims who know the Quran in detail, there is a small smattering of recent converts who are not as well versed.

Thirdly, Islam teaching is no more homogeneous than Christianity, and as in the bible, the Quran has many calls for violence against non believers, apostates etc, and the more radical interpretations (many founded on wahhabism from Saudi Arabia) are driving the savagery, and even outside the radicals, most Imams in the west incl in Australia, while not actually calling for Jihad, are saying little to nothing against it. I have yet to hear one Imam state that Jihadis are going to hell.

To claim that the radicals murdering women and children on an industrial scale have nothing to do with Islam is weapons grade stupidity by fuzzy wuzzy left whingers that see their dream of a peaceful multicultural society going down in flames, and who are trying desperately to pretend that the problems don't exist.

Shadow Minister, who sees Multiculturalism going down in flames?
Australia continues to do very well with our multicultural society.

Why would we let a bunch of violent terrorists of any nationality or religion dictate to us what sort of society we should have?
Wouldn't that be giving in to their brand of terror and thus lead to more terrorist activity?

The people of the world have already mixed together, so the horse has well and truly bolted. It is too late to say we don't want foreigners in Australia, way too late.
We need to weed out and knock off the terrorists amongst us...and I believe we are doing it fairly well here in Australia, don't you?

SOL,

I wasn't just talking about Aus. I think that in Europe, Asia and the middle east that multiculturalism is less than a spectacular success.

Yes I agree Shadow Minister, but I don't know what the answer is for Europe at present.

Certainly, calling for even more division in the population by suggesting they 'ban' all Muslim immigration, or worse, 'throw out' all Muslims just in case they might be terrorists, is not going to help.
More division will certainly cause even more terrorists to evolve.

SOL,

I don't disagree with you, but restraint and positive action is required on both sides. When I hear an imam state to his followers that what ISIS is doing is heresy and that they will go to hell, then I will believe that they are taking matters into their own hands. All I hear now is platitudes and excuses.

Oh I don't think that is strictly true Shadow Minister.

The SMH reported in January that Imams from countries all over the world ordered a fatwa against ISIS members and denounced them as non-Islamic in their actions and views.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/muslim-leaders-including-the-grand-mufti-of-australia-back-fatwa-against-isis-20160101-glxtbp.html

Shadow Minister,
The Iraqi national police SWAT team have an Instagram account and they post pictures of captured ISIS fighters asking their online followers to give them the thumbs up or thumbs down, after an hour if the number of thumbs down is greater they shoot the captive.
http://www.funker530.com/iraqi-swat-wants-your-instagram-vote-for-isis-executions/
Suse.
Sometimes Jihad Is Just Jihad: Examining the West’s habit of blaming itself for the terrorism directed against it.
Heather Mac Donald
http://city-journal.org/html/sometimes-jihad-just-jihad-14313.html

There's no solution to the problem , repatriation and ethnic cleansing are not going to happen because even though there are plenty of thuggish people who'd do the dirty work anyone with the intelligence to organise the liquidation of Europe's Muslims realises that taking that role means a one way trip to a war crimes tribunal at The Hague, if not a hangman's rope a la 1946.
There may well be an uprising or full blown Jihad in Europe in the next few years but Muslims in general lack the intelligence and organisational skills to carry it through to a coup d'etat or genuine revolution, the only way they could make any ground would be if large numbers of Europeans took the lead, armed, trained and supplied them.
So unless an Omar Pasha type figure, a European convert with military genius comes onto the scene it'll just be this simmering, crime wave scenario that's now the norm in heavily Muslim cities.

In response to Shadow Minister who wrote: “When I hear an imam state to his followers that what ISIS is doing is heresy and that they will go to hell, then I will believe that they are taking matters into their own hands. All I hear now is platitudes and excuses.”

Please read:
"Sunni cleric: ISIS chief al-Baghdadi ‘is going to hell’ ": http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2014/11/17/cleric-isis-chief-al-baghdadi-is-going-to-hell/

The following is a Friday sermon (khutbah) by the same shaykh, a powerful and moving tribute to an aid worker executed by ISIS. This is followed by a lecture which summarises his recent book: "Refuting ISIS". Background to Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaquobi can be found in the article or his website below

In his sermon the Shaykh declares that ISIS is going to hell, they are not Muslims but gangsters and that on these points all of the Ulema (scholars of Islamic jurisprudence) are agreed.

