I wholeheartedly agree with Najla that

" .... through collaborative dialogue, open discussion and critical thinking, opposing beliefs may begin to shift. A shift from feeling disgust, resentment and anger to a feeling of an obligation towards each other to be tolerant and understanding should prevail."

As an atheist, I suggest that one can interact with other people in these ways regardless of whether or not one has a religious backing. Of course, we need to be tolerant and open to other people (except to those who are INtolerant) and to try to understand where they are coming from. That certainly does not mean that we have to be silent about injustices done to our fellow-Australians merely by virtue of their gender, as (perhaps I'm wrong ?) Yassmin Abdel-Magied seemed so ready to gloss over on Monday's Q & A.

Thanks to our general system of law, which applies to and for everyone (or should), women formally have the same rights as men. That certainly cannot be said, as Yassmin tried to assert, about the situation for women in Muslim countries. When women there can wear whatever they like, whenever they like, when FGM and honor killing have been extinguished from the face of the earth, and when womwn can leave the house without getting a man's permission, or having to be accompanied by a male relative, when they can drive alone and when they can study anything they like at university, then we can start to talk about Islam and its links to feminism. Any other prattle may well be simply a manifestation of a lifelong Stockholm Syndrome.

Joe

An "ordinary, middle-class, [Australian] working mother" is not a muslim and is not a follower of either Muhammad or any other prophet, whether muslim, christian or otherwise.

Ordinary Australian working mothers live in families where respect is not a gender issue - it is a right and a privilege.

Ordinary Australians don't place their traditions above those of their friends and associates, whether called a religion or a faith or a belief. They just do what they do and they "get along".

Ordinary Australian, including mothers, don't get preachy towards other Australians... they are too busy just being themselves and doing the best that they can for their families and their communities.

Ordinary Australian mothers don't speak down to their readers, using Arabic or Latin or other unfamiliar language as a step towards a higher pulpit from which to preach. That is why the Roman Catholics gave away Latin mass. That is why Jews, when using Hebrew, lose touch with their non-Jewish audiences. "Assalaam Alaykum" is not how ordinary Australians greet each other. That is a clear sign that the speaker is seeking recognition as "other", as not-Australian.

Please, if you choose not to speak to me as an equal, then show me through your actions that you are an equal and an Australian. Drop the "I'm special" routine. You aren't.

I watched the clash of cultures on Q+A and came out on the side of, the what you see is what you get, Jacki, and the only one of those two women ever to have served as a volunteer in our, (all on the line) military forces! The other an activist for what? Women's rights in the Islamic world? [Saudi Arabia? Women there don't vote or drive and can be caned for going out alone?]

Or just a self opinionated loudmouth trying to shout down those who don't share her belief? (Sharia law/Scientology mark two?)

Other cultures come and blend in, but Islam comes and instead of adopting the local culture and social mores, seeks to impose their medieval belief system, and what's more, a dozen different versions of it! Some of which are completely incompatible which christian values?

Instead of forever opposing Christian religious ideology, with almost every word and action? Your stated live in peace and harmony claims would be more believable if you weren't a standout in so many ways.

Including this antisocial aggression that seems par for the course with recent Muslim migrants?

Older immigrants from the Islamic world, totally indistinguishable from everyday ordinary Aussies and blend in as fully assimilated.

Yet follow their religious beliefs to the letter as they've always done.(and if they can!)

But where they come from hardly ever any degree of religious tolerance. But particularly for the Infidel, who can be lied to without sinning! And to serve the (religion of the sword) hidden Islamic agenda? World domination!

And thus far, have followed the domino theory from the Middle East right down to Indonesia and north into eastern europe, supplanting and replacing the dominant culture with something far less tolerant! And borne out by the unsightly undemocratic riotous activism in today's Indonesia!

Stop playing the professional victim and blaming us! If you want to see the racist in the ranks, look in the mirror!

NO, WE WILL NEVER EVER ACCEPT SHARIA LAW HERE!

Don't like that or us? Find somewhere else!

Onya Jacki!
Alan B.

«Mark my word many Muslims loyalty is to our great nation of Australia.»

How sad.

One should always remain loyal to God, first and foremost and remember His name at every moment.

Whatever name one uses to call God does not matter. It could be 'God', or 'Truth' or 'Love' or 'Absolute' or thousands of other names - whatever is most dear to your heart and if you happen to be a Muslim then you would use the name 'Allah'.

Did you ever love someone, Najla? A parent? A child? A sibling? A man? A pet even?
Would you sell and betray your beloved for the sake of becoming an ordinary Australian?
But Allah, upon which this whole universe is founded, your very breath, Him you are happy to forsake that easily?

While some noisy members of this forum and of Australia in general might not like your presence in Australia, nothing stops you from going about your peaceful daily life. You are not even persecuted here, Najla: The Spanish Inquisition placed Jewish families on top of a roof on a hot day, with a pool of cool water below. The Jews were told that they could descend whenever they like into the pool and be baptised to Christianity by its water, but they remained on the roof and died of dehydration one by one, faithful to God.

If you are "a practising Muslim who profoundly opposes terrorism and is ardently seeking harmony", then you cannot be "ordinary", then you are beloved of Allah, may He shower His blessings upon you and may you always remember Him.

Yuyutsu,

Anybody who puts the 'interests' of an invented god above those of a single person has taken a step away from being human, never to be trusted. What sort of ghastly god would have to be constructed which would demand that, apart from that modelled on a self-absorbed, arrogant and vicious tyrant ?

Do what you like with that.

Joe

“ Mark my word many Muslims loyalty is to our great nation"

I would like to believe this lady. She has a lovely, open face, which she doesn't wish to hide. She is a mother – the greatest thing a woman can be. I would like to say, maybe there is hope.

But, then I am reminded of the reality of 'taqiyya', and the shutters drop. Muslims are openly encouraged to lie to promote or protect Islam. It's part of being a 'devout' Muslim. Muslims see only countries which are Muslim and those that are yet to become Muslim. Migration to other countries is part of the plan to conquer the world for Allah. I am amazed that anyone brought up in the Islamic faith can even utter the word 'tolerance'; it is not part of the Islamic lexicon. No non-Muslim should be tolerating intolerant Islam.

There can never be “social cohesion” where Muslims are concerned. It is just not in their makeup.

While there is room for consideration and sorrow for any person brought up in the Islamic faith (and knowing no better), the only good Muslim is an ex-Muslim. The shucking off of Islam is good for them, and good for the rest of us.

Hi Ttbn,

Yes, there is always that problem. As long as (a) lying 'in a good cause', or (b) lying 'because it's dangerous to tell the truth' occurs, then how does one tell when anybody who falls back on those sanctioned excuses, is telling the truth ?

It's a bit like one of those Greek conundrums: all people from (is it?) Miletus are liars. So how can you find out anything from a Miletian ? Ask one something, then ask another one if he lied or not. But what if people lie only sometimes, as in (a) and (b) ?

But maybe many Muslims wear their religion lightly, as many Christians do, and are no more likely to lie than anyone else. I'd like to think that human decency triumphs over religious expediency sometimes in most of us, including with Muslims.

Cheers,

Joe

Well just about everything I wanted to say has been said already. Nijila wants Australians to be tolerant of Islam. What about Islam being tolerant of Western Values? Not a hope in hell.

Islam is the most intolerant of all Religions. Islams idea of tolerance is that Infidels become moslims or die. End of story.

If moslims were like Hindu's, Buddhists & Christians in accepting each others belief systems & living peacefully beside one another, things would be different, but they are not. One only has to look at anywhere in the World where moslims have migrated. Intolerance towards other beliefs abound with disastrous results. EG; Europe & the UK, West New Guinea & Myanmar.

So, Nijila. Get off your high horse. If you don't feel like you fit in, maybe you should leave.

Nowadays thanks to alternative news sites and the social media which are widely accessible thanks to the Internet, awareness is spreading that much of the vilification of Muslims is a beat up. Note how if government departments exist to solve problems, when there looks the possibility that there may be a shortage of them, employees and others with vested interests often actively look for more problems, beat existing ones up and even sometimes try to create troubles they are likely to get a job helping solve. Otherwise budgets may be cut and people and resources made redundant.

With the demise of communism, the military industrial complexes of large western countries needed a new enemy. Alleged Muslim terrorism has been the main one. Details seem to indicate that much genuine fanatical terrorism has been by organisations that at some stage have received covert strong financial support from western sources. Then close examination shows a considerable proportion of alleged attacks are actually "false flags" with atrocities prearranged to pursue an agenda and/or falsely blame someone. Saw a claim recently that seems close to if not completely correct. ie That all the alleged Muslim terrorist attacks in the United States have actually been false flags. Especially 9/11, which ever increasing details being exposed indicate was arranged by psychopathic Zionists to promote their own agendas. This includes cajoling others to fight their battles and encouraging Muslims to fight each other rather than Jews and their sympathisers. One obvious long term objective has been the creation of a "Greater Israel" between the Nile and Euphrates rivers. This is being stopped with Russians helping the secular government of Syria, a predominantly Muslim country defeat the largely Muslim extremist terrorists supported by the US in particular. Is one recent case of it promoting "regime change" to replace a government whose primary aim is to further the interests of its own citizens with one led by puppets and stooges whose main priority is helping facilitate what US interests want.

I back Islam against homosexuality...the more Muslims the better....

mox: arranged by psychopathic Zionists to promote their own agendas.

Yep, it was the Jews, the Jews did it. I take it moxie that you are one of the Nazi types & not worth the time o' day. 1D,10t Club I guess.

diver Dan: I back Islam against homosexuality

I guess you'd rather a goat, eh.

Dan,

A bit half-witted, no offence. Nobody should be thrown off buildings or beheaded for their behaviour or inclinations. Bringing homosexuality into this discussion is a bit of a red herring.

Of course, if somebody has no intention of hurting anybody else, they are entitled to be treated properly, with tolerance and decency. If somebody is intolerant of such people, then they are not fully entitled to be tolerated. But I don't think they should be thrown off tall buildings. Not even you, Dan :)

We should all have the right to criticise openly what we don't agree with, or an opinion which we think is obnoxious, but if somebody asserts something, they should be able to present evidence, or face criticism. Even you, Dan :)

Cheers,

Joe

This piece has more holes in it than a colander. The author appears to have her head in the sand or is being deliberately misleading.

This woman thinks the media reports terrorist attacks are "distorted narratives of hate." Nothing to see here. Look over there.

She then goes on to inform us that they cannot be " a person of faith if his neighbour does not feel safe from him or her." Tell that to Bill Leak. He had to change his address after threats from muslims.

And please spare us the title of "ordinary housewife" when she goes out of her way to make herself as different as possible from most Australian women.

There have been calls from many muslims for sharia law to have a place in Australia and we already have some sharia banking. Enough with the taquiya on that topic.

It is also informative that the author attacks Lambie but has no truck with Ms.Abdel-Magoo and her claim that islam is feminist friendly.

The author concludes by asking us to "seek credible information and to grow one’s knowledge base." There is plenty of information out there and many of us seek it out. Many Islamic organizations have websites and are more than happy to inform us about this "religion" I really like some of the programmes designed for children. They really teach tolerance - NOT.

Spare us the rubbish about a way of life that has nothing in common with Australia or it's way of life.

Gosh, is it National Brotherhood Week already? Time to sing the old song again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlJ8ZCs4jY

And everybody hates the Jews.

Wow I am staggered so much anti-muslim sentiment on these pages. I heartily agree with most of it and now the author should sit down have a good read of it and appraise her stand.
Hopefully she now appreciates how the vast majority of Australians actually feel, not those lick-spittle politicians who want your votes.
My personal hostility is for your Imams. I saw a letter from them yesterday opposing terrorism (It said). It was the Immams complaining that ISIS was targetting them lol! We should be stopping all foreign imams coming here with their seventh century beliefs. Also the coppers should not be ringing up the imam telling they are strolling down in an hour or two to search the Mosque, just do your job!

Joe
You demonstrate yourself as the lounge room version of the "shrill"...

And jayb , a sheep and a green paddock for yourself is it?

Joe,

Yep. Many (how about some?) Muslims might take their religion lightly, but how do we know that they, too, are not fooling us? Best if they stay in their own back yard, I think.

secularism with many of its filthy dogmas was never going to dominate for long. Stalin showed where it is all heading. It is a Christ hating, inward looking failed ideology.

I'm amazed at how vicious this forum can be. Here we have a Muslim woman condemning terrorism and wanting to be friends, and all most of you can do is criticise her, or her religion.

You might not like Islam, but it is not going away. And none of us like the atavistic elements in Islam.

But you not going to convert many Muslims to atheism, so how are you going to deal with the violent elements in Islam? (Assuming atheists are immune from violence, which is a bad assumption).

Yell at its moderate adherents who support a version of the religion that is compatible with modern secular society? Or engage them in a respectful conversation?

Seems like most of you want to do the first. Which tells me you have the same problem that many of the people you criticise do - you don't want to understand, you want to obliterate.

How about taking the hand that is put out in friendship?

GY: How about taking the hand that is put out in friendship?

I have yet to see her reply to any posts.

In fact many who post articles never reply to anything that is posted about their article. My bet is that most of these people don't even know that their article has been posted to OLO or the Forum fro review.

I for one am quite willing to engage with someone of the Islamic Religion providing they answer a few very simple questions truthfully. They won't. They will go off in some wild unrelated tangent. One of my favourites is Iftikhar in England.

Interesting you should say that runner. Of course predictably, your view will be scoffed at here by the high priests of liberalism, exhibiting bias and illiberal views outside their confining ideology of laissez-faire humanism.
Them and us runner, them and us! I scoff!

Welcome aboard GY, this is a bit of a rough ocean here at the moment. But like a stiff NE'r , should quieten by the morning!

Graham,

I too find the viciousness here disconcerting. However, I don’t think it’s being driven by atheism (let alone a desire to convert anyone to atheism) more just a general hatred and intolerance. After all, I count two Christians here getting in on the action, and one of the atheists wishes he was a Christian.

<<Here we have a Muslim woman condemning terrorism and wanting to be friends, and all most of you can do is criticise her, or her religion.>>

Yeah, they can’t win. We want Muslims to condemn terrorism, then when they do, they're apparently lying. Either that or we just outright ignore them: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/muslim-anti-isis-march-not-covered-by-mainstream-media-outlets-say-organisers-a6765976.html

This woman asks us to try and understand Islam before we condemn it but like all religions it is based on faith. Religion by its own definition is not logical or reasonable. Either you have faith or you do not and nothing can change that reality. It is a gift from God and you cannot come to a religious position by understanding or thinking or reason.

It is pointless to appeal to non-Muslims to be reasonable about Islam. The same holds true for all religions. Religious people cannot have it both ways. They reject reason and logic but hope to find understanding by appealing to others to be reasonable.

Either we all agree to accept reason and logic as the basis for society or we reject it totally. There cannot be half measures. How can we be expected to tolerate behaviour which is unreasonable without threatening the very fundamental core of our humanity? We should never tolerate religion since it is inhuman to reject reason and anyone who suggests we do should be treated with great suspicion. Most religious people act with reason most of the time but when it suits them they reject reason. This is simply not good enough.

Insofar as your reject reason you reject society. You become a drag on society and hold back the rest of humanity. While everyone else is looking for logical solutions to real problems you are thumbing your Koran or fingering your beads and that places a far bigger burden on society than the fear of terrorism.

runner: secularism with many of its filthy dogmas was never going to dominate for long.

It's not Religion Per Se that is the problem it's the Dogma associated with each of the different Sects within any Religion that is the problem. I'm right & you're wrong, therefore you should die mentality. It's all about Control of the Masses & Wealth. Nothing to do with Religion.

I think that if God wants someone killed because of their particular Dogma then God should be the only one to mete out the punishment, personally. Not some self appointed human.

Like, the human Priest grabs the particular person that has been accused of not having the right Religious Dogma. He puts that person on a Sacrificial Table & says, " Righto God, it's up to you to punish this person." Now if nothing happens in 10 minutes then God has not punished that person & they are free to go with no recriminations for breaking any of Gods Laws.

I think that is a fair system. Humans have no right to judge any person on their Religious Beliefs. However if they disobey a Secular Law then that becomes the Domain of the Judges. Secular Law & Religious Law must not be mixed.

'
I think that if God wants someone killed because of their particular Dogma then God should be the only one to mete out the punishment, personally. Not some self appointed human.'

agreed Jayb but tell that to the millions of babies slaughtered in their mother's womb. Oh that's right we don't call them babies. They are like Jews who the Nazis redefined as non human.

I think tat a lot more people should read the Koran.

I think a lot more people should read up on emilys list. Very compatible to Koran.

When I can not pick the Muslim women on the street, the beach, or the swimming pool, I will be ready to start to believe Najla Turk.

Until that time, I won't believe a word of it.

Joe – Thank you for agreeing on my approach. I believe you understood my argument. Australia is our home. A home for all to live together in harmony as best we can regardless of age, orientation, culture, religion etc. I have lived my entire life respecting others for their individuality and working hard to earn respect. I haven’t encountered negative experiences but rather I have grown to enjoy the multicultural richness.

JohnBenetts – You’re right John. I’m not special - far from it. I do feel I am an ordinary Australian Muslim though. I give people a fair go and the intent behind Assalaam Alaykum is genuine. Peace. My apologies if you felt I was speaking down to readers. Trying to articulate a written conversation is more challenging than a 2-way conversation.

Alan B – Yes Saudi Arabia is a country that don’t allow women to drive and by Western standard that’s totally unacceptable. However I feel that’s their backyard and you nor I can judge a country based on our way of life, culture or religious practices. One can debate on this topic for hours but my concern is the country ‘I’ live in. Sounds selfish but I’d rather put my attention into systems, processes and structures that can develop Australia and where I may have power of positive influence. Are there discussion of Sharia Law coming to Australia?

Hi Yuyutsu – Thank you for your beautiful heart. I too pray He shower His blessings upon you and may you always remember Him. Yes many people suffered atrocities because they held steadfast to their religion. May we find the strength to stand strong when tested Yuyutsu. Spirituality is so personal and for many an unspoken connection. I express my love to God in private and I express my love for humanity openly. My closest friends are Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Hindu, Catholic and Atheists and we have found many common elements that unite us. Respect, tolerance for differences and a passion to make a positive difference.