Source for both og the videos: http://www.halaltube.com/speaker/muhammad-al-yaqoubi#.VvomiPt97IV

Tribute to Abdul Rahman (Peter) Kassig
Peter Kassig was an American from Indiana who was on vacation in Lebanon. He saw the suffering and death in Syria and felt compelled to help them. Instead of going back home, he went to Syria and with is medical knowledge he volunteered his aid. He converted to Islam and was captured by terrorists known as the self-named group “Islamic State” (ISIS/ISIL/Daesh). He was murdered by them. Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi honors his actions in this khutbah.

Refuting ISIS: A Rebuttal Of Its Religious & Ideological Foundations
Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi presents an important and enlightening talk based on his new book, “Refuting ISIS.” The book details how ISIS bases its ideology on a superficial and literalist approach to the sacred texts of Islam; and concludes that ISIS does not represent Islam, that its declaration of a caliphate is invalid, and that opposing ISIS is an obligation upon Muslims.

Shadow Minister wrote "There's no solution to the problem , repatriation and ethnic cleansing are not going to happen because even though there are plenty of thuggish people who'd do the dirty work anyone with the intelligence to organise the liquidation of Europe's Muslims realises that taking that role means a one way trip to a war crimes tribunal at The Hague, if not a hangman's rope a la 1946."

So you view "repatriation and ethnic cleansing" and "liquidation of Europe's Muslims" as a "solution"?

If not for the possibility of being prosecuted in the Hague, would it also be a "solution" for Australia?

I have three thoughts on this:

1) Religion unifies people and nations, but religion doesn't divide individual people. If a nation is having inner turmoil, especially between religious people, it is because the nation itself is pretending to be above the very people that make it up. Better off separating, let ISIS have the land they claim. If someone else has a claim on that same land let them fight for it. Let all who claim the land fight for the land, if they believe in their nation so much. If they die they lose and if they don't, they win.

2) History suggests that nations have been fighting for thousands of years over land. Let's not pretend that it is about to stop. A little group of self-righteous "world rulers" in the UN are not going to stop nations (politically recognised or other) fighting to claim their land. With the exception of total world-wide adherence to one culture, religion, etc. it is impossible to achieve this world peace.

3) Defense is the best offense in the battle against this kind of 'terrorism'. If your walls are so high that they can't get in to blow you up, you win and they can't have your land.

I take exception to Mal Fletcher's use of language to hide the truth.

"There can be no doubt that Europe and Europeans are now the objects of consistent threats from terror cells."

Wrong. Europe is being attacked by the very highest grade of Muslims who live in Europe, but who hate the very society that they chose to live in.

"Two things are clear in the immediate wake of the latest carnage. The first is that national European governments and their security services must exercise restraint – as they arguably often do."

Wrong. "Exercising restraint" is another word for "let's keep doing what has never worked for us before, and let's keep pretending that the problem is just a few rogue Muslims who the mass of "moderate" Muslims do not support."

"No foreign army represents a credible and sustained risk to the very existence of Europe's foundational institutions, or its ability to function as an ordered society."

Wrong. What we are seeing in Europe is now becoming a guerrilla war. You don't need an organised army to fight a guerrilla war, that can come later when the rebel force becomes stronger. Future military historians are going to love this situation. This will be the second time in history when western Europe fell to refugee barbarians that just poured into Europe uninvited. But at least the Romans were not stupid enough to give Alaric and his Visigoths free housing and social welfare.

The golden rule of guerrilla warfare is "If you are not definitely winning, you are definitely losing." The funny thing about Europe is that the Euros have not even figured out that they are at war. Europe is PC central, and it is just so funny to see those "sophisticated" Europeans now floundering in the mess that their PC stupidity has created.

Mao once wrote that "the people are the sea in which the guerrillas swim." Memo to politically correct Europe. If you want to survive, you had better start draining the swamp, not just sit stand around in astonishment and hold committee meetings as the sea pours in.

SOL,

All the examples you give are pretty feeble denunciations of ISIS given to the media with non muslims as the intended audience.

Grateful has given a link to something more akin to what I am looking for, however, even then this denunciation of Jihadis is so rare as to be the exception that proves the rule.

Just as in Germany where the Nazi retained power by the majority turning a blind eye, the Germans were surprised that the rest of the world held them accountable, so too, if muslims don't want to be all tarred with the same brush, they need to make their rejection of radicals known and unequivocal.

My experience is that even moderate secularised muslims are loath to criticise other muslims, hoping that if they ignore the problem it will go away.