Hi ttbn – Thank you for attempting to believe in what I have to say.I hear your grief. Have you lived or experienced first-hand a Muslim country where you can share some stories? Today I met a 65 yo Australian who spent 7 years in Egypt and loved everything about it – the people, food, religion and more. Each of us has a unique experience that helps shape our views, identity and beliefs. She had first-hand. a positive view of Islam based.
I was born in Australia and my parents weren’t overly religious so why am I practising? Honestly I condemn ISIS and every Muslim relative, friend and Islamic community reject there stance. I would NEVER EVER follow a religion that legitimised the atrocities these barbarians are committing. Do we judge all Christians on Klu Klux Klan? Let us not forget culture. It can further contribute negatively. Mix a non-democratic country, traditional culture and Islam … it doesn’t paint a pretty picture. We owe it to all Australians regardless of background to seek the truth and demonstrate human decency.

Jayb my friend – On the contrary I do fit in. I fit in at work, in the neighbourhood, with other ethnic communities and society and I attended the Tet Festival earlier this month with 10,000 other Vietnamese. I nor any other Muslim I engage with in Australia want to see anyone die, be harmed or suffer.
I don’t recall wanting Australians to be tolerant of Islam… I was hoping for tolerance and respect for all beings; Indigenous, minority groups, disability, refuges, migrants and every other group that makes up Australia or rather are Australians. My intent was to highlight the panelist’s lack of communication skill and knowledge around the topic of Sharia law. Life is challenging as it is without the added discomfort of feeling exclusion.

Joe – I like your sense of humour. I hope Dan is your friend and doesn’t mind your remarks. By the way you’re sounding like me. In your way you too are advocating for Expression of Speech, Equality and Justice for all.

.

Dear Runner,

.

You wrote :

« secularism with many of its filthy dogmas was never going to dominate for long … It is a Christ hating, inward looking failed ideology »
.

I have been wondering, for many years now, what you mean by “secularism”, which you so often decry on this forum. Would you be so kind as to let me have your definition please ?

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines it as follows :

[ The principle of separation of the state from religious institutions.
‘he believes that secularism means no discrimination against anybody in the name of religion’]

Perhaps you could explain exactly what it is that you find so abhorrent about “not discriminating against anybody in the name of religion”. I obviously can’t imagine that you think that religious people, such as yourself, should be discriminated against.

There must be a misunderstanding about the meaning of the word.

Thanks, Runner. It should appreciate it if you would clarify this for me once and for all.

.

Dear Joe,

«Anybody who puts the 'interests' of an invented god above those of a single person has taken a step away from being human»

Since the idea of being human is a delusion, taking a step forward from that condition sounds like a compliment to me!

In reality, however, one cannot progress towards shedding their false human identity by working against the interest of others, only by placing God's will (perceived or otherwise) above one's own selfish interests.

But wait a second, I'm starting to see what you mean:
Humanity is an invented god.
Society is an invented god.
The state is an invented god.

- those who put the 'interests' of those gods above those of a single person have taken a step backward from being human and become more like animals!

---

Dear Phanto,

«Most religious people act with reason most of the time but when it suits them they reject reason.»

So does everyone, religious or otherwise.

Given the fact that everyone will die anyway,
Given the fact that no memories can survive death,
Given the fact that dying naturally in old age more often than not involves debilitating pains and frustrations as well as burden on others,
Given the fact that humanity itself will die, leaving nothing behind,
Given the fact that while people live they step on each other's toes and compete for natural resources,
if people started to base their acts on reason alone, then they would have taken the most logical conclusion and jumped off the nearest cliff.
The only thing that holds you back from the cliff's edge, are irrational superstitions - perhaps the superstition that human life has a meaning and/or value, or that humanity is heading somewhere better.

«While everyone else is looking for logical solutions to real problems»

Neurotically deluding themselves that their impossible problems have a solution.

Myself at least, I do not adore reason, nor falsely claim to act reasonably while knowing clearly well that I am not.

Hi Sparkyq – Thank you for your comment and I sense your frustrations on many fronts. The problem with the ‘net is that there is too much info out there. Have you ever sought medical advice from Dr Google… there is the good, the bad and everything in between. Dialogue is the preferred form of communication when debating topics and as with every raised debate there is always two sides. Again I highlight the contamination of culture within religion. The religion itself does promote equality and feminism yet many cultures are patriarchal. I respect and am open to the way each person perceives the information they receive and again I suggest people learn from credible sources. Over the years I have shared life experiences which have gone a long way to busting stereotypes.

Dear JBowyer –I enjoyed your comment and yes I do appreciate how Australians are feeling. Why else would I write an article if not to help provide some clarity in writing? I wasn’t supporting either side other than express my desire for the episode to be civil enough to educate, inspire change and rekindle hope. Australians include Italians, Greek, Bosnians, Bangladesh, African, British, New Zealanders and over 200 other countries representing many & religions/non religions. Why should any Australian be scared on a daily basis? Don’t we have more important things occupying our space such as loved ones, health, career, financial survival and work? We should exert effort and care for our neighbours experiencing hardship and focus on building a united front. Am I delusional?

Ttbn – I wouldn’t worry about the whole Muslim community. My focus would be to have positive engagements one on one. Only then will we see a different side. I’m meeting the most awesome people who totally shatter my (unintentional) biases and I’m loving the unexpected realisations.

Hi AJ Phillips – I’m not feeling criticised. Rather I’ve just spend a couple of hours responding to comments in the hope we challenge each others’ thinking. How unpleasant for youth and others to be ostracised and not be accepted for being liberated

Hi again GrahamY - everyone who has commented has a valid viewpoint. If I wasn’t living and breathing a religion that reminded me of humanity I would surrender in a heartbeat. I’m not preaching but in the Prophets last sermon he said, “Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers”. “All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety (taqwa) and good action”. Boxer Mohamed Ali shared his story of Islam and he lived a Islamic way of life promoting civil rights.

Finally Jayb I am able to respond to your post. Thank you for your thought provoking comments. Yes the editor emailed me a day before approving publishing of the article. I had no idea it would be published next day. I wasn’t able to create an account till just few hours ago. Had a long day at work. My apologies for the delay mate. Seriously I didn’t think anyone would comment other than perhaps a like or two.
I admit I can be airy fairy but I’ll take you up on your request to engage with someone on the religion. Would you prefer an Islamic scholar or Imam, a revert, academic, an ordinary community member like me or a fanatical Muslim? Alternatively I am happy to converse (and not debate) with you. BTW – What’s Iftikhar? I’m sure you can teach me much about your beliefs and what has helped shape your views. Should be interesting.

Ahhh, Diver Dan – Are you for real? Be a sport and challenge yourself. Why would any decent person scoff? We all have rights to freedom of expression. My eyes are weary and I had to recheck what you said about them and us. Precisely why I published the article! What can you do to help break the attitudes of ‘them and us’?

.

Dear Najla,

.

You wrote :

« Islam is the religion I choose to follow because contrary to existing beliefs it teaches Muslims good conduct, social interaction, justice and kindness »
.

It does, indeed, Najla. But that is not “contrary to past or existing beliefs”, as you indicate, nor is it contrary to past or existing non-beliefs.

You could have chosen any other religion, agnosticism, or no religion at all for exactly the same reason.

“Good contact, social interaction, justice and kindness” are not just values of Islam. They are universal human values – completely independent of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

They are the values of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations, irrespective of their religious beliefs or disbeliefs.

You say you “choose to follow” Islam. May I ask what - if any - religion you “followed” before you made that choice ?

Did your parents bring you up in some other religion, or did they not “follow” any religion at all ?

Do you honestly think that your parents would not have taught you “good contact, social interaction, justice and kindness” if you (or they) had not chosen to follow Islam ? Or do you think that they would have brought you up in those values simply because they are good people ?

.

This is a scenario that has been played out time and again in Australian history.

We are an immigrant nation, and each new wave of immigrants has to undergo a baptism of fire before it is absorbed into the Australian mainstream. Any national group that is at odds with our English heritage has had to fight for acceptance - the Irish, Chinese, Germans, Italians, Greeks, Lebanese, Vietnamese, Sri Lankans and so on.

Although Muslims have been coming here since our earliest origins, and especially since the 1980s, Muslims have had a particularly hard battle to fight since 9/11. Their cultural origins are now inextricably conflated with terrorism, Sharia law and women's rights.

Ostracising and condemning them serves little purpose. Neither do shaming tactics that we are supposed to embrace love and universal friendship of all immigrants. Time tends to evaporate all this mind manipulation.

Even though Islamic cultures are so at odds with Australian culture, they are here to stay. It is a natural human tendency to assimilate and adapt. After a generation or two, they will slowly absorb into the Australian mainstream, as so many other immigrant cultures have done.

This is always a sad loss to the culture of origin, but it's a new beginning for future generations.

Yuyutsu:

People do not jump off cliffs because of the sheer delight and pleasure they derive from living. They do not concern themselves with what may happen in the future but what is happening in the present. It is just too good to choose to end it without any guarantee that there is any better future. Staying alive is the most reasonable thing of all to do.

Not everyone feels good all of the time but they know if they do not feel good then there must be a reason and they search for the reason until they find it and feel good again. They rely on reason to solve their problem of feeling bad.

Some do not engage their powers of reason and resort to drugs or alcohol or other substances or activities to numb the fact that they do not feel good. This does not make the bad feeling go away – it just numbs it and more and more numbing activity is needed the longer you ignore the pain.

One of the most prominent methods is to resort to religion where you create in your imagination an alternate reality that numbs the bad feelings you have in the present reality. The sad part is that you never actually solve the problems of feeling bad and your imaginary world becomes more and more bizarre as you try and hold back the wall you have built for yourself.

The only human activity that solves problems is the use of reason – everything else is a drug of some kind or other which just numbs them.

What you and the author of this article are appealing for is to be left unfettered in your quest for your drug. Anything that threatens that drug must be challenged and that is why Islam is so aggressive. It does not want to deal with reason and the western world rightly prioritises reason to solve human problems.

Najila,

It's nice of you to respond; it's a courtesy that we rarely receive from contributors. The only Muslim country that I have been to is Malaysia. I had no problems with the people at all, and it seemed to me that Muslims and non-Muslim inhabitants mixed and got along well. I am absolutely sure that the average Muslim person has the same humanity and feelings as I do. I would never do anything to harm or upset individual Muslims.

The problem here is Islam in. Not you or your family and friends. Not Muslims at all – but Islam.

I could perhaps believe that you, as an individual do condemn ISIS and the 'barbarities and atrocities'; but, my dear lady, Islam does not. It does, in fact, preach death to infidels, and I cannot believe that a person of your obvious modernity and intelligence can deny that.

I, and I'm sure many the of OLO regulars will look forward to hearing from you again. I am particularly interested to know how you maintain your claimed solidarity with Australians and Australian values when your religion clearly does not send the same message.

Najla,

Down to practical matters, what justification is there for insisting that girl children wear the voluminous coverings that you do?

I am not interested in any diversions on the 'differences' between hijab, niqab and burka and the other forms of concealment and political statement (claimed 'cultural' statements).

What I want to know is why any girl should be forced to wear concealing, restrictive garb but the boys are not.

However when it comes down to it, I'm not even interested in the gender inequity, but in encouraging girls to participate fully in life. In times where so many young people are suffering from mental conditions and diseases of inactivity and isolation, why girls should be further encumbered with the restrictions of a medieval creed and garb that goes with it.

Why can't kids be kids and girls be allowed to make up their own minds? -Without some sex-obsessed mullah telling them what to do.

In answer to JB. Everyone who publishes on On Line Opinion receives an email when the article goes up. It is generated by an algorithm, so the risk that I might forget is eliminated as well.

I think an author is pretty game to respond here, with the treatment that is often meted out, so many choose not to for that reason. Other's are just too busy - they've written the article, why should they devote even more time to dealing with discussion?

For students it is enough that they can play dress up on the cultural days that most schools have. Food variety, lots of music and fun, then back to being children with the promise of childhood for the rest of the year.

Dear Phanto,

«It is just too good to choose to end it without any guarantee that there is any better future.»

What you call "good" is an irrational, emotional judgement.

«Staying alive is the most reasonable thing of all to do.»

It is not due to reason, but due to instinct. Animals too do what they can to stay alive, but reasonable people do not attribute them with reason.

«Not everyone feels good all of the time»

In fact, the best we can hope for is to feel good half of the time.

«but they know if they do not feel good then there must be a reason and they search for the reason until they find it and feel good again.»

This search was in fact carried out thousands of years ago and the conclusive result is that we do not feel good because we have expectations that are not met. Trying to make things match our expectations can at best produce temporary results, but then we quickly get used to having things come out the way we want them, so once things no longer come our way, we suffer even more.

«They rely on reason to solve their problem of feeling bad.»

Reason tells us that the problem is within us, so in order to stop feeling bad we should eliminate our expectations - yet very few follow its advice.

«One of the most prominent methods is to resort to religion where you create in your imagination an alternate reality that numbs the bad feelings you have in the present reality.»

What's wrong with imagination? Anything that works to reduce one's dependency, hence expectations of the world (and the bad feelings that follow), is both welcome and reasonable.

We, religious people, take refuge in God: our refuge is unshakeable. The alternative is to take refuge in the things of the world, which at best can support you only temporarily: this doesn't stand up to reason!

[continued...]

[...continued]

«The sad part is that you never actually solve the problems of feeling bad»

The sad part is that you are impatient. How can one expect to break and overcome their lifetime(s) of worldly habits so quickly and easily? Nothing, including religion, offers such a quick fix - it takes time and conscious effort to break those habits. Islam calls this struggle 'Jihad', but the enemy is your own bad habits and addictions - not other people.

«What you and the author of this article are appealing for is to be left unfettered in your quest for your drug.»

Myself, perhaps, I am happy with my medicine, but the author? I think that she is still very interested in social matters and for now at least, may not be content to just be left alone.

«Anything that threatens that drug must be challenged and that is why Islam is so aggressive.»

SOME Islamic groups are aggressive - but those Arab tribes in question were at least as aggressive even before accepting [their version of] Islam.

«the western world rightly prioritises reason to solve human problems.»

But it doesn't! It may claim to, it may place reason on pedestals and worship it in its halls of academy, but in practice reason is used only when it conveniently fits one's emotions, habits and addictions.

I think that Graham might have gone a little over the top with his “vicious”.

There is nothing more vicious than Islam, and taqiyya is real. This lady might very well be as reasonable and pleasant as she seems. I hope she is. But, she could very well be practising taqiyya, and really pulling the wool over our eyes. I believe that I was very conciliatory to her, and hope that she is all she claims to be. However, we must not lose sight of the truth about Islam.

Yuyutsu:

"Myself, perhaps, I am happy with my medicine"

But that wasn't one of the questions. Why do you need to tell us that? Are you trying to convince yourself.

In fact your whole post seems like a rationalisation of your own misery. Not everyone feels like you but you seem to want them to. Why can't you just accept that there are people in the world who are happy? Why should that be such a threat to you or to any religious person?

If you want to be miserable then there is not a lot others can do but your miserableness drags society down and we all have to do so much more because of your refusal to be happy.

All of religion does that. There is not one redeemable quality about any of it.

Banjo Patterson

you ask

I have been wondering, for many years now, what you mean by “secularism”, which you so often decry on this forum. Would you be so kind as to let me have your definition please ?

Secularism essentially says that man does not need God. It teaches their is no objective truth or absolutes.

you write
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines it as follows :

[ The principle of separation of the state from religious institutions. ‘ he believes that secularism means no discrimination against anybody in the name of religion’]

it is a total nonsense to speak of not discriminating against people in the name of religion. The Christian hating abc does it daily. It also begs the question as to who says discrimation is a bad thing anyway. YOu are not suggesting that we have a moral conscience are you. If so where did it come from.

you write

Perhaps you could explain exactly what it is that you find so abhorrent about “not discriminating against anybody in the name of religion”. I obviously can’t imagine that you think that religious people, such as yourself, should be discriminated against.

I take it would would be happy to have someone from ISIS in charge of our airport. Of course supporters of this religous cult should be discrimated against. The US secular courts had no problem discriminating against a baker who refuses to bake a cake for 'gay' wedding. Discriminating can be a very positive thing especially when used against idiotic ideologies of which secularist are by no means exempt.

Continued for runner after an 18hr wait:

The first three Laws of the 10 Commandments are Religious Law.

1.a. You shall worship no God but me.

But he didn't say which God. So how does anyone know which God is the right God. Humans have given God many different names according to their own Customs & Language. It’s Impossible to know which humans have the right God. They all claim to have exclusive rights to the right one.

b. Do not make images of God in the likeness of anything on earth That's fair enough seeing that no one knows exactly who God is or what God looks like how could you make an image.

c. Don't bow down or worship to any images that you think is what God looks like or "I'll" punish you.

So the order here is not to bow down to any one or thing because we don't know what God looks like. We know God is not human or a thing.

Notice God says that God will do the punishing, not humans.

2. Don't use Gods name for evil purposes. God doesn't tolerate the misuse of his name to do evil. "I" will punish anyone who does this.

Now that's straight forward, not like the first Commandment.

Notice here that God says that God will mete out the punishment, not human.

3.Keep holy the Sabbath Day. You have six days to work & one day off to reflect on God.

God knows that, "All work & no play makes Jack a dull boy." So God gives everybody a day off to enjoy everything that God gave us in whichever way we like.

Notice God doesn't mention any punishment here. It's a sort of forceful recommendation.

The next seven are Secular Laws to be enforced by the Secular Authorities.

Runner: babies slaughtered in their mother's womb.

See runner, you are getting Religious Law & Secular Law mixed up. Abortion is Secular Law. Religion should keep out of it.

I will repost what I said
"My personal hostility is for your Imams. I saw a letter from them yesterday opposing terrorism (It said). It was the Immams complaining that ISIS was targetting them lol! We should be stopping all foreign imams coming here with their seventh century beliefs. Also the coppers should not be ringing up the imam telling they are strolling down in an hour or two to search the Mosque, just do their job!"
No hostility to the author but cannot she see those filthy imams are only interested in their own safety and they lead her and her religion? The coppers are certainly outside her remit but her and her religion threaten them with accusations of "Homophobia". It is anything but an irrational fear, muslims kill!

You read Najila Turk's article and you wonder, just who does she think she is kidding?

Islam is a terrorism advocating religion started by a caravan raiding armed robber, who was also a paedophile and a mass murderer. He put to death 800 Jewish men who refused to convert to his newly invented evil religion. Far from being "extremists" the Jihadis and Ghazis (those who kill an infidel) currently committing acts of terrorism around the world are doing exactly what the Koran instructs, and which Mohamad did himself. Until you Muslim focus upon that fact and start to reform your evil religion, Muslims will continue to be the most despised, dysfunctional, and feared group of people on this planet.

One suspects that the reason for your article is to reassure the infidels that Islam is benign, when everybody with a brain knows that this is just not so. The recent Q&A program where some taxpayer funded Muslim activist claimed that Islam was a feminist friendly religion, is a perfect example of a statement more worthy of hilarity that serious consideration.

The western world is beginning to wake up to the cancer we have allowed to enter our societies through ignorance and misplaced idealism. Muslims were never able to conquer the West through military means, so the Imam's have figured out that immigration and birth rate differentials will eventually achieve the same outcome. There are video's on YouTube where the Imam's brag about doing just that.

But the western world is waking up, and the Imams are worried that sooner or later, the West will do the smart thing and ban Muslim immigration. That will put the kybosh on their dreams of world domination. So we have a Muslim like Najila writing puff pieces which only appeal to useful idiots, and those people who consider their vanity of moral superiority to be more important than their own civilisation's survival

Najla,

It is claimed that

"The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter."

Is this true?

Dear Phanto,

«But that wasn't one of the questions. Why do you need to tell us that?»

To correct an inaccurate statement of yours, claiming:

«What you and the author of this article are appealing for is to be left unfettered in your quest for your drug.»

.

«In fact your whole post seems like a rationalisation of your own misery»

I understand that this is how it seems to you, but this is not the case and I am not in misery.

«Why can't you just accept that there are people in the world who are happy? Why should that be such a threat to you or to any religious person?»

On the contrary: Patanjali states in his Yoga Sutras [1:33] that the best attitude towards those who are happy is friendliness.
http://www.athayoganusasanam.com/index.php?zone=browse_sutras&pada=1&sutra=33&action=display

That aside, there remains the question of how long can your happiness last. If your happiness depends on fleeting external things, then once those change, so does your happiness.

//It is claimed that

"The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter."

Is this true?//

It's funny, because when you quote awful, immoral stuff from the Bible people say 'Ah, but, you're judging them the wrong way. You should at look at how they behave - not some silly old book'.

But when Muslims go out of their way to point out that they - if not all Muslims - embrace a creed of tolerance, peace and good citizenship, people suddenly revoke that notion. Bugger what they do, their Book has bad stuff in it, so they're all bad.

It's a bit irritating to people like me who like things to be consistent: how should we judge a religion? By its Book, or by the conduct of its followers? Decide on a metric and stick with it, because the constant chopping and changing is tiresome.

While I'm on the subject of things that are tiresome, I'm a bit over all this 'taqiyya' crap. I mean, that's just a bit too convenient for the haters: if a Muslim says they're bad, they're bad, and if they say they're good, they're lying and therefore bad. When you get right down to it, it's just plain old question-begging: it assumes the issue in question (Muslims are bad). It's a shite argument.

Toni,

The awful stuff in the Bible is not required practice for Christians but it would seem that the awful stuff in the Koran is current practice.
If the Koran is to be believed and one would think that Muslims are believers, then taqiyya is current belief.

Would some Muslim poster care to point out if it is not and why so.

Najia: Jayb my friend – On the contrary I do fit in. I fit in at work, in the neighbourhood, with other ethnic communities and society

Of course you do, as did my moslim friends at work, when I worked, You may fit in at home too. My friends at work held their Religious feelings close at work but when they were out, say Supermarket Shopping, very different. I run into one at a Supermarket. We engaged in conversation, but when I spoke to his wife he got upset with me & even worse when she answered me. He started screaming at her for humiliating him & speaking to an infidel. I had it happen at Robina one day too. She was shopping & he wouldn’t go into the Supermarket but waited outside, very agitated. I asked him what was wrong & it turns out that she was not directly with a relative & in there alone. Then he abused her for being too long. She came out with an overloaded cart.

This is the reality of Islam.

Najia: I nor any other Muslim I engage with in Australia want to see anyone die, be harmed or suffer.

I don’t think you are in that category but unfortunately, I think, most moslim men are. I guess it’s a holdover from their original countries where, women are even taken into battle because their neighbour will rape them if they are left behind. Maybe you “are” trying to assimilate & good for you. You do realize that it is against Islamic rules, don’t you? In another country that could get you stoned to death.

Najia: I don’t recall wanting Australians to be tolerant of Islam…

You, may not have, but all the Imams & others in authority (& on the ABC recently) do. There is no way that Islam can be tolerant of Australian or Western Values. It’s just not on.

Recently there has been a call from Imams overseas to kill any moderate Imams in Australia. The President of Turkey, “no such thing as a moderate moslim, Islam is Islam.”

cont

Najia: Jayb my friend – On the contrary I do fit in. I fit in at work, in the neighbourhood, with other ethnic communities and society

Of course you do, as did my moslim friends at work, when I worked, You may fit in at home too. My friends at work held their Religious feelings close at work but when they were out, say Supermarket Shopping, very different. I run into one at a Supermarket. We engaged in conversation, but when I spoke to his wife he got upset with me & even worse when she answered me. He started screaming at her for humiliating him & speaking to an infidel. I had it happen at Robina one day too. She was shopping & he wouldn’t go into the Supermarket but waited outside, very agitated. I asked him what was wrong & it turns out that she was not directly with a relative & in there alone. Then he abused her for being too long. She came out with an overloaded cart.

This is the twofaced reality if Islam.

Najia: I nor any other Muslim I engage with in Australia want to see anyone die, be harmed or suffer.

I don’t think you are in that category but unfortunately, I think, most moslim men are. I guess it’s a holdover from their original countries where, women are even taken into battle because their neighbour will rape them if they are left behind. Maybe you “are” trying to assimilate & good for you. You do realize that it is against Islamic rules, don’t you? In another country that could get you stoned to death.

Najia: I don’t recall wanting Australians to be tolerant of Islam…

You, may not have, but all the Imams & others in authority (& on the ABC recently) do. There is no way that Islam can be tolerant of Australian or Western Values. It’s just not on. Recently there has been a call from Imams overseas to kill any moderate Imam in Australia. the President of Turkey, “no such thing as a moderate moslim, Islam is Islam.”

.

Dear Runner,

.

Many thanks for your definition of “secularism” and additional clarifications. I appreciate it.

I guess all we need now is to find another term for “separation of church and state”. I did some research on the internet and came across “disestablishmentarianism”, a word invented by the English in the 18th century that refers to "campaigns to sever links between church and state".

The campaign for “disestablishment” popped-up again in the 20th century when Parliament rejected the 1929 revision of the Book of Common Prayer, leading to calls for separation of Church and State to prevent political interference in matters of worship.

I therefore propose we use the word “disestablishment” instead of “secularism” for “separation of church and state” in future correspondence.

What do you think ?

You ask :

« YOu are not suggesting that we have a moral conscience are you. If so where did it come from »

I only suggested that there must be a misunderstanding about the meaning of the word “secularism” and I quoted the OED definition.

However, you raise a fascinating question which I should be delighted to discuss with you if you wish. Suffice it to say, for the time being, that I understand morality to be a subtle mix of nature and nurture and that as altruism, empathy, sympathy and gratitude are its principal characteristics, other animal species appear to have been endowed with a similar faculty.

Morality has, of course, been a major inspiration to the world’s religions in the elaboration of their dogma, though subject to a multitude of variants and innovations.

You write :

« … someone from ISIS in charge of our airport … supporters of this religous cult should be discrimated against »

Agreed, but they don’t usually include ISIS in their CV when applying for the job.

You argue :

« The US secular courts had no problem discriminating against a baker who refuses to bake a cake for 'gay' wedding »

I’m afraid you’ve got the wrong end of the stick there, Runner. Here’s the real story :

http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

.

So, you like to be "consistent", Tony Lavis? And you have no idea on how to judge a religion? I thought that would have been self evident. You just apply the same standards as you do to judge any group of people united by a common ideology.

First you look at the ideology itself, and judge whether or not you consider it to be benign or dangerous. Then you look at the ideologies followers, the degree to which they conform to their ideology, and then decide whether they should be treated as friends or enemies.

If the US Constitution enshrined the idea that all non Protestents should be attacked, even those whom "God knoweth, but you knoweth not". And that these non Protestants should be either forcefully converted, or be killed or maimed, I don't think you would have any problem summoning up the brainpower to conclude that the US Constitution and the people who advocate it were very dangerous.

If you were "consistent", you would judge Muslims and their ideology with the same standards as you would judge Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan.

The fundamental ideology of Islam is quite clearly dangerous to non Muslims and even to Muslim females. It is a male dominated, misogynistic ideology which treats females as the property of men. It justifies the rape of women as a means of keeping them under male control. Surely you have the neuronal capacity to judge Islam based on those simple facts?

You can also judge Muslims by their collective behaviour and the economic and social success of Islam. One fact stands out. The more Muslim a nation is, the more intolerant, repressive, and dysfunctional it is. Even within western countries, 50% of Muslims are on welfare, and they make up a very disproportionate number of incarcerated criminals. If 50% of Nazis were on the dole, and Nazis were very disproportionately represented in violent crime and drug trafficking, I think you could summon up some criticism of Nazism and it's followers.

But you won't do the same thing to Muslims, because "consistent", you are not.

//it would seem that the awful stuff in the Koran is current practice.//

Did you read the article, Is Mise?

//The Prophet Muhammad taught Muslims that no-one can be a person of faith if his neighbour does not feel safe from him or her. Islam is the religion I choose to follow because contrary to existing beliefs it teaches Muslims good conduct, social interaction, justice and kindness...
I am your ordinary, middle-class, working mother that happens to be a practising Muslim who profoundly opposes terrorism and is ardently seeking harmony...
What I’d like to reaffirm to Senator Lambie and fellow Australians is that Sharia law is not part of Australian secular law nor is there any call to make any change.//

Doesn't seem like Ms. Turk is currently practising any that awful stuff, does it? The same goes for all the Muslims I've talked to. The ones practising the awful stuff are probably no more frequent than the likes of runner in the Christian community.

It's funny, because when runner goes about openly advocating for theocracy in Australia, we all just ignore him. But when Muslims go out of their way to point out that they prefer representative democracy, they get attacked for promoting theocracy even though they haven't. It's as if it's the messenger, and not the message, that determines the acceptability of the message.

And as for this rubbish about taqiyya... go ahead, keep on spinning that little mouse-wheel for all it's worth. It won't establish anything because circular reasoning never establishes anything, but you seem to be enjoying it.

Najia: I was hoping for tolerance and respect for all beings; Indigenous, minority groups, disability, refuges, migrants and every other group that makes up Australia or rather are Australians. My intent was to highlight the panellist’s lack of communication skill and knowledge around the topic of Sharia law.

I think you would find that most, not all, the Panellists do have a good knowledge of the Koran, The Hadith’s & Sharia Law. We do go looking things up for ourselves. Read the verses before & after to gain an insight into the meaning of the verses.

Najia: BTW – What’s Iftikhar?

Iftikha. Now there’s a character. He is a Professor of Islamic Studies. He was at Oxford. A Deen, I believe. Now he has his own Uni Course in London. A compatriot of Imam Anjem Choudary. Calling for the Destruction of British Society & to be replaced with Islam & Sharia Law in total. I had many conversations on here with him. Advocates, very strongly the three edicts, Conversion, Jizya or Death. This call has been made in Australia too by various Imams. Admittedly the Attacks in Australia have been described as Lone Wolf attacks, but all wolves belong to a Pack. The fear that most Australians feel is very real.

Najia, how do "you" feel about Apostates, Atheists, Gays, Christians, Jews? How does "Islam" feel about them?

Here is a good post from today's Australian by Chris Kenny which is pertinent to this debate http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/chris-kenny/extreme-voices-elicit-mistrust-thus-helping-islamic-extremists/news-story/6b9dac89d99ed6b3ec36c4b914d51977#itm=taus%7Cnews%7Caus_authors_index%7C1%7Cauthors_storyBlock_headline%7CChris_Kenny%7Cindex%7Cauthor&itmt=1487371798534

Kenny urges us to have an honest conversation, and not to deal in stereotypes from either side.

Najla is on the side of those who want to have an honest conversation. But reading this thread, too many don't want that conversation. We get misrepresentations of all sorts of positions, including that of Christianity as well as Islam. (See Tony Lavis above).

Christianity specifically disowns the capital punishment, genocide etc. in the Old Testament. It is not part of Christianity. Hasn't been since the very beginning. The OT is read by Christians to have a better understanding of what it is they actually believe in an historical context, not as a guide to action.

The OT is still current for the Jews. But we don't see Jews behaving like Islamists, so a line of inquiry might be to look at how Judaism modernised.

There is no alternative to reform of Islam from within, unless you want to quarantine a quarter of the world's population, most of whom are as modern and law abiding as most of the rest of the world's population.

Graham Y:

There is no such thing as an honest conversation about religion. All we need to know about Islam is that it is a religion. Religion is not honest and religious people are not honest. They do not deal in facts and reason and logic. All their presentations are about what they ‘believe’ and belief is not something you can argue with. An argument that begins with a presumption that God exists is not an argument since it is not a fact that God exists. A fact is something we know for sure and that both sides of an argument must acknowledge. You cannot have an argument until both sides agree on the first premise.

No matter how tolerant you are or how accepting, you simply cannot have an argument about religion unless you first agree that there is a God. Anyone that continues an argument without first agreeing about this fundamental principle lacks all integrity. It is pointless to talk about religious books or religious behaviour until you acknowledge that God exists. Not that you ‘believe’ in God but that it is a fact that God exists. A ‘belief’ is just not good enough as a beginning for a rational argument.

There is an alternative to reform of Islam from within and that is to hold fast to the basic principles of reason and argument. The more that the West insists on these fundamentals the less relevant Islam and all religion will become. That is how religion in the west is losing its influence because people are no longer prepared to deal in beliefs - only in facts.

Banjo Paterson

I appreciate your civil tone. We probably are not to far off in our belief as far as Government is concerned. The simple fact is that the more secularised our Government has become the more babaric society is. Every politician has drawn their ideology from somewhere whether it be emilys list, the bible, the Koran or Stalin, etc. To separate that personal belief when it comes to Government is impossible. In recent times pseudo science has been used to justify barbarics and deceit. Fools/gullible actually believe evolution is a scientific fact. We have the warming high priests scaring kids and clowns like getup in order to suck more money from the public. You have the homosexual lobby pushing its sick ideology on the public and kids. You can't and will never seperate a persons personal beliefs from public policy. It seems many secularist real hate is Christian influence because it exposes their own lack of morality. They are happy to encompass Islam, Buddism and every other ism as long as its not Christian in origin.

Hi Phanto,

A 'fact' is basically an interpretation of a material finding, also known as 'evidence'. Documentation about events, especially over a long period, cross-referenced with other documents, and with a multitude of references to verifiable people and places and events, is a pretty good stand-in for evidence, in my biased view.

I've typed up maybe fifteen thousand pages of early documents concerning Aboriginal policy in South Australia, so of course I have an interest in the valorisation of documents as evidence in some form, or at least evidence of evidence.

But to take your point, it's amazing how, on the few occasions when people who disagree with my findings have stooped to argue, how easy it has been for them to simply discount all of that as worthless rubbish, while they continue to believe in the Conventional Aboriginal Narrative, even if they have not a shred of evidence (documentation, physical evidence, etc.) to back up one, or many, or any, of its components.

Senator Brandis concedes that it is not illegal to be a bigot but I would suggest that one (at least) part-definition of bigotry is the ignoring of solid evidence, 'facts', in favour of a point of view for which there is no evidence, or the flimsiest of evidence, rumours, the assertions of some authoritative person, interpretation of some one-off statement from long ago.

When one has (what one thinks is) solid evidence, there is never any need to get personal, or raise one's voice or get angry, except perhaps out of pure frustration with bigotry. The truth will always be; lies and illusions will come and go. The truth is its own rock.

Joe

Another great piece from The Australian. This time from Ayaan Hirsi Ali. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-sharia/news-story/9e6efee3160373ccf9cf4dda8c6daf33

Unlike Yassmin Abdel-Magied,she actually knows her stuff about Islam.. But she does not discount the idea of reform from within.

Phanto, I'm a Christian, and you can have a discussion with me about religion without believing in God. And I am not irrational either. It seems to me that you are being irrational, and for whatever reason you want to destroy religion. That is not going to work. The overwhelming number of people in the world believe in religion of one sort or another, and I don't think it is going away.

Religion provides explanations for things that science can't, and it provides habits of mind and body which are designed to help the believer live a better life, and it also provides a supportive community for the believer. Religions are a useful human institution which confer benefits on society, and even atheists like Alain de Boton recognise this in their writings.

If you think the cure to the problem is the destruction of all religion, then you'll be waiting a while for that to happen, and if you were sucessful you'd inherit a world which would be worse than the one we live in now.

“I'm a Christian, and you can have a discussion with me about religion without believing in God.”

It’s not really up to you – it’s up to me. I can’t have a discussion with someone unless we have a common starting point. It would be irrational to do that.

“And I am not irrational either.”

When it comes to religion you obviously are since the basis of your religion is irrational.

“It seems to me that you are being irrational, and for whatever reason you want to destroy religion.”

What is irrational about wanting to find an agreeable starting point for an argument? All arguments must begin that way.

“That is not going to work. The overwhelming number of people in the world believe in religion of one sort or another, and I don't think it is going away.”

If all arguments were a simple matter of counting the numbers then life would be very easy but they are not. We should do what is reasonable not just what the majority do.

“Religion provides explanations for things that science can't”

Such as?