Grateful,

For god's sake stop misquoting me, or attributing others statements to me.

Prebs, land once occupied by moslems always remains moslem land.
This is the basis for the spurious claim that Israel's land is
occupied land. It was at one time occupied by moslems so it is always moslem land.
This also means that Spain and parts of France are also claimable by moslems.
And don't you dare dispute this.

I think you misunderstand me, I agree totally with what you have said, the point is not what claim you make though, anyone can claim whatever they want, but if you have the land you are the winner. Israel, France, Spain. They all currently possess the land that the Moslem caliphate once held. In those lands Israel, Spain and France are the winners. The only reason that they could lose that land is if they are too divided within themselves to protect that land.

Jay
I simple answer will suffice. "Solution" was your word not mine. Australia,contrary to the values statement it asks immigrants to sign, has a tradition of "solving" it's "problems" through discrimination, extra-judicial killings and massacres (the 'aboriginal problem', Chinese problem'). And you clearly are arguing Australia has a 'Muslim problem' .

So when you express regret that the Hague will discourage those with the intelligence --which I presume is how you see yourself ---from "repatriation and ethnic cleansing" of Muslims in Europe i dont think its unreasonable to ask whether you see this as a solution for Australia as well.

And why are you trying to avoid answering the question. Was this statement also intended to signal your support and commitment to like minded 'intellectuals'? Are you worried about losing face by being forced to backdown?

The above post is addressed to Jay of Melbourne, with apologies to Shadow Minister

If we really are at "war" with terrorism there no problem with "extra-judicial" killings of extremists and capturing and interning POW's.

If Europe leaves it all up to the constabulary and judiciary, i.e. not a war, it can expect further growth in outrageous events.

Grateful,
Straw man arguments don't require a response but I'm clever enough not to breach section 18c in any of my posts and you won't be able to bait me into breaking the law.

Jay and Lucerferace,
I wasn't thinking of Section 18c , but the AFP. You are talking about aiding and abetting murder afterall.

As an aside, i'd have Section 18c replaced with a provision that would allow those who had been accused or abused to bring their abusers before a panel to present their case.

You want to claim Muslims are terrorist that their book promotes violence. Fine. Muslims would win hands down based on the evidence (which is why you guys do a runner at the first sign of a serious scholar), and you guys would be left out of pocket and childish.

"You are talking about aiding and abetting murder..."
No more so than what happened to the the IRA as laid out by JoM earlier.

If I support Australian soldiers at war, am I aiding and abetting murder? However, we are not formally yet at "war" with terrorism, just using the term loosely.

According to some imams, murder is only acceptable in self-defense under Islam. The next question is on what pretext self-defense can be justified. Across the Muslim world there is a view that there is a justification in history and in what is going on now, hence the sympathy for IS.

History tells us the Arabs invaded most of what is now considered to be the Muslim world, including North Africa. That there has recently been a movement against tyranny, followed by theocracy, that should not be blamed on the west. Indigenous inhabitants of those lands, particularly, look to the West and want western freedoms. I'm in favour of supporting that endeavour, and so should you be, grateful.

Muslims hold similar historical $hit on their collective livers. One can't justify Arab/Muslim invasion and Islamification on one hand and, on the other, be supportive of movements to break free from it, after all.

Furthermore, whatever arrangements governments in ME nations have with western interests is their own free will, and not something that should have anything to do with religion or a pretext for violent jihad. If the collective Islamic wisdom is that the west has, and still does, rape and pillaged the ME, then there are non-violent means by which to change things, including giving people a democratic say (which is not the Islamic way, unfortunately).

Any argument that the Islamic world is provoked to violence compromises the simultaneous defense of Islam's supposedly peaceful message.

Luciferace,

I seems I misinterpreted you. I thought you were advocating vigilantism.

I'd agree with everything you said, but would also emphasis that Muslims and other religions in the region have turned to Islamic courts and imams for justice and protection against tyranny whether it be from the dictators who have sought (with the support of the West) to marginalise Islam (because it has limited the ability of rulers to tyrannise) or the neo-Kharajite movements re-emerging in the form of Wahabbite doctrines and brutal practices of ISIS.