“it provides habits of mind and body which are designed to help the believer live a better life”

People shouldn’t do things out of habit but because they are reasonable in themselves. Lots of people lead good lives without any reference to religion.

“Religions are a useful human institution which confer benefits on society,”

It does not provide any benefits which are not also provided by non-religious people.

“If you think the cure to the problem is the destruction of all religion, then you'll be waiting a while for that to happen, and if you were sucessful you'd inherit a world which would be worse than the one we live in now.”

I might not be waiting long at all and I think the world would be much better off without religion.

Phanto, whether something is rational or not has nothing to do with you, but only logic and facts - two things that exist independently of you, or your belief or understanding of them. That you think rationality is determined solely on the basis of whether you agree with something speaks to your irrationality and refusal to engage.

People within the same religions often have very different concepts of God, and that is one of the things we may, or may not, engage in argument about. Or we might argue about the meaning of a particular story that a religious figure like Jesus told, say the story of the Good Samaritan, which doesn't require any agreement about what God is, or isn't, to be discussed, and the principles applied.

In fact, the principles underlying the parable of the Good Samaritan have found their way into secular law. Plenty of atheists have benefited by the concept of the Good Neighbour Principle (look it up) and argued about what it means, without believing in God.

In fact, a lot of what you understand by the idea of the good person, and acting properly, comes from the Christianity that you deny. There is not some template of goodness to which people necessarily gravitate, no matter what society they come from, even if some things, like not murdering, are common across a large number of societies.

You also need to do some more research about how people actually make decisions. No one of any credibility makes the assertion that people act rationally in all circumstances. There are a variety of models, but they all involve people acting from a mixture of emotion and rationality. Good habits help people to make good decisions. If whe ad to think everything through from first principles we would be paralysed. Jonathan Haidt in The Righteous Mind has a good discussion of this, and adopts a decision-making model which I think is correct. He also points out that people who act without emotion are generally described as psychopaths.

Hi Phanto,

Religious belief is not so much IRrational as NON-rational: most believers wouldn't claim that reason or rationality has much bearing on their faith. Reason doesn't necessarily come into it.

But while we grow up and learn more about the world, we may not be able to understand much about it but have to accept what we are in the middle of: in that sense, even us atheists are non-rational: we like to believe that reason and rationality come later, with experience and lifelong cogitation.

But in the meantime, we try to make sense out of it all, slowly and often painfully. We strive to be rational, but we do so from a faith that it OUGHT to make sense, AND from principles derived from earlier thinkers: in that sense we all stand on the shoulders of giants, and some of those giants were quite religious - that's what kept them going, right or wrong. Newton is a classic example. I have few problems knowing that the ideas of many great thinkers in the past might have co-existed with what you and I might consider not to be rational perceptions. Probably we're all a bit of a mixture that way, all our lives.

After all, why do we believe what we do, and where did those beliefs spring from ? A drive to know as a child, perhaps ? In other words, faith in the value in finding out, knowing, rather than staying ignorant (speaking for myself, of course). Finding out, knowing, something, has great value for us even though we know it won't be the end of our searches.

Believers may start out from a more formal basis, but they may still observe the world empirically as we try to do, so much of their knowledge and certainly their experience is as rational as ours is. They seem to be able to compartmentalise the world into what you might call non-rational and rational: they would probably be as surprised as we would if God actually and promptly answered one of their prayers - not that

[TBC]

[continued]

- not that many Christians probably pray as much these days.

I was having a dig at a Christian friend during the recent hot spell here in Adelaide when he was mourning the loss of his air-conditioner: I suggested that, who knows, God might fix it straight away if he prayed. He was surprised to think that his request might be answered so speedily. Perhaps he's a secret rationalist at heart.

I don't like to step on the cracks in the footpath, and I'm uneasy about the number 13, somehow it shouldn't exist. But neither belief intrudes much into the rest of my thinking, such as it is. I think that maybe we're all primarily rational, but have our non-rational sides.

Cheers,

Joe

Interesting thing about prayer is that I don't think going to God with a long wish list is really what most Christians think of when they think of prayer Joe. Anecdote from our sermon last week.

Apparently Mother Teresa of Calcutta was asked by a journalist whether she prayed. She said she did, and the journalist asked her what she said to God.

She said she didn't say anything to God, she just listened.

Undeterred the journalist then asked her what God said to her. She replied "Nothing. He listens too."

Prayer, meditation. They are both interlinked. If you practice mindfulness you are doing what a lot of Christians do when they pray.

It's a far cry from the idea, lampooned in Bruce Almighty, that God has filing cabinets filling up with requests from believers, which manifests itself in the Catholic Church's adoption of the idea of saints, so that God could spread the load around.

But I suspect you won't find too many modern sophisticated Christians who accept the shopping list version of prayer. And I think that would hold true for a lot of Christians down the ages, including Jesus (despite what he says in some of the parables). The Lord's prayer certainly is vague and non-specific, but that's how you are advised to pray.

Hi Graham,

Brilliant ! I have a very deep admiration for Mother Teresa and her devotion to the poorest people: I look forward to the Left following her example, but perhaps in a more 'rational' way.

In a TIME article many years ago, it was revealed that she had a severe crisis of belief in the early fifties (i.e. when she was barely forty), which she may never have got over, but kept going with her work until her death at 84 or so, trying to make the lives of the poorest a bit more comfortable, maybe for the first time in their short lives.

If half the Left did that, it wouldn't be as flashy as a revolution but the lives of many people would be greatly enriched. That would still leave the other half to pontificate together over their Lo-Fat Fair-Trade Kale Lattes.

Regards,

Joe

"Prayer, meditation. They are both interlinked."

I used to have two juxtaposed items in my office - a statue of The Thinker ( http://openclipart.org/image/2400px/svg_to_png/224300/The-Thinker-Auguste-Rodin-Grayscale.png ) and a picture of Christ praying in the desert ( http://www.discerninghearts.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Jesus-Praying-in-Desert.jpg ).

Two men in similar poses doing similar things. One is exploring the inner mind, the other exploring ultimate mind.

(Unfortunately the statue fell from the shelf one clumsy day and is no more. It was decapitated. I wanted to blame Islamists but decided it as caused by an even more fundamentalist notion. . . gravity)

Belief in God is an utterly personal issue and ought not interfere with our ability to relate and interrelate with others, be they of this or a different culture. There is no doubt in my mind that the true Christian is completely convinced that God exists despite their inability to show that to others. That I can't see/feel what they see/feel is beside the point in regards to engaging in religious discussion. Similarly, many scientists believe that dark matter exists despite not being able to demonstrate (rather than infer) its existence. That I doubt their certitude doesn't mean that I can no longer ponder things astronomic.

Sam Harris, the prominent atheist, is convinced he can commune with the universal spirit essence ( his book 'Waking Up') via meditation. I've tried his methods and think they are bunkum (for me) but concede they are real for him. None of that means that I should reject all that emanates from his personal 'discovery'. Frankly I envy his 'discovery', just as I envy those who truly accept and adhere to John 3:16 which is, to my understanding, the very essence of Christianity.

One of the things we ought to ponder is why those pushing the great western project of tolerance have such a blind spot about tolerating and accepting other's religious views.

I know the thread's moved on but just wanted to make a few observation concerning the sub-thread drawing parallels between the Bible and the Mohammadian holy scripts in regards to violence against others.

There can be no doubt that both have passages that presage and excuse violence in the name of their deity. But there is one fundamental difference which, if ignored, makes that discussion fraught.

Hirsi Ali observes, and she's neither the alone or the first in doing so, that the Koran can be sub-divided into the Meccan Koran and the Medinan Koran based on where they were 'written' or espoused by Mohamed. Its over-simplifying things, but essentially the Meccan Koran contains all of the 'Love-Thy-Neighbour' type of admonitions while the Medinan Koran contains the entreaties to kill and enslave the infidel. There are good historic reasons for this, which revolve around the relative strength of Mohamed's strategic position while in each of those cities.

Equally the Old Testament could be said to contain the 'Kill-thy-Neighbour' scripts while the NT is the equivalent to the Meccan scripts.

But here's the thing..the NT supersedes the OT for Christians where they conflict, while the more violent Medinan verses supersede the Meccan verses. Indeed Mohamed specifically told his followers that later verses take precedence where they are in conflict. (Jesus said something similar as I recall).

I think this is why it appears to be rather easy to radicalise those who were previously 'moderate' muslims. Moderate muslims tend to follow the Meccan texts and that is why we have large swathes of non-violent muslims and muslim countries. But if the fundamentalists can get hold of a believer and then expose them to the Medinan texts and the fact that they are both later and to be preferred, well, we aren't a million miles from a suicide bomber.

That, clearly, means that there are significant hurdles in trying to assimilate muslims into our (or any) community and why a violent generation can grow from moderate parents. The trick for the moderates will be to find a way to make the Meccan texts supreme.

To GrahamY

Islam teaches Muslims to fight, kill, and maim non Muslims, even those non Muslims that Muslims do not even know exist. That is the essential message of the Koran. I know that there are peace, love and mung bean passages in the Koran, but as Hirsan Ali has pointed out, those were put in at around the time when Mohammad was still weak and not sure of his power base. Once he was established, the mask came off and he became the mass murdering warlord who's written passages in his his religion's scriptures openly preached violence to spread itself.

The most notable aspect of every "moderate" Muslim, whether it is Nabila or Walled Ali, is that they will never, ever, criticise those quotes within the Koran or the Hadiths which openly preach violence towards non Muslims. Nowhere will any of them say that these passages must be abolished. The Bible has been edited so many times that the very latest version could have been printed by the Australian Human Rights Commission. Until the so called "moderate" Muslims call for the most offensive passages in their Koran to be stricken, I regard their endless platitudes with great suspicion and deep mistrust.

Nazis were just Germans, and Germans on the whole are nice people. Ku Klux Klansmen are just southern US whites, and southern US whites are very nice and polite people. But when any group of nice people embrace an extremist ideology they become collectively dangerous, especially when their ideology makes no pretence of being able to live in peace with the people that their ideology declares as their mortal enemies.

The funniest thing about your post is that you say that we "should not deal in stereotypes from either side." You then claimed that there are people contributing to this thread "who do not want to have an honest conversation." Prejudging and labelling those who oppose Nabila's obvious pro Islam propaganda as "dishonest", is stereotyping.

Lastly, Christianity does not oppose capitol punishment. the Ten Commandments state that "Thou Shalt Not Murder". "Murder" is defined as "unlawful killing."

GY: Najla is on the side of those who want to have an honest conversation. But reading this thread, too many don't want that conversation.

Graham, I do want to have an honest conversation. That’s why I ask questions, all of which are never answered directly & always deflected. How do you have a conversation with anyone like that. They always say we don’t understand Islam. Well I have been studying Islam since 1967 when I went to Malaysia. I was given a Malay/English Translation by the Imam of the oldest Mosque in South East Asia in Malacca. I do have a fair understanding & I’m learning more every day. The Hadith’s are the Rulings on the Koran by numerous Imams over the past 1300 years & make very interesting reading.

I can’t speak for others but I do know there are many who do want a real conversation. We are not getting that from the adherents & defenders of Islam. Especially adherents like our friend Iftikha in England.

Religion is mostly habit from our parents. If your parents are Catholic, then you grew up knowing all about Catholicity & you were taught not to like Other Protestant Denominations. If you were OPD they you were taught to hate Catholics. I guess if you were brought up Sunni you hated Si & Visa versa. Luckily Christians as a whole stopped killing each other about 300 years ago. Moslems haven’t reached that point yet & won’t for another 1000 years, if at all.

I saw a doco about Mother Teresa & the Nuns said she was a dragon & very abusive towards her Nuns.

Phanto,

"“Religion provides explanations for things that science can't”

Such as?"

The miracles at Lourdes for starters, or can you provide some rational explanation for what doctors have said to be medically inexplicable?

Toni,

Taqiyya seems to be a real issue, I haven't heard one Muslim say that what is written about it in Muslim religious writings is not current and does not apply to all Muslims.

mhaze,

The difference between dark matter and gods is that there is evidence for dark matter. Your analogy is invalid.

Also, Jesus never said anything about the New Testament superseding the Old Testament when they conflict. In fact, in the sermon on the mount Jesus specifically endorsed the Old Testament in its entirety.

--

Jayb,

Yes, Mother Teresa was a cynical fraud who left so many to suffer untreated and in pain because she believed in the virtues of suffering. Just imagine what she could have done if the millions she received in donations went to treating her victims.

--

Is Mise,

phanto simply asked a question, and a valid one at that. If you want to claim that the so-called miracle healings at Lordes are examples of divine intervention, then the onus is on you to prove that. Like I said the last time we discussed this, mistaking a lack of rational explanations for the alleged healings as evidence of divine intervention is the Argument from Ignorance fallacy, and expecting others to disprove them is the Shifting of the Burden of Proof fallacy. None of this changes because we're on another thread now.

A J Philips,

So out of two longish posts these are the things you want to dispute? Home in on the periphery and ignore the substance or do you accept the substance?

1. Dark matter. You say there is evidence for it. So do you have a vial of it at the back of the pantry? DM is inferred. The current models make no sense to scientists unless they insert DM. They don't know it exists but they need it to make sense of the universe as they understand it. Ditto Dark Energy. Similar the universe makes no sense to the pious with God. I suspect this won't make any sense to you.

2. Mohamed said the older teachings were right but where they appeared to conflict with newer teachings the newer teachings took precedence. Allah wasn't wrong on either occasion but man failed to fully understand the teachings, hence the clarification.
Same for Jesus who taught that his teachings "fulfilled" the prior teachings, which were also correct since they were the word of God. But he did advise that teachings like "Eye for an eye" had to be clarified eg Matthew 5:38. And much more although a lot of the clarification was via Paul/Saul.

But these are peripheral issues. Perhaps we could try to address the substance raher than just seek (unsuccessfully) to points score.

Diver Dan, you’ve been busy commenting. Rough ocean? Where? I fully appreciate you taking the time to comment. I may have had my head in the sands but it’s time to contribute positively to this amazing country. I owe it to all my Australian neighbours to stand up and be a voice. If I’m told to shut up… I most certainly will except that my heart yearns to unite this multicultural nation. What I know best is to speak my truth….truth from my lived and learnt experiences as an ordinary, not extraordinary woman who calls Australia home. How blessed and grateful I am to be received with love and tolerance my whole life and to now give back. Thank you Diver Dan for the opportunity.

AJ Philips … you are very kind. Would you agree all of humanity condemn terrorism? You talk about Christians, Muslims and Atheists and I only see and hear souls. Souls that are passionate to defend our country. I’m not concerned with viciousness online I’m concerned with behaviour that traumatizes our youth preventing them from having a carefree existence. How do young souls make sense of this ugly world? How do the marginalised stand strong? Why are we looking over our fence when we could be building our fortress and uniting as a force? How can we rejoice and sing songs of joy with negative media doing our head in.

Hi Phanto – welcome to the discussion. Your contribution was clear and to the point. The reality is we can’t generalise. It only takes one bad apple to spoil the box. Religion is personal and yes it is hard to convince otherwise. Why should I judge the community if a minority are incompatible with society. Conduct, good character and decency must be at the core of our country. This should affect the minority and not the majority. I could be wrong but this forum is dedicated to open and respectful comments.

That or I'm indifferent to it, mhaze.

<<Home in on the periphery and ignore the substance or do you accept the substance?>>

I wouldn't exactly call what I disputed “periphery”, though.

<<You say there is evidence for [dark matter].>>

Yes, and so do scientists.

http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/dm_evidence.htm

<<So do you have a vial of it at the back of the pantry?>>

Yes, it sits between the vial of gravity and pieces of black hole. What a silly thing to say.

<<The current models make no sense to scientists unless they insert DM.>>

There you go. That's evidence.

<<Similar the universe makes no sense to the pious with God. I suspect this won't make any sense to you.>>

Dark matter has explanatory power. A god doesn't. But we already went through this year's ago.

<<Same for Jesus who taught that his teachings "fulfilled" the prior teachings, …>>

No, when Jesus said that he had come to fulfill the law, what he meant was that although God still enjoyed the smell of burning blood, we no longer need to make sacrifices to him. He's over that now and Jesus replaces the need to sacrifice. Jesus also said that not a jot or tittle of the law will be changed until Heaven and Earth have passed away, and that anyone who breaks the least of those laws will be the least in Heaven (Matthew 5:17-20).

<<Perhaps we could try to address the substance ...>>

Of what you said? I think I did.

Hi All

Thank you for your input. I would so love to continue to respond to your comments, however I, like others am time poor. Your responses are highlighting the need for serious open dialogue in a forum or online webinar.

As well the word limit and post number places constraints. For example I responded earlier with 4 posts, the max. number of posts after which point I had to wait 22 hrs.

I will recheck this site on Friday 25th (as I have disabled email notifications). In the meantime I will speak with my colleagues or better still an approachable Islamic scholar or well-informed member of the community to be available to respond to your questions at some point in the future.

I understand your frustrations. Let's aim for some kind of discussion... If not in dialogue perhaps a written response to your intelligent questions.

Love and Light to you All

Dear Graham,

Following Najla's last response, I suggest that you allow article-authors unlimited posting to their own articles.

//Following Najla's last response, I suggest that you allow article-authors unlimited posting to their own articles.//

I second that suggestion.

Exodus 22.18. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

The Old Testament, common to the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions, has a commandment from God (or Allah, or Yahweh) for His followers to execute sorceresses. Today this would include what are called "mediums", who allegedly talk with the dead, and who can predict future events, as well as "healers" (amateur female doctors) and female Naturopaths. Interestingly, by demanding that these women be executed, God, Allah or Yahweh validates the concept that the supernatural powers that these women supposedly possess actually exists.

As late as 2006 a "witch" in Saudi Arabia was apparently executed for witchcraft. (Saudi authorities claimed that she "died in prison.") But in the modern Christian and Hebrew world of today, God or Yahwey's instruction to execute female sorcerers is completely ignored. Today, within Christendom, faith healers, mediums' Naturopaths proliferate, while "Wiccans" (even Satanism) are now recognised and protected religions.

Any devout Christian or Jew who demanded that authorities execute witches would be considered a nut case. God (or Yahwah's) instruction is completely ignored. However, if today witches were being routinely being executed within the Christian or Jewish world's, and Christian and Jewish clerics were justifying it with the Exodus quote from the Bible or the Talmud, then if you really did consider yourself a witch, a medium, or a Naturopath, then you should be afraid, very afraid.

The Koran instructs Muslims to kill, maim, humiliate or forcefully convert non Muslims to Islam. Female non Muslims may be captured and made into sex slaves. Within the Muslim world today this practice is quite common. The more Islamic a society is, the more non Muslims need to fear and flee. No Muslim cleric is going to advocate that Allah got it wrong and that His instruction should be ignored.

Now, if somebody has a religion who's scriptures instructs it's followers to kill you, and the most devout are doing just that, and they will not criticise or repeal that scripture, a sense of self preservation and plain good manners should compel you to take them seriously.

Najla:

“Hi Phanto – welcome to the discussion.”

I do not need to be welcomed by you. You are not doing me a favour. I am here because I have as much right to be here as you do. Trying to patronise me is not ‘respectful’.

Graham Y:

You point to many things that religious people do to justify the existence of religion but none of them are unique to religious people. People without religion lead moral lives, do charitable works, make sense of life and are happy so there seems no advantage to society in being religious. Human nature leads people to do those things without being told to do them by some outside force.

It seems the only advantage to people who are religious is a personal one. Their religious behaviour gives them some kind of comfort but then so do things like drugs or alcohol or gambling. None of these things work in the long run because they are illogical for the same reasons that religion is illogical.

When asked why religious people do these religious things they invariably point to some teachings or texts which all have their origin in God. The problem is that there is no evidence that God exists so their behaviour is irrational. I think that they invent God to try and ‘rationalise’ their behaviour rather than it being the other way around. Such rationalisations become more and more complex and convoluted the more they are challenged. These rationalisations become a ‘theology’ to the ludicrous point where you can obtain doctorates from some of the world’s most prestigious universities in these rationalisations. They sit alongside the doctorates of some of the most rational minds of our time.

It is this basic need to rationalise religious behaviour which causes so much friction between religious and secular society. Religious people need to justify their drug of choice and will fight for it like the alcoholic will fight if you threaten to take away his bottle.

' None of these things work in the long run because they are illogical for the same reasons that religion is illogical. '

what an illogical irrational rant Phanto. Complex design without Designer, order from chaos, laws of nature without LawMaker, absolutes without God. You have been blinded from rational thinking by your denial of the obvious.

Dear Runner,

«what an illogical irrational rant Phanto.»

Very much so, but Runner, I think we deserve this poisonous and cruel anti-religious outpour.

When I see the collusion between Phanto's secular society and churches and how clergy are purchased for thirty pieces of silver to support the state, I don't know where to hide in shame. As a Hindu, I feel devastated when Hindu temples ask for grants from the Australian government. I can only hope that our Muslim brothers and sisters stay out of this corruption rather than try to become "Australians".

AJ,

Phanto's question was:

“Religion provides explanations for things that science can't”

Such as?"

So I gave an answer that shewed that religion gave an answer where science can't, simple as that.

Whether there are such things as miracles and they happened or didn't happen is irrelevant.
The Church says that they happened so the Church gave an explanation.

One thing occurred to me today after reading comments. The similarity between the origins of Islam and Mormonism. Obviously Mohamed was a lying, cheating, raping, murdering liar but then look at Joseph Smith. All the aforementioned of Mohamed but then lynched by a concerned citizenry!
Wow if only 1300 years ago there were some good ol boys all this mayhem could have been avoided. The mormons saw the light and toned it all down for the public but only after their beloved leader had his neck stretched!
Comments?

.

Dear Runner,

.

« We probably are not to far off in our belief as far as Government is concerned »

Many important reforms are long overdue and successive short-term governments are incapable of doing anything other than maintaining the status quo.

We need a five-year legislature and stable government in order to get the country in order of battle and moving again.
.

« Every politician has drawn their ideology from somewhere whether it be emilys list, the bible, the Koran or Stalin, etc. »

I agree we should keep religion and ideology out of politics and vice-versa. I am for “disestablishment” (as proposed in my previous post).
That, by the way, is the big problem of Islam. In my opinion, religious Islam is neither better nor worse than Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion. It is political Islam that is the big problem. The day the Muslims adopt, implement and enforce “disestablishment” the world will be a better place.
.

« Fools/gullible actually believe evolution is a scientific fact. We have the warming high priests scaring kids and clowns like getup in order to suck more money from the public. You have the homosexual lobby pushing its sick ideology on the public and kids »

I respect your religious-inspired opinions, Runner but do not share them. I trust that you will reciprocate. I prefer the scientific method to blind faith. I am opposed to lobbying as a general principle and deeply sceptical of ideology in all its forms.
.

« It seems many secularist real hate is Christian influence because it exposes their own lack of morality. They are happy to encompass Islam, Buddism and every other ism as long as its not Christian in origin »

I am sure you have good reason to think that, Runner. I, personally, have never observed it. Though I do know an very callous and hypocrite Catholic lady who is a regular church attender and extremely pious.

.

' I prefer the scientific method to blind faith.' You have to be joking Banjo. Your ignorance or deceit is incredible. Scientific method for what? health benefits of sodomy?, order from chaos?, laws with no LawGiver, unborn not human. By all means have your secular dogmas but don't pretend that they are rational or based on science.

Dear Najla,

Thank You for your well reasoned article.
It was quite brave of you to try to present
to readers a different perspective from
the picture people get from the media about Islam.

To many Westerners, Islamic fundamentalism seems
like an almost scandalous return to a medieval
morality. I've written previously that it conjures
forth images of women behind veils, of adulterers
being stoned, of thieves having their hands
cut off, of public floggings and executions, of
martyrdom in holy wars, and, in extreme cases,
of political fanaticism exemplified in aircraft
hijackings and terrorist bombings.

This picture is rather distorted, for it is based
on what is newsworthy rather than what is typical.
Such as your life here in Australia.
Articles such as yours are therefore of great value.
Nothing other than knowledge is going to bridge the
gap between people. Only through education will their
understanding of each other increase and break down
the barriers. We need people such as yourself who
are willing to inter-act and explain things from
your point of view that just may counter the
prejudices (finergs-crossed) passed on from their parents (who
themselves have not had the schooling to break the
generally ignorant cultural inheritance of their
parents).

Again Thank You for coming on to this forum
I for one appreciate it very much.

Foxy,

Have you read the Koran yet?

Runner: Your ignorance or deceit is incredible. Scientific method for what? health benefits of sodomy?, order from chaos?, laws with no Law Giver, unborn not human.

It’s not ignorance or deceit. Science is an ongoing search for the truth. Sodomy & The Unborn line is pushed by a very few & isn’t liked by a majority of Seculars. Order from Chaos is a given in Science but overall there is still Chaos in the Universe & never will be. Scientific Fact that the Sun will eventually consume the Earth & it will go Nebula & everything in our particular Solar System will become Star “Dust” once again. Our Galaxy will eventually go the same way & possibly all the Galaxies will do the same. Then it’ll start all over again.

Runner: By all means have your secular dogmas but don't pretend that they are rational or based on science.

Secular Dogmas can be just as bad as Religious Dogmas, take Socialism, Communism & Democracy for example. What’s that story about the Cow?

Runner: laws with no Law Giver.

There is a Law Giver, The People & Society.

Foxy: may counter the prejudices (fingers-crossed) passed on from their parents (who themselves have not had the schooling to break the generally ignorant cultural inheritance of their parents).

My mother told me that we should let moslems in because they will see how wonderful Christianity is & convert. It’s not really working that way Foxy. Most of the Jihad’s in Australia are 2nd & 3rd generation. Most of the Imams in Australia follow & preach the Median Koran. As explained by mhaze. This is the second part & most violent.Najla seems to follow the Medina Koran but will she be allowed to if the moslims take over

Hear Hear Foxy, I agree.
Najila probably has now a better idea of how her religion is perceived in Australia. Hopefully she now understands that the ABC is not a good test of Australian opinion.

Dearest Foxy,

I support the suggestions of Yuyutsu and Toni.

As for your interesting statement, that

"Islamic fundamentalism seems like an almost scandalous return to a medieval morality. I've written previously that it conjures forth images of women behind veils, of adulterers being stoned, of thieves having their hands cut off, of public floggings and executions, of martyrdom in holy wars, and, in extreme cases, of political fanaticism exemplified in aircraft hijackings and terrorist bombings"

you could have added: honour killings, child marriage, FGM, taking women into sex slavery, mass killing of men and boys, and so on.

So, what did you write which was inaccurate ? All of those, it seems, can be justified by some passage or other either in the Koran, or in following Hadiths (which, being more recent, would take precedence). You've said nothing wrong, or inaccurate, Foxy, even if some of those crimes are, indeed, newsworthy. 'Newsworthy' doesn't mean they aren't happening, even if they may not get into the Graudain or Fairfax papers.

Islam is not a 'race'. Islamism is one off-shoot, a very frequent and common one (actually in many forms) since 632 AD, from Islam. Not all Muslims are Islamists. Some are even perceived by others as apostates and unbelievers.

To attack Islamism (see your quote above) is most certainly not to attack all Muslims, or all of the people of the various 'races' to which Muslims may belong, i.e. pretty much all of the human race.

To condemn Islamism for its fascist brutality in furthering its uncivilized demands, is therefore not to attack Muslims. Let's bury that one, once and for all. Islamism is rightly attacked for its deeds, its purposes and its vile doctrines. I think the Left needs new bed-mates.

Lots of love,

Joe

Dear Is Mise,

No I have not read the Koran, nor the Bible, the Torah,
or any other holy book because I don't take any of
them literally. I judge people by the way they live their
lives not what's written in some book. If someone tells
me "it's God's will," My reaction is -"how do you know
what God's will is?" It's simply human interpretation.
And as some one once said - "The world is bleeding from
misinterpretation."

AJ Phillips,

<<Yes, Mother Teresa was a cynical fraud who left so many to suffer untreated and in pain because she believed in the virtues of suffering. Just imagine what she could have done if the millions she received in donations went to treating her victims.>>

This depends how a person views Mother Teresa.

Surprised to read a columnist, questioning her sainthood, I found some "alternative facts", coming from New Internationalist, a socialist magazine.

The Author writing the opinion piece, Mari Marcel Thekaekara says: "Just before Mother Teresa’s canonisation, I wrote about how I grew up three minutes away from Mother Teresa’s convent. I'd detested her authoritarian ways and the dictatorial manner in which her order, and her nuns were controlled. At that stage, all of eighteen, full of the arrogance and self-righteousness of the young, I was vociferous about Mother Teresa, the petty, control freak."

She also says:

"No one had ever before done anything remotely like Mother Teresa’s order, namely picking up destitute and dying people off the pavements and giving them a clean place to die in dignity. So however much I disliked her petty, control freak ways – she read her nuns personal mail, they were allowed to write home only once or twice a year – I would be the first to admit that no one else did anything about the dying destitute people she rescued."

"Others, went too far in their criticism. Christopher Hitchens, stooped to appalling abuse levels calling her ‘a lying thieving Albanian dwarf’".

"I may not have personally liked the Mother. But neither can I – who could never replicate her sisters’ work of cleaning open sores and faeces, tending to leprosy patients and picking up live, aborted foetuses out of abortion clinic garbage pails – dare to hold forth about the work done for desperately poor people."

Mother Teresa is appreciated by some and not others. I would argue some people appreciate her sisters' work. Can I also recommend against the use of "pristine facts" or "legal elements" to try and close down the expressions of opinion from others.

Is Mise,

An ‘answer’ can be a solution or a mere response. I think phanto was referring to the former sense, you are obviously referring to the latter.

<<… I gave an answer that shewed that religion gave an answer where science can't, simple as that.>>

You’re forgetting about the placebo effect. That’s a scientific explanation.

<<The Church says that they happened so the Church gave an explanation.>>

And I say it was invisible pixies. There, now the Church and myself have given equally useful answers. Am I now superior to science in some way? Will you now hold me up as a source of information when science fails?

I don't think you will, and for the same reason you shouldn't be presenting religion as a source of answers.

NathanJ,

I don’t really care what Mother Teresa was like personally. It was her neglect of the suffering, while millions in donations disappeared to God-knows-where, that I have a problem with. So appalling were the conditions in which she kept the sick, that relatives weren’t even allowed to visit.

Of course, she preferred the hospitals in California when SHE wasn’t well. Apparently suffering is only virtuous and Christ-like when it’s endured by others.

<<Can I also recommend against the use of "pristine facts" or "legal elements" to try and close down the expressions of opinion from others.>>

You certainly can, NathanJ. I would recommend the same. That’s a pretty random thing to say, though.

Foxy:

“It was quite brave of you to try to present
to readers a different perspective from
the picture people get from the media about Islam.”

I don’t think Najla is brave – I think she is frightened. She does not like being a Muslim in a world where there is a lot of hostility to Islam and so she tries to smooth the waters as best she can.

Muslims should not justify their position. Either their religion is the truth or it is not. There is no room for deviation or compromise. What she wants is to try and bring non-Muslims around to her way of thinking so that she will not be challenged. She does not want to be challenged because that could raise doubts for her and it is the doubt that frightens her. If Islam is not the truth then her whole way of life is under threat.

She does not want to be understood – she wants to be left free of doubt. Understanding will not make people any less intolerant of Islam. You can be a world expert in Islam but still be intolerant of it. Explaining your faith does not alter the reality of what it is and to most westerners it is a primitive view of reality. No matter how much understanding we have of it nothing will make it any better.

She does not entertain the idea that Islam is not a primitive view of reality. She fully supports its teachings. There can be no compromise for them and certainly not enough for it to escape that fundamental description of being a primitive view of life and the world.

Moderate Muslims are a contradiction in terms because they will never be moderate enough to suit the west. They are not explaining Islam but pleading with the west to accept it.

I see this religion in any form as a threat to the rights of my daughters and their daughters etc going forward in this country.

To me its a clear choice between their safety and happiness and the rights of some
woman to practice this religion.

Dont try and explain to me that I dont understand it. I refuse to take the risk
no matter how you try to explain it. Ive seen and heard enough of what the males
practising this religion are capable of. until that stops permanently I dont want to
have this religion in this country.

//"“Religion provides explanations for things that science can't”

Such as?"

The miracles at Lourdes for starters, or can you provide some rational explanation for what doctors have said to be medically inexplicable?//

"how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know."
- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Najila most people don't agree with your religion but accept you and your family. Islamists not only will not accept other minorities but as has been shown in the Middle East and other places, practice the exact opposite.
Look at the relative numbers of Christians (Personally I am an atheist) who lived in the middle east and were driven out or murdered. Your religion is not tolerant of others, wherever there is islam there are big problems.
Najila it is not us, it is you and the answer lies with you.

//Ive seen and heard enough of what the males
practising this religion are capable of.//

The same things that able-bodied males of any religion, or no religion at all are capable of. If being a Muslim gave you super powers they'd have more converts.

Anything they can do, we can do better. And with less suspicion and surveillance because they're the dodgy ones. They're like a cloak of concealment for non-muslims that want to get up to no good. Very useful for the rest of us.

Gosh it's fun messing with paranoid people :)

Hi, we won't be giving authors special privileges to post. Writing an article in the first place is a big privilege (one they earn of course), but the forum is for discussion on a more or less equal basis.

The restriction on number of comments that can be posted in a 24 hour period is to ensure that no one gets to dominate the conversation, and it also encourages concision of expression.

I'd be interested in having an Imam or scholar write an article about how Islam might reform from within. I'd also be interested in a Rabbi explaining the same thing about Judaism, but from the perspective of how it did reform from inside.

Hear's the deal, Najila Turk.

You say that you are a middle class Muslim woman who only wants acceptance from Australian society.

OK, then all you have to do is to renounce those passages in the Koran and the Hadiths that instruct Muslims to kill, maim, and humiliate non Muslims. You must also renounce those Koranic quotes that instruct Muslims to kill homosexuals and to kill those people who have turned their backs on Islam.

But I doubt you will do that because it is against your religion.

GY: I'd be interested in having an Imam or scholar write an article about how Islam might reform from within. I'd also be interested in a Rabbi explaining the same thing about Judaism, but from the perspective of how it did reform from inside.

The Grand Mufti would be great & invite Ifithar, steelie, poirot, & the others as well. Now that's a conversation I'd just love to see. ;-) WOW!

Dear LEGO,

«OK, then all you have to do is to renounce those passages in the Koran and the Hadiths that instruct Muslims to kill, maim, and humiliate non Muslims.»

You are running a risk here:

Najla claims that she is not an expert on Islam. Could it be that she is not even aware of those passages? Could it be that you would be the first to inform her about them?

Seems strange? I talked with people in Singapore who claimed to be Buddhists but had no clue who Buddha was!

More likely, the majority of Muslims are good people and therefore use whatever psychological mechanisms they have in their disposal to not-know, refuse-to-know, refuse-to-believe-that-these-are-for-real, block-away-the-information, allow-such-information-to-enter-through-one-ear-then-exit-through-the-other or simply forget that those passages exist, that apart from those who indeed never heard those verses: whatever defence they use, why would you want to remove it and expose them to something they have shielded themselves from in one way or another because they don't want to live accordingly?

Also, for those who would like to but are unable to deny the existence of those violent passages and therefore require theological justification to ignore them, there are plenty of Muslim scholars, Imams and Sheikhs, especially Sufis and Ahmadiyyans, who rather than formally renouncing those passages, provide alternative and non-violent interpretations for the same.

Those who are violent by nature and want to hurt others, can always find a pretext: they don't need Muhammad for that. Similarly, those who are peaceful by nature will also find one excuse or another to abstain from violence.

.

Dear Runner,

.

You wrote :

« ' I prefer the scientific method to blind faith.' You have to be joking Banjo. Your ignorance or deceit is incredible. Scientific method for what? health benefits of sodomy?, order from chaos?, laws with no LawGiver, unborn not human. By all means have your secular dogmas but don't pretend that they are rational or based on science »
.

I’m sorry I upset you, Runner. I did not wish to offend you.
However, it was the scientific method applied to my body that allowed medical experts to save my life on several occasions - not blind faith in a hypothetical god. Without their science I should have died a long time ago.