So that you do not think that I'm just speaking from the top my hat, I would recommend two lectures by Columbia University professor, Dr. Richard Bulliet. He predicted the Arab Spring and appreciates better than most the dynamics of the Arab world

-Religion and the State in Islam: From Medieval Caliphate to the Muslim Brotherhood

-Understanding Muslim Countries

(You will find the video lectures by googling)

As for the Kharajites, the best online description of the movement, and how it evolved, is probably by Shaykh Seraj Hendericks:

-The Kharajites and their impact on Contemporary Islam, parts 1- 6 , http://www.sunnah.org/aqida/kharijites1.htm

Marginalisation of Islam since the 1850s (under the pretext of "modernisation") has allowed both tyrannys manifest themselves

grateful

can you name one place on earth where Islam has produced a place where people want to immigrate to?

Runner says: "grateful,can you name one place on earth where Islam has produced a place where people want to immigrate to?"

Yes I can, but they date back to when Islamic law was implemented. Jews sought refuge from the persecution of Christians in Spain and later in Eygpt.You might recall from your Christian history studies that Christianity was spread by the sword in Europe and Latin American and Jews and Muslims were forced to flee for fear of being put to the sword for no other reason than they would not convert.

On the other hand, while not approving of empirialist aspirations of the Arab rulers or their personal intrigues (although there were outstanding exceptions in Salah ad-Din or Saladin and Omar bin Abdul Aziz), becoming Muslim was a voluntary act under Arab rule, with freedom of religion an integral part of peace treaties. In fact, if you consult the Oxford History of Islam, you'll find that most of the rulers would discourage conversions because it would mean they would no longer be able to levy a special tax (levied in lieu of service in the Arab armies).

In the lectures I recommended to Lucerferace, in my previous post, the professor mentions that he has studied the records of the Islamic courts and can only conclude that the law was implemented fairly without fear or favour. The outcome would not depend on whether you were a king or a peddler, a Muslim or a Jew.

This tradition dates back to the time of the Prophets and Righteous Caliphs that followed him, and as far as I'm aware is undisputed. This is the Islam i was speaking of in the previous post. In contrast, Europeans could not turn to their churches for protection, but rather sought assembles of varying degrees of representation to reign in the power of the kings.

Runner, since your natural predisposition is to dispute anything that paints Islam as anything other than an evil, if you do chose to challenge what I have said, please provide your scholarly evidence. Otherwise don't waste everyone's time (including your own).

Grateful,

Islam was spread by the sword in exactly the same way that Christianity was, the problem is that the intolerance of the conquistadors in Western society has given way to liberal tolerance, whilst for Islam, they are stuck in the middle ages

Shadow Minister:
"Islam was spread by the sword in exactly the same way that Christianity was, the problem is that the intolerance of the conquistadors in Western society has given way to liberal tolerance, whilst for Islam, they are stuck in the middle ages"

Was Islam spread by the sword or not? You say it was, I say it wasn't. When there is a dispute about historical fact then we consult the historians.

In the Oxford History of Islam you will read:

"In many parts of the empire, even those conquered early on, such as Eygpt or Iran, the population remained predominantly non-Muslim for centuries. With time, more of these conquered peoples embraced Islam; estimates suggest that the Near Eastern provinces Muslims became the majority only after about 850 C.E.

In other words, during the golden age of the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates Muslims were still a minority in the lands they ruled.

The empire’s conquered populations were gradually won over to Islam for various reasons. Forced conversions were rare, but in some cases the imposition of higher taxes on non-Muslims may have created an economic incentive for embracing Islam. For the most part, however, the gradual Islamization of the empire’s populations was part of a complex transformation of the whole social environment, involving many factors that impinged simultaneously on the individual and the family: economic and political advantage, social mobility, linguistic and cultural affinities, marriage and kinship requirements, and, above all, the intrinsic appeal of the Islamic belief.” p22

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=9HUDXkJIE3EC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=snippet&q=spread&f=false

Far from being "exactly the same way that Christianity", it more like what you would call "liberal tolerance".

So what support do you have for your statement?

PS: If you read through this thread, you'll notice that whenever i provide evidence based on eminent historians and asked for sources the response has been to do a runner or to declare historians irrelevant. I'm curious to see whether this trend continues.

Grateful

You seem to very much support 'scholarly' source over truth. I notice U are incapable of naming one Islamic nation where people want to immigrate to. Not surprising the best U can do is draw some very debateable narrative from hundreds of years ago. Are you on the abc payroll by any chance. The scholars they often quote are very loose with the truth.

" ...and, above all, the intrinsic appeal of the Islamic belief."

Really? "Above all"? Now where would a scholar have pulled that one from? Such a rose-coloured religious perspective puts a scholar's objectivity into question, IMO. Whatever

Your reference highlights that extremism has been a part of Islam for centuries. It is good that, finally, a fatwa has been issued that supports the wider Australian community. http://www.smh.com.au/national/muslim-leaders-including-the-grand-mufti-of-australia-back-fatwa-against-isis-20160101-glxtbp.html

At some point here it may be necessary to take the path against extremists that the British took against the IRA (detailed by JoM). Would not the fatwa support such action if it came to it?
That action is now necessary in Europe, IMO. It is, after all, violence in self-defense

Grateful,

The lands that are now Muslim were conquered by warfare, that the populations did not immediately convert does not mean that they were not coerced into doing so.

You happily concede that non muslims paid a punitive tax. In addition practising religions other than Islam was restricted, and non muslims were generally excluded from most forms of government. Churches were demolished and replaced with Mosques etc, and to top it all, anyone that converted to Islam and recanted was executed.To claim that people freely abandoned their religion and embraced Islam is complete BS.

You quote "imminent" historians, that are largely unheard of, and the "Oxford History of Islam" that is not linked to Oxford university in an attempt to appear authoritative, but fail spectacularly

Shadow Minister states "You quote "imminent" historians, that are largely unheard of, and the "Oxford History of Islam" that is not linked to Oxford university in an attempt to appear authoritative, but fail spectacularly"

An extraordinary set of statements. It demonstrates a complete lack of interest in the facts. So much so that you don't check your own!

Oxford History of Islam is produced by Oxford University Press

"Oxford University Press (OUP) is the largest university press in the world,[1] and the second-oldest, after Cambridge University Press. It is a department of the University of Oxford and is governed by a group of 15 academics appointed by the Vice-Chancellor known as the Delegates of the Press. They are headed by the Secretary to the Delegates, who serves as OUP's chief executive and as its major representative on other university bodies. Oxford University has used a similar system to oversee the Press since the 17th century." wikipaedia

As for the author:"Fred McGraw Donner (born 1945) is a scholar of Islam and Professor of Near Eastern History at the University of Chicago" His homepage: http://nelc.uchicago.edu/faculty/donner

Obviously, you wouldn't know an eminent historian if you fell over him.

Lucerface wrote:
"" ...and, above all, the intrinsic appeal of the Islamic belief."

Really? "Above all"? Now where would a scholar have pulled that one from? Such a rose-coloured religious perspective puts a scholar's objectivity into question, IMO. Whatever"

Exactly, in YOUR opinion: "Whatever" . In a court of law your case would be thrown out is less than a minutes.

Neither yourself of SM can produce a source to support your "opinions".

So let's try a dose of honesty and admit that the charge that Islam as being spread by the sword is false. A lie that is bigger than Santa Clause (sorry to break news like this).

Grateful You seem to be so disposed to history so have a look at the Ottoman Empire. If you have any Greek friends ask them about Islam and tolerance.
But this is now and you need to look at invasion armies of dole bludgers who will turn our country into rubbish tips as they have to their home countries.
I know how unpopular plebiscites are, well mainly unpopular with people like you anyway. We should have one on whether we allow a seventh century religion and all it's rubbish to come to our country. I would say no thanks.

Grateful,

It is clear that you have no clue as to what makes a historian eminent.

John L. Esposito, who produced The Oxford History of Islam, is also the director of the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim–Christian Understanding at Georgetown where he is paid to produce articles of a singular political bent. His complete lack of objectivity is clear in its publications.

https://acmcu.georgetown.edu/

Also Oxford university press is a publishing company, that publishes a vast quantity of books and articles, many, if not most have no connection to Oxford university, the The Oxford History of Islam is a prime example. The OUP does not vet nor associate itself with what it prints, and the use of the name Oxford in the title is a desperate attempt to claim legitimacy.

Shadow Minister, Lucerface, JBower

Where are your sources?

SM. such fear of the truth, that you would claim Oxford University Press " is not linked to Oxford university"

Again Oxford University Press "is a department of the University of Oxford and is governed by a group of 15 academics appointed by the Vice-Chancellor known as the Delegates of the Press. "

So according to you, Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford with "no links" to the University of Oxford!

And the author is not Esposito but "Fred McGraw Donner (born 1945) is a scholar of Islam and Professor of Near Eastern History at the University of Chicago"

And all these claims and accusations without being able to cite one source!