My brother had the same problem (it is congenital) but, unfortunately, lived in the bush in our old family home in Queensland and did not have access to the same expert medical treatment as I did here in Paris where I live. He died four years ago.

This is fact, not theory. Nor is it some sort of “secular dogma” as you suggest.

I sincerely respect your beliefs, Runner, as I indicated in my previous post and hope that, despite the fact that my beliefs are diametrically opposed to yours, you will accept to respect mine just as I respect yours – without getting upset.

Please be assured that I am attentive to your concerns and take them quite seriously.

I do not come to this forum for people to rub my back but to exchange ideas with people who see things in a different light in the hope that I may learn something.

If others can learn something from me, that’s fine, but I have no axe to grind and no desire to moralise or proselytise anybody.

Nevertheless, though I personally place a high value on individual freedom, I understand that in the present atmosphere of universal existentialist angst, many are tempted to place their trust in a widely acclaimed supreme, superhuman power, ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.

I find that eminently comprehensible.

.

Foxy,

"No I have not read the Koran, nor the Bible, the Torah,
or any other holy book because I don't take any of
them literally."

Be happy in your ignorance, there are people who take them literally and they are the problems; particularly Muslims, the Torah, by the way, is part of the Bible, being the first five books of Moses.

Will any Muslim kindly point out to us all which parts of the Koran are not to be taken literally?

Dearest Foxy,

You could try this web-site:

http://www.searchtruth.com/quran_topics_index.php

It's possible that the first versions of the Koran were written in Syriac, the common language of Syria, the Levant and Palestine, at the time. But it was written without those little marks above and below letters, [diacritica], i.e. the vowels. So when it was transcribed into Arabic, with the diacritica, many Syriac words would have been mis-understood and mis-transcribed: 'raisins' for 'virgins' for example. So much of the Koran may seem like gibberish, perhaps for that reason.

Syriac is still spoken by millions of Christians in the Middle East, by the way, mainly in Lebanon.

This is also a useful site:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/

Best wishes and lots of love,

Joe

Dear Is Mise,

Have you read the Koran?

Which parts do you object to and take literally?

cont'd ...

Dear Is Mise,

I forgot to add have you read the Bible?

Which parts do you take literally?

I think that you'll find there are nasty bits in all holy
books - however it may come as a surprise to you that
most humans are more moral than the scriptures they
hold sacred.

BTW - Taken from -Judaism 101 - "The word "Torah" is a tricky one
because it can mean different things in different contexts.
In its most limited sense, "Torah" refers to the Five Books of
Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
But the word "torah" can also be used to refer to the entire
Jewish bible (the body of scripture known to non-Jews as the
Old Testament and to Jews as the Tanakh or Written Torah), or in
its broadest sense, to the whole body of Jewish law and teachings."

I wonder how many Jews, Christians, or Muslims, (what percentage)
really follow literally the teachings of their scriptures?
Perhaps they are all "ignorant" as you claim I am.

Dear Joe,

Thank You for the links.

Most Christians haven’t read the Bible, and the few who have, haven’t read beyond the Gospels. There’s a word they have for a Christian who has read the Bible: ‘atheist’. I've heard the same being said for a Muslim who has read the Qur'an.

Seminaries have massive dropout rates because students not only read the Bible, but learn how it was compiled. The faiths of many don’t survive that, and some of those who do make it to graduation stop believing at some point during their careers, but continue to preach regardless because it’s all they know. It is for these people that support groups like The Clergy Project were founded to help members of the clergy transition out of their careers and the Church, and offer emotional support during the process.

As for the nasty bits in scripture, moderate Muslims don’t seem to have much trouble reconciling these in the Qur’an. They use the same ‘context of the times’ argument that Christians and Jews use explain away the horrors of their holy books. I will grant, however, that doing this is probably a little easier for Christians because there are two collections of books with the lead character of one of them appearing to chuck out the first collection of books if you cherry-pick what he says, or interpret it creatively.

Dear AJ,

Well said.
You've said it much better than I could have.

When faced with some embarrassing quotes from whatever holy
book they embrace everybody picks the bits they like and
will rationalise the rest away.

Foxy: Which parts do you object to and take literally?

The Koranic Quotes

2:98. Allah is an enemy to unbelievers.
Allah treats unbelievers as the "enemy."

2:161. On unbelievers is the curse of Allah.
Allah curses unbelievers & wants to give them bad luck & harm.

2:191. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme.
Or, fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is Allah's entirely

2:193. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.
All moslems are commanded by Allah to fight & kill all unbelievers until the entire World is moslem.

2:216. Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.
Allah commands all moslems to fight unbelievers even if you don't want to because Allah knows better than you.

3:28 Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers; if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (to remember) Himself, for the final goal is to Allah.

3:85 If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).

3:118. O ye who believe! take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks; they will not fail to corrupt you.
Allah commands all moslems not to make friends with unbelievers.

4:59 O ye who believe! obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you.

Another 4 or 5 to go I'll have to wait 24 hrs for the last 2.

cont

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

4:123 Not your desires, nor those of the People of the Book (can prevail): whoever works evil, will be requited accordingly. Nor will he find, besides Allah, any protector or helper.

4:140. Already has He sent you word in the Book, that when ye hear the signs of Allah held in defiance and ridicule, ye are not to sit with them unless they turn to a different theme: if ye did, ye would be like them. For Allah will collect the Hypocrites and those who defy faith, all in hell.

4:141. (These are) the ones who wait and watch about you: if ye do gain a victory from Allah, they say: "Were we not with you?" But if the unbelievers gain a success, they say (to them): "Did we not gain an advantage over you, and did we not guard you from the believers?" But Allah will judge betwixt you on the Day of Judgment. And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumph) over the believers.

5:33. The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, of the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.

cont

5:44. It was We who revealed the Law (to Moses); therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the Prophet who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah's Will, by the Rabbis and the doctors of Law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah's Book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear Me, and sell not My Signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers.

5:59. Say: "O People of the Book! do ye disapprove of us for no other reason than that we believe in Allah, and the revelation that hath come to us and that which came before (us), and (perhaps) that most of you are rebellious and disobedient?"

8:12 Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." 8:39: “And fight them until there is no more disbelief in Islam and the religion will all be for Allâh Alone...” Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it.
Allah commands all moslems to fight unbelievers even though they don't like to fight. No excuse.

8:60 Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the Cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

8:65. O Prophet! rouse the believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding.

Dear Jayb,

So you object to all the listings given, and you
take them all literally? I had not idea that you
were a believer.

Jayb,

Perhaps "the ordinary housewife" wii now come forward and tell us which parts of the Koran can be dismissed as out of date or subject to modern interpretation.

All Muslims take the instructions in the Koran seriously because they believe the instructions are the literal word of God. As such, they can never be amended. The problem with Islam is that it is unreformable. Mohammad preached that Islam was perfect in his own time and it must never change. So, we ended up with a major religion in the 21st century which is only suitable for desert caravan raiders.

Christians had a "Reformation" where they rejected the self evident corruption and greedy self interest of the clergy to explore once again the essential pacifist message of the religion's founder.

Islam is having "reformation" at the moment too. Utterly unable to explain why Allah has forsaken them and made the Islamic civilisation the impoverished and dysfunctional laughing stock of the world, they have collectively come to the conclusion that it is because they are not religious enough. So, just like the Christian's, they have gone back to the original scriptures to find guidance from God. And what does God say? Keeeel the eeenfidels. Take AJ's property. Turn Foxy into a sex slave. Keeeel the homosexuals. Keeeel the apostates. Keeeel those who insult the Prophet.

Unsurprisingly, their most devout are doing just as Allah ordered.

Now Foxy and AJ Phillips hold to the child like fantasy that most Muslims are "moderate", in that they are all secular democrats and that there are just a few nasty "Islamists" who give the majority of Muslims a bad name. Of course, this is a stereotype that the pair of them would never bestow on Nazis or Ku Klux Klan members. To be a Social Justice Warrior, you have to develop an unmatched capacity for double standards.

According to the Turkish President, there is no moderate Islam and radical Islam, "there is only Islam." Personally, I agree with him. That being so, we can see why Muslims in Australia refuse to condemn the Taliban or ISIS, while their head honcho blames Islamic terrorism on us. You see, the Talibs and ISIS are fighting for Islam. They are Jihadis, and therefore beyond criticism

' I’m sorry I upset you, Runner. I did not wish to offend you.
However, it was the scientific method applied to my body that allowed medical experts to save my life on several occasions - not blind faith in a hypothetical god.'

well Banjo one day you will certainly wake up to the fact that all our days are numbered. I sincerely hope you have many more good days here. Your arguement regarding scientific method is nonsensical. Of course clever men have uncovered certain medicines and practices that assist us in health. Those men and women would not even exist if it were not for their Creator. This has nothing to do with pseudo science which makes up fairytales and ignores the obvious as to our existance (evolution being the chief fantasy).

You cannot possibly know what every Muslim believes, LEGO.

<<All Muslims take the instructions in the Koran seriously because they believe the instructions are the literal word of God.>>

Really? Both the nice bits and the nasty bits? That’s some feat!

<<As such, [Islamic scriptures] can never be amended ...>>

The same goes for the Bible (See Proverbs 30:5-6, Psalms 119:89, Matthew 5:18, John 10:35). That's where interpretation comes in.

<<Christians had a "Reformation" where they rejected the [self-evident] corruption and greedy [self-interest] of the clergy …>>

If you’re referring to the birth of Protestantism, that was more about the belief in faith over good deeds as a means of entering Heaven. If you’re referring to the Enlightenment, that was driven by secular ideals that favoured reason over dogma.

<<... to explore once again the essential pacifist message of the religion's founder.>>

Sounds like you’re thinking of Matthew 5:39. But not everything Jesus said was pacifist. As I’ve already alluded to a couple of times now, Jesus sent mixed messages. There’s enough contradiction in the Bible and Jesus’ teachings for anyone of any persuasion to justify their actions - good or bad - so long as they cherry-pick (http://bibviz.com). How do you think slavery was justified in the US?

You don’t need to talk up Christianity to make Islam look bad. It does a fine job of that by itself.

<<Now Foxy and AJ Phillips hold to the [child-like] fantasy that most Muslims are "moderate" …>>

I haven’t said anything about percentages, but since you bring them up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_toward_terrorism#Polls

<<Of course, this is a stereotype that the pair of them would never bestow on Nazis or Ku Klux Klan members.>>

Firstly, it cannot, by definition, be a “stereotype” since it is not oversimplified.* Secondly, all Nazis and Klansmen define themselves by their horrible beliefs, so there is no double standard.

*http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/stereotype

As graham pointed out, Islam is not going away. So you can either encourage radicalisation by marginalising all Muslims, or you can do your bit to not inflame the situation by showing tolerance towards the moderates.

Take your pick.

If AJ's Christophobic nature is an advert for secularism then God help us. A master of misrepresation. No wonder he waters down Islam while displaying hatred towards his Maker.

Cont.

33:36. It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger, to have any option about their decision: if anyone disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.

9.3. And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage, that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the pagans. If, then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject faith.

9:5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them and seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war )
Allah Commands all moslems to fight unbelievers at "every" opportunity.

9:23 O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong

9:73. Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their Home: an evil fate.
Allah commands all moslems to wage war on unbelievers & kill all of them.

9:123: “O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the pious.”
Allah commands all moslems to wage war on your unbelieving friends. Allah is on your side.

18:26. Say: "Allah knows best how long they stayed: with Him is (the knowledge of) the secrets of the heavens and the earth: how clearly He sees, how finely He hears (everything)! They have no protector other than Him; nor does He share His Command with any person whatsoever.

More to come...

Hi AJ.

Please define exactly what a "moderate" Muslim is? You can't do it because it is a figment of your quixotic imagination. Even if you could, I would just throw your own puerile line back at you and say that "you can't know what every moderate Muslim believes."

You prejudge all Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen because of their common belief system, and you condemn them all because of the murderous behaviour of some. But when prejudging Muslims a different standard applies. You claim that their medieval, misogynistic and highly offensive belief system can not define them. It is a clear double standard which any person who's ability to think straight can easily comprehend.

How about that taxpayer funded Sharia Law apologist on Q&A who claimed that Islam is "feminism friendly"? I wonder how many people watching Q&A fell out of their chairs laughing at that one? In a way she was correct. Much to everybody's astonishment, modern day leftist feminists support a religion who believes in child marriages, clitoris removal, honour killings, wife beating, and that women are the property of men. That is where you Lefties are losing it. There is a clear disconnect between what you claim you believe and a reality which every ordinary person can clearly see.

Just like the racial IQ gap which you first denied and then accidently admitted to, I am sure that you know that Islam is extremely dangerous. But you are a wild eyed ideological fanatic who really does believe that wishful thinking should trump reality. Multiculturalism is falling down around your ears like the Berlin Wall. 50% of the French Army is now on duty patrolling the streets of France to stop Muslims from slaughtering the French. Rape Capitol of the World Sweden has 48 Muslim "no go" zones around Stockholm where police, ambulances and TV crews fear to tread.

The Left are the modern day Conservatives vainly defending an failed ideology using political censorship like 18C, while the Right are the new Progressives.

The times, they are, a changin'.

Why certainly, LEGO.

<<Please define exactly what a "moderate" Muslim is? You can't do it …>>

I like the definition used within counterterrorism discourse: Muslims who denounce terrorism.

<<Even if you could, I would just throw your own puerile line back at you and say that "you can't know what every moderate Muslim believes.">>

If they denounce terrorism, then I know enough.

<<You prejudge all Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen because of their common belief system, …>>

Well then it’s not “prejudging” now, is it?

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/prejudge

<<… and you condemn them all because of the murderous behaviour of some.>>

No, I condemn them because of the demonstrably harmful and false beliefs they hold.

<<But when prejudging Muslims a different standard applies.>>

Apparently not. Nor do I "prejudge" Muslims, for that matter.

<<You claim that their medieval, misogynistic and highly offensive belief system [cannot] define them.>>

As individuals, yes.

<<Much to everybody's astonishment, modern day leftist feminists support a religion who believes in child marriages, clitoris removal, honour killings, wife beating, and that women are the property of men.>>

I don’t know about “support”. However, I do find their silence disconcerting.

<<That is where you Lefties are losing it.>>

Do you know how to discuss anything without putting people into convenient little boxes? Apparently not.

<<There is a clear disconnect between what you claim you believe and a reality which every ordinary person can clearly see.>>

You mean, what YOU claim I believe.

<<Just like the racial IQ gap which you first denied and then accidently admitted to, …>>

Oh? “accidentally admitted to” now? This scurrilous little furphy of yours becomes more and more embellished every time you tell it. It used to be that I was “forced” to admit it. You still can’t point to where this happened, though.

See what happens when you lie? You have to remember your lies.

<<Rape [Capital] of the World Sweden has 48 Muslim "no go" zones around Stockholm where police, ambulances and TV crews fear to tread.>>

Ah, the immigrant rape and “no-go” zones myths.

http://debunkingdenialism.com/2015/12/12/how-anti-immigration-activists-misuse-rape-statistics
http://debunkingdenialism.com/2017/01/20/debunking-the-myth-of-no-go-zones-in-sweden

I have nothing against Muslims. Their problems come from little or no education and that book that is forced down their throat which is obviously composed by a warlord and woman hater.
I would rather have kids adopted into our country rather than persons that far indebted into the words of barbarism.
Their teachings belong in ancient times, and have no place in Australia.
Sacrifice the adults and give relocation to the kids.

.

Dear Runner,

.

You wrote :

[ « … it was the scientific method applied to my body that allowed medical experts to save my life on several occasions - not blind faith in a hypothetical god »
Banjo … your argument regarding scientific method is nonsensical. Of course, clever men have uncovered certain medicines and practices that assist us in health. Those men and women would not even exist if it were not for their Creator ]
.

I do not understand why you think the scientific method is nonsensical if it allows clever men to save my life. It makes sense to me.

Would you kindly explain ?

Also, I presume you consider the “Creator” created me and my brother too. How do you explain the fact that he made us with faulty material and/or manufacturing defects. Is he not perfect ? Does he make mistakes ?

Do you consider he is responsible for my brother’s premature death ?

Is he trying to kill me too ? If so, why did he “create” the medical experts who have saved my life on several occasions ? Is he just playing games with my life ? Russian roulette perhaps ?

What about Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol-pot and cohorts ? Are you sure, as you say : “those men … would not even exist if it were not for their Creator”. Did they carry out their mission to his satisfaction ? Is he pleased with them ? Or do you think he might try to do better next time ?

Should we forgive him for “creating” such monsters ? Should I forgive him for trying to kill me too (if he exists) ?

You then very kindly add :

« I sincerely hope you have many more good days here »

Shh … ! He might overhear you, Runner. Beware of the wroth of the “Creator” ! I shouldn’t like anything bad to happen to you, just because of me. If he wants to kill me, let him get on with it. I’ll just keep dodging.

.

Oh, that's cute, AJ. By that definition, ISIS is "moderate" because they denounce US "terrorism." Cmon, AJ. Your entire humanitarian ideology is starting to stink like a tub full of rotting fish, because you insist that Muslims are no threat to us when their own scriptures instruct them in black and white script to kill us. And when their most devout do just that, you pretend it is not happening and try to blame the victims. Even the western homosexuals are starting to think twice, that is why your loony left mates are going overboard rioting and burning, trying to shut up homosexual Milos Yianopoulous. But watching homosexuals get chucked off buildings by the most devout Muslims while the "moderates" say nothing is beginning to frighten them.

Do your mythical "moderate" Muslims denounce the killing of homosexuals, AJ? Do they denounce the murder of those who criticise Islam? Do "moderate" Muslims agree that Muslims who choose to leave Islam should not be killed? Could you please direct me to a "moderate" Muslim website where these mythical "moderate" Muslims agree to just these three principles?

So, you prejudge all Nazis as bad, including neo-Nazis who had nothing to do with WW2 or the Holocaust, because they are "demonstrably harmful and false beliefs they hold." Muslims are demonstrably harmful, just ask the Middle Eastern Christians and Jews who have been fleeing in millions from Muslim dominated countries for the last 100 years. And exactly which unfalse beliefs that Muslims hold do you agree with? Is it Mohammad's insistence that women are inferior? That husbands may beat their wives? That raped women deserve it? That Islam should spread by armed force? That infidels should be murdered, maimed, and humiliated?