Like i said, you wouldn't last one minute if this matter were being adjudicated in a court of law.

You have no evidence to support your opinions and you will accept no evidence that demonstrate you opinions are wrong.

cont...

...and you are saying Oxford University would lend its name to a book with an editor with a "complete lack of objectivity "

Are you sane?

Grateful,

Once again you are blatantly lying. You deliberately misquote me and then attack me based on that misquote. I seriously doubt your sanity.

The Oxford press is linked to Oxford university, the articles and books it publishes very often are not. The The Oxford History of Islam, has bugger all to do with Oxford university, and if you look up the book it is a compilation by John L. Esposito of articles from 16 authors.

If you post blatant falsehoods, stick to twitter where people are unlikely to check up.

For anyone non-scholar who wants to examine Donner's "sweeping hypothesis" (as one critic put it), the comments on Amazon make an interesting starting point, http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Believers-At-Origins-Islam/dp/0674064143

There is clearly a lot of argument out against Donner and, if it is grateful's goal to create conjecture over the early spread of Islam that is his right. However, he should not demand others enter into a duel of eminent historians at ten paces.

If he wants an argument with his chosen historical interpreter from me, I say barley's, and refer him to a forum that cares. If he and his "sources" say Islam as never having laid a coercive hand on a soul, it is because he chooses his rosy view of who is a true Muslim and who is not, and he opines that extremists are not.

I return to the question of fatwa. If it is OK to issue a fatwa for the murder of Salmon Rushdie, why not so for extremists in the Islamic community, now that a fatwa is out against IS and its members?

Luciferance, in relation to your question concerning fatwas, Melbourne University’s National Centre for Excellence in Islamic Studies has a website “Fatwas, rulings and authoritative statements against terrorism in Islam” which lists a number of major fatwas against terrorism including the followign which dates back to before 9/11:

In July 1999 the Organisation of the Islamic Conference adopted its Convention on Combating International Terrorism, at its 26th session in Burkina Faso. The convention reiterated that terrorism cannot be justified in any way and constitutes a gross violation of human rights, and further that Islamic law rejects all forms of violence and terrorism, in particular that which is based on religious extremism. The convention sets the measures to be taken to prevent terrorism and terms for cooperation between member states in combating it. The full text of the convention is found here.

http://nceis.unimelb.edu.au/about/projects/national_imams_consultative_forum/fatwa_and_rulings_against_terrorism_in_islam

Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaquobi’s talk (in a previous post), and presumably his book, talks about the obligation on Muslims in the area to fight ISIS. He is authorized to give fatwa.

As for a fatwa against “extremists in the Islamic community” what did you have in mind? Already their words and deeds can be judged against these fatwas and they are subject to Australian law.

In response to Shadow Minister who states “Once again you are blatantly lying” and accuses me of posting “blatant falsehoods,”

The Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies which “is a recognised Independent Centre of the University of Oxford, England” has republished exerts from each chapter of the book which Shadow Minister tells us “has bugger all to do with Oxford university, and if you look up the book it is a compilation by John L. Esposito of articles from 16 authors.”

http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/book/islam-9780195107999/islam-9780195107999-miscMatter-6

No problems, apologies accepted.

In the next 2 posts, I’ll offer you evidence from what many would consider a more eminent historian; one whose position with regard to Islam you would find more palatable.

Back to the issue raised by Shadow Minister:

"Islam was spread by the sword in exactly the same way that Christianity was, the problem is that the intolerance of the conquistadors in Western society has given way to liberal tolerance, whilst for Islam, they are stuck in the middle ages"

Shadow Minister,
According to you the Oxford history of Islam is bias and lacks credibility, while fail to say what the benchmark is or come up with an historian that they would regard as credible.

So let’s try another historian, Bernard Lewis. I use his testimony because he cannot be accused of being an apologist for Islam. He belonged to the inner circle of the neocons advising Bush in the lead up to the 2nd Iraq war: http://forward.com/news/163089/neocons-gather-to-fete-iraq-war-godfather-bernard/
and
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/04/bernard-lewis-revises-bernard-lewis-says-he-opposed-invasion-of-iraq/.

He was the first to coin the phrase “clash of civilisations” which appears in his book THE JEWS OF ISLAM.