I will tell how your double standard works, AJ. You blanket condemn all Nazis and all Ku Klux Klansmen because they are white. You refuse to use the same standard with Muslims because they are brown. The only race you demand must uphold the your highest principles is the white race. Non whites get a free pass no matter what they believe or do.

If you want to consider US military intervention “terrorism”, LEGO.

<<Oh, that's cute, AJ. By that definition, ISIS is "moderate" because they denounce US "terrorism.">>

But I don’t, and neither does standard counterterrorism discourse, because the US no longer deliberately targets civilian populations indiscriminately.

So I’m afraid the only one getting “cute” here is you.

<<… you insist that Muslims are no threat to us when their own scriptures instruct them in black and white script to kill us.>>

Really? All of them? When did I insist that?

<<And when their most devout do just that, you pretend it is not happening and try to blame the victims.>>

I do? Where? When?

<<Do your mythical "moderate" Muslims denounce the killing of homosexuals, AJ? Do they denounce the murder of those who criticise Islam? Do "moderate" Muslims agree that Muslims who choose to leave Islam should not be killed?

Yes, yes, and yes.

<<Could you please direct me to a "moderate" Muslim website where these mythical "moderate" Muslims agree to just these three principles?>>

Just those? They can’t agree to more? Drats!

http://bmsd.org.uk/index.php/a-muslim-voice-for-gay-rights

<<So, you prejudge all Nazis as bad, including neo-Nazis who had nothing to do with WW2 or the Holocaust, because they are "demonstrably harmful and false beliefs they hold.">>

No, I don’t. That definition again: http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/prejudge

<<I will tell how your double standard works, AJ.>>

Good, because your previous attempts failed.

<<You blanket condemn all Nazis and all Ku Klux Klansmen because they are white.>>

No, my dislike for them has nothing to do with skin colour.

<<You refuse to use the same standard with Muslims because they are brown.>>

No, it’s because they don’t all hold beliefs that society finds abhorrent. Nor are they all brown. Islam is not a race. Remember?

Well that was a disappointment. Still no double standard.

Sounds like you need to start addressing what actually I say and cease presuming to tell me what I do and do not believe. You won't, of course, because your arguments only work if I conform to the laughable caricature that you need me to be.

Foxy,

"I forgot to add have you read the Bible?

Which parts do you take literally?"

Not in its entirety, I find a lot of it tends to be repetitious and thus boring.
I take Moses and the burning bush literally as well as the Commandments, also the Crucifixion which is a good description of one Roman execution method.

Dear Is Mise,

So you don't read the Bible in its entirety and you find
a lot of it tends to be boring?

Thank You for that. It confirms what I stated earlier.
You're not alone in doing that. I'm sure that many
religious advocates do the same regarding their holy
books. Everybody picks the bits
they like from whatever holy books they embrace.
Therefore making generalisations about an entire group
of people simply ignores the differences among
individuals.

Prejudice is such an irrational, inflexible, attitude
toward an entire category of people. It's something
that should really be avoided. Someone who is
prejudiced against Muslims, Jews,Christians, et cetera,
will tend to have a negative
attitude toward an individual Muslim, Jew, Christian,
in the belief that
all Muslims/Jews/Christians, share the same supposed traits. That's neither fair nor rational.

ok Banjo its obvious that it is not God that you don't believe in but the fact that you think you are smarter, wiser and could do a much better job. You are very deluded.

Foxy,

"So you don't read the Bible in its entirety and you find
a lot of it tends to be boring?

Thank You for that. It confirms what I stated earlier"

No, it doesn't, I read commentaries on the Bible and any other religious text that I am interested in and compare. Just as I read commentaries on the Koran and, so far, the observations on the Koran confirm that Islam is a dangerous political/religious movement that causes/has caused strife wherever it goes and that it has no place in a democratic society.

Dear Is Mise,

I also read quite a few commentaries but from
a variety of sources. Not only the ones that
agree with my viewpoint. And, therein may be
where your problem lies. It depends on what
you read and what viewpoints are
being presented. As Piers Ackerman stated on
"Q and A," last night when given a few facts,
he claimed he'd never heard of - then Julian Burnside, QC
told him but"It was in the news," Mr Ackerman
replied - "I don't read the Fairfax newspapers.
Oh Dear. No wonder his views were/are somewhat narrow.

C39:9. Is one who worships devoutly during the hours of the night prostrating himself or standing (in adoration), who takes heed of the Hereafter, and who places his hope in the Mercy of his Lord--(like one who does not)? Say: "Are those equal, those who know and those who do not know? It is those who are endued with understanding that receive admonition."

45:21. What! do those who seek after evil ways think that We shall hold them equal with those who believe and do righteous deeds, that equal will be their Life and their death? Ill is the judgment that they make.

47:4. Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost.
Allah commands all moslems to kill unbelievers when & where ever they can. Take some prisoners & demand a ransom. Allah himself would have done this. Allah commands you to fight unbelievers to test you to see if really are obedient to him. If you are killed you will get the best reward there is in heaven.

47:12. Verily Allah will admit those who believe and do righteous deeds, to Gardens beneath which rivers flow; while those who reject Allah will enjoy (this world) and eat as cattle eat; and the Fire will be their abode.

Jizya Tax

63:7. They are the ones who say, "Spend nothing on those who are with Allah's Messenger, to the end that they may disperse (and quit Madinah). But to Allah belong the treasures of the heavens and the earth; but the Hypocrites understand not.

cont.

cont

63:8. They say, "If we return to Madinah, surely the more honourable (element) will expel there from the meaner." But honour belongs to Allah and His Messenger, and to the Believers; but the Hypocrites know not.

63:9. O ye who believe! let not your riches or your children divert you from the remembrance of Allah. If any act thus, the loss is their own.

All of these quotes instruct all Muslims to physically assault non-Muslims. The purpose is obviously to terrorize them into becoming Muslims. That is compulsion. All moslems of all sects believe this to be true. Do you want to tell me that Islam is the Religion of Peace?
"Jizya" tax is a monetary penalty, the purpose of which is to compel defeated people to become Muslims.

16:106. Anyone who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in faith, but such as open their breast to unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.

40:28. A believer, a man from among the people of Pharaoh, who had concealed his faith, said: "Will ye slay a man because he says, 'My Lord is Allah'?--when he has indeed come to you with Clear (Signs) from your Lord? And if he be a liar on him is (the sin of) his lie: but, if he is telling the Truth, then will fall on you something of the (calamity) of which he warns you: truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies!
the religious legitimacy of breaking oaths, lying, unilaterally violating treaties, and generally scheming against non-Muslims.
10:21. When We make mankind taste of some mercy after adversity hath touched them, Behold! they take to plotting against our Signs! Say: "Swifter to plan is Allah!" Verily, Our Messengers record all the plots that ye make!
“war is deceit” (see the Hadith collection of Bukhari, vol. 4, book 52, numbers 268–271).
The Qur’an in a variety of verses justifies , using taqiyya, lying for Allah.

Cont

Cont

2:225. Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Forbearing.
It’s Ok to lie to deceive an unbeliever.

3:28. Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers; if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (to remember) Himself, for the final goal is to Allah.

16:106. Anyone who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in faith, but such as open their breast to unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.
40:28. A believer, a man from among the people of Pharaoh, who had concealed his faith, said: "Will ye slay a man because he says, 'My Lord is Allah'?--when he has indeed come to you with Clear (Signs) from your Lord? And if he be a liar on him is (the sin of) his lie: but, if he is telling the Truth, then will fall on you something of the (calamity) of which he warns you: truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies!

See the Hadith collection of Bukhari, vol. 4, book 52, number 271.
Narated By Jabir : The Prophet said, "Who is ready to kill Ka'b bin Ashraf (i.e. a Jew)." Muhammad bin Maslama replied, "Do you like me to kill him?" The Prophet replied in the affirmative. Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say what I like." The Prophet replied, "I do (i.e. allow you)."

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

Now Foxy have a read of all that. It only Deals with Infidels. (Us) & Jizya Tax. I have a lot more on rules for Women. I'd sure that would interest you. I will post it if you like. Not nice. You 2nd Class Citizen you. ;-) Luv JB

Dear Jayb,

You're a bit of a worry continuing to quote from the
Koran. Smacks of some sort of a compulsion.

Tor Hundloe in his book, "From Buddha to Bono:
Seeking Sustainability", writes:

"The vast majority of modern mainstream Christians,
Jews, and Muslims seek a better life on earth,
rather than seeking it in heaven. Even if they believe
in heaven, they seek to have a happy life on earth.
Modern people (with normal family and social relationships,
and at least partially rational view of how the world works)
are not waiting for Armageddon, or a future coming of a
saviour. Nor are they waiting for anything else that
exercises the theological minds of fundamentalists.
We must keep in mind that the religiously minded modern
person is not a 'card-carrying' fundamentalist. The latter
are a tiny minority. Of whatever faith, a psychologist
would be likely to declare them to be of unsound mind."

"Modern people are focused on improving the human condition on
earth even if they hesitate to claim they can produce 'heaven
on earth'. Their attitude sits in direct contrast to the
vision of the fundamentalists. It cannot be stated strongly
enough, religious fundamentalism - where belief is the
literal word of the Bible, the Koran or the Torah, as the
rule book for how to live and die - is the arch enemy of
achieving the good sustainable life. Why? If the good life in
another (mythical) world, heaven, is what you seek, (and, for
some fundamentalists you want to get there as soon as possible)
what you do to earth today and what you do to your fellow
human beings does not matter. In fact, if Armageddon is a
necessary precursor to the second coming (and utopia in heaven)
you will destroy and kill to accelerate your embrace by God in the
hereafter. Very, very sad. And pathologically sick."

Hi AJ.

You have put all Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen in a box and condemned them all as individuals because of what you say is the "demonstrably false and harmful beliefs they hold."

Muslims too hold "demonstrably false and harmful beliefs" but you are saying that they can not be judged as individuals because "nobody can claim to know what every Muslim believes."

Unless you apply the same standard to Nazis and Klansmen, you are guilty of (shudder) Discrimination, because you are applying an obvious double standard. Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen are white and Muslims are almost invariable brown or black. And if you prejudge separate groups of people differently because of their skin colour, you are a racist. If you hold different groups of people to different standards according to their skin colour, while claiming that you are an anti racist, you are a hypocrite.

You are now claiming that "moderate" Muslims can be defined as those Muslims who "renounce terrorism." Reminded by me that does not exclude the remainder from "demonstrably false and harmful beliefs" such as wife beating, child marriages, the concept of female inferiority, the belief that raped women deserve it, honour killings, and a belief that homosexuals, apostates, and critics of Islam should be murdered, you tacked on a few more virtues of what you think a "moderate Muslim" may be.

The Pew Research figures you posted up revealed that between 17% to 36% of Muslims in Europe think that Islamic terrorism can be justified, while in those Muslim countries (which are not even the worst Muslim countries) between 45% to 72% of Muslims think the same. If there are 1.3 Billion Muslims in this world, and around half of them think that Islamic terrorism can be justified, then that means that there are around 600 million people in this world, some whom live in western countries, who are extremely dangerous. How objectionable the rest are, we just don't know.

The danger to our people is just too great unless we prejudge all Muslims the same way that you already prejudge all Nazis.

Foxy: Page 17, 2nd. Post: No I have not read the Koran, nor the Bible, the Torah, or any other holy book because I don't take any of them literally.

The reason I gave you those quotes is so you’ll know something about what we are really dealing with.

moslims “do” take “all” parts of the koran literally. I was just giving you the parts of the Koran that pertain to Infidels, like you & me. I haven’t included the bits about how to treat a woman. Now that will blow your mind. Especially when Sharia Law comes into the equation. I suggest you read & acquaint yourself with them, or not, it’s up to you. If you “Don’t want to know about it. “ that’s fine too.

Yes, I know just about all the bad bits in the Bible too especially the bits about stoning your children if they don’t behave. Eating your children if you’re are under siege & haven’t got any food left. Girls first. Marrying babies, but only older than three years & one day. Christians haven’t used these bit for thousands of years. In fact most people don’t even know they are in there. I love it when I tell the JH’s that because they believe it literally.

Foxy,

Shew me where Islam is compatible with democracy, I'm willing, in fact, anxious to be enlightened.

Shew me the references, just a few will do.

You’re really struggling with the whole ‘prejudging’ bit, aren’t you LEGO?

<<You have put all Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen in a box … because of what you say is the "demonstrably false and harmful beliefs they hold.">>

Correct.

<<Muslims too hold "demonstrably false and harmful beliefs" …>>

Not all of them, and therein lies the difference.

<<… but you are saying that they [cannot] be judged as individuals because "nobody can claim to know what every Muslim believes.">>

And because we know some don’t hold radical views, yes.

<<Unless you apply the same standard to Nazis and Klansmen, you are guilty of (shudder) Discrimination …>>

Why’s that, LEGO? Tell us.

<<… because you are applying an obvious double standard.>>

You need to expand on this. You have not yet demonstrated a double standard on my behalf. You’re simply re-stating your original claim.

<<Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen are white and Muslims are almost invariable brown or black.>>

Correct.

<<And if you prejudge separate groups of people differently because of their skin colour, you are a racist.>>

Absolutely.

<<If you hold different groups of people to different standards according to their skin colour, while claiming that you are an [anti-racist], you are a hypocrite.>>

Sing it!

<<You are now claiming that "moderate" Muslims can be defined as those Muslims who "renounce terrorism.">>

“Denounce”, yes.

<<Reminded by me that does not exclude the remainder from … you tacked on a few more virtues of what you think a "moderate Muslim" may be.>>

Yes, although I think you’ll find, more often than not, that most of your list is accompanied by an endorsement of terrorism.

<<… 600 million people in this world … are extremely dangerous. How objectionable the rest are, we just don't know.>>

Well that’s an improvement at least. Before, you were saying they were all objectionable.

<<The danger to our people is just too great unless we prejudge all Muslims ...>>

And then act on that, how? Like I said before, Islam is not going away anytime soon and by marginalising them all, you only encourage radicalisation.

.

Dear Runner,

.

Not to worry, my friend, I think I understand your predicament.

Am I right in thinking that the universal explanation (and, perhaps, the only possible explanation) of your notion of “God” is faith ? Otherwise, your non-response to my various questions appears to indicate that there are no obvious explanations that immediately come to mind.

From my point of view, as I see no more reason to have faith in a hypothetical “God” than I do in meteorologists’ predictions on whether it’s going to rain or not, I try to get along as best I can (without an umbrella), and am always willing to help others avoid getting wet (and catching a cold), if I can.

That said, if, on further reflection, you can think of plausible explanations to any of those matters I raised in my previous post, I should be delighted to hear from you.

Please take your time, Runner. There’s no rush.

Even if it's not on this thread, I'm sure we'll have the pleasure of entering into future discussions on OLO.

In the meantime, I’ll just put it all down to “faith” until you can come up with something more explicit.

.

I love it when my opponents claim that black is somehow white. No wonder you loony lefties hate freedom of speech so much. You know that when put under the harsh glare of reason and logic, your stupid ideology is very easy to deconstruct. Better to riot and disrupt meetings, throw bags of urine, and demand "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" from the opposing logic you know make perfect sense.

The fact that you are a hypocritical racist who holds groups of white people with "false and harmful beliefs" to a different standard to non whites with even worse "false and harmful beliefs" is perfectly clear and easy to see. Your present premise is that it is OK to condemn every individual within white groups who's widely accepted core values you disapprove of, but not OK to do the same with individuals within non white groups who's widely accepted core values you disapprove of.

Well gee, AJ. That is a double standard. And it is one based entirely upon race.

Your latest justification for your clear double standard is that among the non white group who hold "false and harmful beliefs", the difference is that "we know that some do not hold radical beliefs."

But somehow, you can "see inside the hearts" of every Nazi and Ku Klux Klansmen and prejudge every individual as evil. Tell me, did you or the Pew Research Group conduct a poll with every Nazi who existed from 1932 to 2017 to discover if all of their "false and harmful" beliefs are shared uniformly by every individual? The book "The German Officers Wife" illustrated that one of the founding members of the Nazi Party was a woman who was sympathetic to the Jews, and who only supported Hitler because his party was the only one in Germany which would give women the right to divorce.

The principle remains that if you demand that all people must be treated equally, you can not prejudge each group differently. Especially when the only real difference between the "false and harmful" core beliefs of those groups is their race.

I dunno, LEGO. You haven’t done a very good job of it so far.

<<You know that when put under the harsh glare of reason and logic, your stupid ideology is very easy to deconstruct.>>

I mean, you’re certain I’m holding a double standard in some way or another, and yet every attempt to pinpoint it thus far has failed miserably.

<<The fact that you are a hypocritical racist who holds groups of white people with "false and harmful beliefs" to a different standard to [non-whites] with even worse "false and harmful beliefs" is perfectly clear and easy to see.>>

Well, that shouldn’t be too hard to demonstrate then. Did you want to give it another go? Let’s see what you can do this time…

<<Your present premise is that it is OK to condemn every individual within white groups who's widely accepted core values you disapprove of …>>

Not “widely”, “universally”, And therein lies the difference. Bzzzzt! Failed at the get go.

<<… but not OK to do the same with individuals within [non-white] groups who's widely accepted core values you disapprove of.>>

I’ve already explained that skin colour has nothing to do with it. You are yet to demonstrate otherwise.

<<Well gee, AJ. That is a double standard. And it is one based entirely upon race.>>

At least it would have been, had you represented my views correctly.

Do you think I’m stupid enough to fall for your subtle attempt to pass off a universally-held belief as merely “widely”-held? I’ve never fallen for a trick like that before. What makes you think I’ll start now?

<<Your latest justification for your clear double standard is that among the [non-white] group who hold "false and harmful beliefs", the difference is that "we know that some do not hold radical beliefs.">>

Oh, so NOW we acknowledge that all-important factor. We’re a bit late, aren’t we? And, no, skin colour has nothing to do with it.

"Latest", as if it weren't there from the beginning. Nice touch, LEGO.