Chapter 1 of THE JEWS OF ISLAM is titled “Islam and other Religions” and includes the following paragraphs relating directly to the veracity of first part of Shadow Minister’s statement, namely, "Islam was spread by the sword in exactly the same way that Christianity was”:

“If by tolerance we mean the absence of discrimination, there is one answer; if the absence of persecution, quite another. Discrimination was always there, permanent and indeed necessary, inherent in the system and institutionalized in law and practice. Persecution, that is to say, violent and active repression, was rare and atypical. Jews and Christians under Muslim rule were not normally called upon to suffer martyrdom for their faith. They were not often obliged to make the choice, which confronted Muslims and Jews in reconquered Spain, between exile, apostasy, and death. They were not subject to any major territorial or occupational restrictions, such as were the common lot of Jews in premodern Europe. There are some exceptions to these statements, but they do not affect the broad pattern until comparatively modern times and even then only in special areas, periods, and cases.”

Continued…

…continued

As for the second part of Shadow Minister’s statement: “..the problem is that the intolerance of the conquistadors in Western society has given way to liberal tolerance, whilst for Islam, they are stuck in the middle ages", this is what Lewis has to say:

“Islam has often been described as an egalitarian religion, and in many senses it is indeed such. If we look at the changes made by Islam at the time of its advent in seventh century Arabia; still more, if we compare the Muslim world in medieval times with caste in India to the east or with the entrenched aristocratic privilege of Christian Europe to the west, then Islam does indeed appear as an egalitarian religion in an egalitarian society. In principle and in law, it recognizes neither caste nor aristocracy. Human nature being what it is, both tend to obtrude themselves on occasion; but when this happens, it is in spite of Islam and not as part of it, and such departures from equality have repeatedly been condemned by both traditionalists and radicals as non-Islamic or anti-Islamic innovations”

So what are your sources Shadow Minister?

Or can we agree that your statements have as much truth in them as Santa Clause?

Grateful,

Firstly it is Santa Claus not Clause.

Secondly I quite agree with Bernard Lewis "Discrimination was always there, permanent and indeed necessary, inherent in the system and institutionalized in law and practice."

In fact it was oppression. Non Muslims had to practise their faith in private, their churches were targeted, they paid special taxes and were excluded from much of public life, and the penalty for any perceived criticism of Islam was death. Conversion to Islam for most was a way out of penury and servitude.

Grateful what is all this "Sources nonsense? If I put my hand in a fire I know what would happen, I do not need some over paid fancy pants to tell me.
I see Islam right now, in front of my very eyes, murdering and oppressing. Muslims invariable do not work which is why they did not kill all the Jews. The Jews all worked and earned and your muslim mates fed off them.
In the west the Umaa invariably live off our welfare and whine and whine and whine!
Quick aside, the NSW cops have a "Middle East Crime Squad" any ideas why that is?

So Shadow Minister, coming back to your statement:

"Islam was spread by the sword in exactly the same way that Christianity was, the problem is that the intolerance of the conquistadors in Western society has given way to liberal tolerance, whilst for Islam, they are stuck in the middle ages"

I can take it that, since you agree with Bernard Lewis (i knew you'd like him) and decline to repeat or support your statement that you realise just how false it is.

Also, thanks again for your apology, now that we have established that the Oxford History of Islam is sponsored, hosted and endorsed by the University of Oxford's Islamic studies website.

Grateful, what absolute rubbish.

The Oxford History of Islam is published by a branch of Oxford University press in New York, and put together by an American in America. It has bugger all to do with Oxford university.

And thanks for link to Bernard Lewis showing just how intolerant Islam was towards non muslims living under Islamic oppression, which continues today in the middle east.

JBowyer says “Grateful what is all this "Sources nonsense?”
It’s about finding out whether there are grounds for the opinions expressed or whether it is driven by pure prejudice; the opposite of a “fair go”.

The question should be: Why do you reject the need to support opinions that fuel violence and hatred?

The answer: You have no sources that would justify your views. It’s pure bigotry.

Having no sources to declare does not imply no sources and the unwillingness to expose actual sources (and leaders) to public scrutiny betrays awareness that they would not withstand public scrutiny. Such people are intellectually dishonest and cowards.

JBowyer wrote: “Quick aside, the NSW cops have a "Middle East Crime Squad" any ideas why that is?”

Yes. Firstly, according to the Middle East Crime Squad it has nothing to do with religion:

“The question is often asked - where does religion fit? Deb Wallace, the head of the Middle Eastern Organised Crime Squad, says police make no record of religious background when arrests are made.

As she and other officers see it, religious faith has no bearing other than to further reflect migration patterns. Earlier mobsters like the Bayehs were Christian Lebanese. Many of the later pretenders are Muslim. The Karam/Kanaan mob were a mix of both Christian and Muslim.”

from: "Middle Eastern crime connections", by Chris Masters, The Daily Telegraph, April 09, 2010 12:00AM . http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/middle-eastern-crime-connections/story-fn2mt2ft-1225851600458

The article goes on to detail the factors underpinning the violence. If you speak to Lebanese themselves they will narrow the geographical source of the problem down to a small part of Lebanon itself.

Shadow Minister says “The Oxford History of Islam is published by a branch of Oxford University press in New York, and put together by an American in America. It has bugger all to do with Oxford university.”

What shadow Minister does NOT say is the Oxford History of Islam is republished online in full for subscribers to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies which “is a recognised Independent Centre of the University of Oxford, England”
See: http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/book/islam-9780195107999/islam-9780195107999-miscMatter-6

Shadow Minister says “In fact it was oppression.”

What he does NOT tell you is that Lewis did not say this and Shadow Minister himself has failed to provide one eminent historian who would support such a statement

Grateful,

That is probably the single most feeble and tenuous link I have ever seen. The Oxford History of Islam is linked to Oxford because it gives a discount to students of an INDEPENDENT center for Islamic studies, which is itself only loosely associated with Oxford university.

Bernard Lewis described system and institutionalized discrimination against non muslims which is by definition oppression. You should look it up. That massacres were rare is not a huge mitigating factor.

Grateful you say my views are "Bigotry" whereas I suppose yours are all pure reason? Why because you list other opinions? Just because it is printed does not mean it is correct mate.
The PC NSW coppers have a women leader who says no religion is noted but if that is the case she cannot make any other observations, can she? Please do not tell me that islamaphobia is not the first defence put up? That's all we ever hear.
Perhaps dear leader grateful you can explain, or excuse, the signs "Behead all those that insult the prophet".
These rubbish people rarely work, bludge off our system and sook and whine about how horrible we are to them.
You can take mount your winged horse and fly off to heaven and your imaginary super hero as muhhamed did. Check out those sources matey and then knock on my door!

"Why because you list other opinions? Just because it is printed does not mean it is correct mate."

Of course not. Their opinions are base on decades of peer reviewed research. Yours are not. Not all opinions are born equal.

SM writes:

"The Oxford History of Islam is linked to Oxford because it gives a discount to students of an INDEPENDENT center for Islamic studies, which is itself only loosely associated with Oxford university."

Shadow Minister, you now admit an association whereas before you accused me of lying on the basis that there was NO association. Apology?

You ask that i look up the definition of oppression. According to Merriam-Webster oppression is "unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power"

The form of "system and institutionalised discrimination" allowed by Islamic law took the form of a tax levied on adult non-Muslim males that were sane and without disabilities because they were exempt from military service. If they chose military service then they would be exempt from the tax. That's cruel?!

Those who are not serving in the Australian military pay more tax than those who are, so it sounds reasonable to me.

You have no more cards to play. It is time for you to admit you were mistaken. Lewis refutes your statement that "Islam was spread by the sword in exactly the same way that Christianity was" and you have accepted Lewis as an authority.

As a reminder this is what Lewis says:

“ Persecution, that is to say, violent and active repression, was rare and atypical. Jews and Christians under Muslim rule were not normally called upon to suffer martyrdom for their faith. They were not often obliged to make the choice, which confronted Muslims and Jews in reconquered Spain, between exile, apostasy, and death. They were not subject to any major territorial or occupational restrictions, such as were the common lot of Jews in premodern Europe. There are some exceptions to these statements, but they do not affect the broad pattern until comparatively modern times and even then only in special areas, periods, and cases."

Grateful,

A tenuous link does not make an association, so no apology or retraction, in fact you have show no association or any form of co operative endeavour, and should apologise for lying.

Muslims conquered territory by force, they converted churches to Mosques, they restricted the practice of other faiths, punished by death any perceived "blasphemy" against Islam, and imposed punitive taxes on them, and restricted in their employment opportunities. This is not in dispute.

There also is no dispute that while rare, massacres of and violence against non muslims did occur. While conversion was not forced, failure to convert carried a heavy penalty.

The spread of Islam in the middle ages was very similar to the spread of Christianity, the difference is that the rest of the world has evolved.