Continued…

…Continued

<<But somehow, you can "see inside the hearts" of every Nazi and Ku Klux Klansmen and prejudge every individual as evil.>>

No, I don’t have to be able to see inside their “hearts”. Their membership provides us with all we need to know.

<<Tell me, did you or the Pew Research Group conduct a poll with every Nazi who existed from 1932 to 2017 to discover if all of their "false and harmful" beliefs are shared uniformly by every individual?>>

No, it didn’t have to. See above.

<<The book "The German Officers Wife" illustrated that one of the founding members of the Nazi Party …>>

No, I don't think she wasn’t a founding member, and you forgot to mention the fact that she was a Jew who had to hide her Jewish identity. Not much of a Nazi.

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

Even if she were a founding member, the Nazi party evolved radically up until their election. They started out as a socialist, worker’s party and ended up a fascist, right-wing party who retained the socialist label because socialism was popular at the time.

But I like how you have to dig up what dead people did 70 years ago, when not all of them knew about the extent of the Nazi atrocities. Did poor ol' Edith still support the Nazi ideology in 2009 when she died? How about you concern yourself with the Neo-Nazis who are still alive and well aware of what it is that they're supporting, eh?

<<The principle remains that if you demand that all people must be treated equally, you [cannot] prejudge each group differently.>>

That’s not what equality is (http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/equality). By that logic, we couldn’t even incarcerate criminals. There goes caricature Lefty again.

Try again, LEGO.

I have to point out that Nazi's and members of the Ku Klux Klan would be three distinct groups. Smarties who milk the money and advantage. Numpties who are too stupid to get out of their own way and fellow travelers who go along for the ride.
Same for the followers of islam.
I still laugh at the lefties who leap to defend the indefensible and actually encourage us taking on a massive problem. Well done guys and girls and do not forget you can blame the rest of us rather than yourselves.

Dear Jayb,

How can you speak on the behalf of all Muslims and
what they do or do not belief in or take literally.
That's simply nonsense. You can't speak on the behalf
of all Christians or Jews - as I've stated earlier -
fundamentalists exist in all religions. But not
all religious advocates are fundamentalists. And your
claiming they are is not only vile but dishonest.

Dear Is Mise,

How long have Muslims lived in this country - do you
know? And what percentage of them have caused us
problems? So don't rant on about Islam - are all
Catholics kiddie fiddlers? Did every Irish man
belong to the IRA? Is Catholicism not compatible with
democracy? Your prejudice is showing.

cont'd ...

Also you have to be able to understand the
context and history of issues before making
judgements. Regarding Islam and democracy
Alon Ben Meir has written an excellent article
which is worth a read:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alon-benmeir/is-islam-compatible-with-b_3562579.html

Foxy,

No need to rant, just shew me where Islam is compatible with democracy, I'm willing, in fact, anxious to be enlightened.

Shew me the references, just a few will do ( the one that you supplied didn't work).

None of the groups that you mentioned has a book of instructions that is anti-democratic.

Dear Is Mise,

My apologies for the typo with the previous link.
I shall try again and hopefully it shall work
this time:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alon-benmeir/is-islam-compatible_with_b_3562579.html

The more relevant question that you should be asking
is how do most muslims live their lives in the democracies
that they inhabit around the globe? That would be a good
indication of compatibility for most folk. Also one has
to look at the history, circumstances, and context ot
the countries in which Islam exists - the conditions that
people live under - where there is no democratic traditions
and no separation of Church and State.

Foxy

". Also one has
to look at the history, circumstances, and context ot
the countries in which Islam exists - the conditions that
people live under - where there is no democratic traditions
and no separation of Church and State."

Precisely, and there are no democratic traditions allowable in the religious/political movement that is Islam, the Koran is against it.

The link worked this time, thanks.
Everyone should read it; it paints a picture that shews just what to expect from Islam, thanks for that as well.

There was discussion many comments ago about the relationship between Christianity and the Old Testament. This is the link to the sermon from our church last Sunday which explores a couple of the links between the old and new Testaments, and Jesus' attitude to them. It's also a good lesson in how cultural context can make something you thought you knew wrong.

For example, I've often used the phrase "go the extra mile", but it doesn't mean what I think it means when you see the context it comes from. Had to be there in first century Palestine to really get the nuance.

http://stmatthewshollandpark.com/articles18.html

Dear Graham,

Thanks for that.

That's one of the many reasons why I enjoy the
forum. You can learn a great deal if you keep an
open mind.

AJ: and by marginalising them all, you only encourage radicalisation.

We’ve seen this statement before. What does it mean exactly? I think it means that if we give into a Radicals demands, they win, & if we don’t eventually convert, they’ll kill us. If we don’t give into their demands, there will be more radicals, who will kill us. Either way We lose. Is that right?

Suggest a solution AJ. Nah, that’ll never happen. I’ve asked for contributors solutions before. The reply. “Not my job.”

Foxy: How can you speak on the behalf of all Muslims and what they do or do not believe in or take literally.

I can't. I can only go on what I see happening around the World. Moderate moslims running rampant because they can't get there own way according to the Koran. France Denmark, Germany & Sweden, even Norway.

Foxy: That's simply nonsense. You can't speak on the behalf of all Christians or Jews. Fundamentalists exist in all religions.

I don't, but Christians & Jews are not the ones raping & pilliaging.

Foxy: But not all religious advocates are fundamentalists.

All religious fundamentalists are religious but the religious are fundamentalists. Runner is a fundamentalist but not dangerous, but would he be if his Sect were leading a Government? I think they would be.

look up the Bible:
Deu 13:6-10.
Deu 21:18-21
Deu 28:53-60
Very interesting!

Najla,

It is claimed that

"The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter."

Is this true?

Jayb,

I’m not sure why you would need me to explain my statement to you. There was nothing cryptic about it.

<<We’ve seen this statement before. What does it mean exactly?>>

Perhaps a hypothetical will help?

Take, for example, a hypothetical teenaged Muslim boy: born in Australia, has only ever lived in Australia, and considers himself to be Australian. Then, one day, after ordering more money be printed to solve our financial woes, Prime Minister Hanson says to Australia’s Muslim community, “You are no longer welcome here, and those like you will be blocked from entering the country.”

How quickly do you think that kid is going to be radicalised?

<<I think it means that if we give into a Radicals demands, they win, & if we don’t eventually convert, they’ll kill us. If we don’t give into their demands, there will be more radicals, who will kill us. Either way We lose. Is that right?>>

No, the first part isn't right. Giving into the demands of radicals is never necessary.

<<Suggest a solution AJ. Nah, that’ll never happen.>>

That’s easy. Given the tensions that declaring Australia’s Islamic community to be the enemy would inflame, and the increase in radicalisation that would inevitably follow from that, doing absolutely nothing would be a better option. A more proactive approach, still, would be to engage with Australia’s Islamic community, fight intolerance and racism (yes, I know Islam’s not a race), implement mental illness prevention measures, etc. Things we’ve already been doing more or less successfully for decades now.

Ignoring for the moment the difficulties involved in identifying all Muslims with any degree of accuracy, the only way we could take yours and LEGO’s approach, without increasing the risk of radicalising significantly more Muslims, would be cease all Muslim immigration, deport all Muslim migrants, and then round up and kill every Muslim born here.

I hope I don’t have to tell you why we can’t do that.

Unless you have another suggestion, of course? I mean one that doesn't exacerbate the problem. LEGO obviously doesn’t. He’s avoided this question twice now.

To AJ.

Once more for the dummies. If I say that Muslims as a group are dangerous, AJ, I am prejudging them. I am also stereotyping them. If you say that Nazis and Klansmen are dangerous, you are doing the exactly same thing. The fact that you claim that prejudging and stereotyping are utterly wrong, then refuse to recognise it when you quite plainly do it yourself, says something about the convoluted Leftist mindset.

If you and your muddle headed brahmin caste believe that everybody is equal, AJ, then unfortunately for you, the onus is upon you and your friends to treat everybody equally.

We are examining three separate groups of people with "demonstrably false and dangerous beliefs", Nazis, Ku Klux Klansmen, and Muslims. You are quite plainly judging the first two groups of people, (which are white) with a completely different standard to the last group (who are non white.) That is racism. If you try to justify your racism with an argument. Well congratulations, AJ, welcome to the club of racists.

Your racist justification goes like this. You say that I can not condemn (non white) Muslims as a group because their "demonstrably false and dangerous beliefs" are not universally held by every individual Muslim, and because I can not "see inside the hearts" of every individual Muslim. But with your customary Doublethink, you refuse to extend the same argument equally to radical groups of white people with "demonstrably false and dangerous beliefs." Your premise is that every single individual within radical white groups all think exactly alike and they are therefore all equally dangerous. Only non white radical organisations can have individuals with more moderate views. Therefore a non white a radical organisation can not be labelled as dangerous.

I know you are going to use your customary sneery one liners to dismiss your racist double standard, AJ. But if you wish to convince anybody who is reading this that you are not a complete hypocrite then I think you need to do a lot better than that.

Correct, LEGO.

<<If I say that Muslims as a group are dangerous, AJ, I am prejudging them.>>

That’s not a good thing either, by the way.

<<If you say that Nazis and Klansmen are dangerous, you are doing the exactly same thing.>>

Incorrect. Read on…

<<If you … believe that everybody is equal, AJ ….>>

I don’t. Some people are tall, some are short, etc…

<<We are examining three separate groups of people with "demonstrably false and dangerous beliefs", Nazis, Ku Klux Klansmen, and Muslims.>>

Except, not all the members of the third group hold dangerous beliefs.

<<You are quite plainly judging the first two groups of people, (which are white) with a completely different standard to the last group (who are [non-white].)>>

Wrong. See above.

<<That is racism.>>

What you described is, yes.

<<Your racist justification goes like this.>>

This’ll be good.

<<You say that I [cannot] condemn ([non-white]) Muslims as a group because their "demonstrably false and dangerous beliefs" are not universally held by every individual Muslim …>>

Correct. This goes for white Muslims too, though.

Not off to a good start, are we?

<<… you refuse to extend the same argument equally to radical groups of white people with "demonstrably false and dangerous beliefs.">>

Because their membership alone, by definition, provides us with adequate information to determine the harmfulness and dangerousness of their beliefs. There is no doublethink there.

<<Your premise…>>

Ooo, I love these ‘Your premises’. They’re never right, but always fun.

<<… is that every single individual within radical white groups all think exactly alike and they are therefore all equally dangerous.>>

Incorrect. No two individuals think exactly alike. Race has nothing to do with it either.

<<… if you wish to convince anybody who is reading this that you are not a complete hypocrite then I think you need to do a lot better than that.>>

At least I would, if your description of what I were doing was correct, but it’s not, and you have failed to demonstrate otherwise. Simply repeating yourself isn’t going to change that.

Back to the drawing board, LEGO.

.

Dear Graham,

.

You wrote :

« … the sermon from our church last Sunday … explores a couple of the links between the old and new Testaments, and Jesus' attitude to them »

The preacher of the sermon announces:

« I want to speak about … retaliation today. You have heard that it was said, “Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.” This has often been used by people out of context … It meant that, retaliation, if it has to be taken, should be in proportion to the original offence »

Here is the context of “eye for eye” :

Leviticus 24 :

« Then the Lord said to Moses: “Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. Anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death ... Anyone who injures their neighbour is to be injured in the same manner: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. »

[ My comment : Retaliation may be proportional but for blasphemy the proportion is about 1000/1 ]

Exodus 21 :

« If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise »

[ My comment : No mention about the pregnant woman’s brawl injury being intentional or not - presumably, it makes no difference. ]

Deuteronomy 16-21 :

« If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse someone of a crime and proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite, then do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party.

.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot »

[ My comment: Justice seeks a double objective here: retaliation and instil fear into the population. ]
.

The preacher adds that Jesus also teaches :

« If someone slaps one cheek, turn the other cheek (for him to slap too). If he wants to take your shirt, give him your coat as well. If he forces you to go one mile, go two miles. »

In other words, give “the evildoer” more than he wants.

[ My comment : By the same token, if he wants your wife, should you give him your daughter as well ? ]
.

The preacher concludes that Jesus encouragement is “to resist an evildoer”.

[ My comment : That may have made sense 2000 years ago. It doesn’t make sense today - not to me, at least. It's not "resistance", it's complicity ! ]
.

My conclusion :

Tribal justice was probably the first form of justice practiced by mankind. It is a form of restorative or reparative justice. The adversarial form of retributive or punitive justice, practiced in most parts of the world today, was largely favoured and influenced by the Abrahamic religions which permeated and denatured justice, deflecting it away from its primal objective of pacification and reconciliation and reorienting it towards the pursuit of vengeance, retribution and punishment : “Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot”.

The action of the legendary Jesus no doubt rendered retaliation less aggressive and more in adequation with the gravity of the crimes committed, but modern justice continues to represent a regression, in many respects, compared to restorative or reparative justice, due to the historical influence of harsh 7th century BC Abrahamic law and justice.

.

Dear Jayb,

You claim that you don't speak on behalf of all
Muslims? Yet you persisted in quoting the nasty bits
from the Koran over and over again - the inference
being that all Muslims follow those bits. Otherwise
why would you go to so much trouble to quote those
nasty bits to us?

It does seem to me that you are lumping all Muslims
into one group. When in fact they come from different
countries, speak different languages, have different
cultures. It appears that you are prejudging them -
based on the behaviour of fundamentalists. Not all Muslims
rape, maim, or pillage. Your attitude appears to be
irrational, and inflexible, because it is directed at an entire
category of people. It is rooted in generalisations and
so ignores the differences among individuals. You seem to
believe that all Muslims share the same supposed beliefs.
That is simply wrong.

I can see that I'm unable to have a useful dialogue with
you therefore I see no further point in continuing this
discussion.

Have a nice day.

I did ask, but no reply,

"Najla,

Down to practical matters, what justification is there for insisting that girl children wear the voluminous coverings that you do?

I am not interested in any diversions on the 'differences' between hijab, niqab and burka and the other forms of concealment and political statement (claimed 'cultural' statements).

What I want to know is why any girl should be forced to wear concealing, restrictive garb but the boys are not.

However when it comes down to it, I'm not even interested in the gender inequity, but in encouraging girls to participate fully in life. In times where so many young people are suffering from mental conditions and diseases of inactivity and isolation, why girls should be further encumbered with the restrictions of a medieval creed and garb that goes with it.

Why can't kids be kids and girls be allowed to make up their own minds? -Without some sex-obsessed mullah telling them what to do."
Posted by leoj, Friday, 17 February 2017 10:12:27 AM

I added later,
"For students it is enough that they can play dress up on the cultural days that most schools have. Food variety, lots of music and fun, then back to being children with the promise of childhood for the rest of the year."

What is the 'moderate' stance on that?

An interesting perspective, 'The Muslim world wants White Knights, not critics'.

http://www.themalaymailonline.com/opinion/zurairi-ar/article/the-muslim-world-wants-white-knights-not-critics

Hi Leoj,

This is a fascinating article on a topic which must be very, very difficult for Muslims. I wish them well in their long struggle.

Cheers,

Joe

Banjo, I think you have a severe comprehension problem. Jesus doesn't say to take an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth. He says that is what has been said but "I (as in "him") say do not resist an evil person".

Christianity does not subscribe to Old Testament systems of punishment. It's just undeniable. And it is sad to see people pretending that it does.

To AJ.

I really do hope that your friend GrahamY is reading our exchanges. He sent you to OLO to sort me out and all you can do is keep displaying your racist double standards towards white people. He must be so disappointed in you.

Graham seems like a smart bloke and I am sure he can understand that the principle of equality means exactly that. Regardless of whether any group of people united under any ideology call themselves whatever name, then those people who insist that Equality is some sort of fundamental human right are obligated to judge all groups of people in exactly the same way. Especially when the Leftist Equality fanatics who claim to be absolutely opposed to racism are faced with judging different groups with similar "demonstrably false and dangerous beliefs", but with different skin colour.

Your problem is, that if you insist upon equality for all, then there is nothing that applies to Muslims that does not apply equally to Nazis and Klansmen. All of them are groups of people united under their own particular, widely accepted belief system, and each of them identifies themselves with particular names. All of them seem to have beliefs which most reasonable people would label "false", and beliefs which are "dangerous" towards other groups of people.

Like every group of people united under any ideology that have ever existed throughout human history, among those who call themselves "Muslims", Klansmen" or "Nazis", there are those who are completely fanatical about total adherence to the central core values of the group. Then there are the majority who will adhere to those principles in different degrees, or they may agree with some values and attitudes, and disagree with others. Deviancy and heresy is common to every group that ever existed under any ideology.

All of these groups can be judged as dangerous to somebody. Nazis to Jews. Klansmen to Negros. Muslims to non Muslims. That judgement, usually applied by the groups intended victims becomes a prejudgement when assessing threat levels. Prejudging every individual within a group as dangerous becomes that group's stereotype

Joe (Loudmouth),

Difficult alright, "There is a simple reason why most Muslims prefer their White Knights instead of their critics: They believe that Islam is perfect and infallible.

Most Muslims believe that Islam as a religion can never be faulted for anything, and instead the fault lies with the way believers practise it."

Where mild incrementalist change - such as Muslim school girls being allowed to dress like other girls - is implacably refused by Muslim parents, those parents are making it very hard indeed for their children, girls and boys.

It is not the same as passing on mindful meditation as the family tradition/inheritance, now is it?

Hi LeoJ,

No, it's not. Islam seems (to this atheist) to be the ultimate religion-as-pathology, with its in-built bar on any revision, criticism or disobedience. At least in Judaism and Christianity, and in Hinduism and Buddhism, on can interpret and bend, or even ignore, precepts. Islam gives rote-learning a bad name on that score.

Marx had some very harsh words to say about the dead hand of Islam, particularly in India. It's probably all on-line now, but I doubt that any Leftist would dare to read it.

Of course, there is not much that outsiders can do to reform Islam, it has to be done from the inside. I fervently wish reformers well in trying to re-educate 1.5 billion people.

Particularly, of course, the men - after all, what's not to like if you are a sleaze-bag bloke ? Four wives, as young as you like, all doing your bidding, no disobedience, easy divorce at any time, you get half their property on divorce, and all the kids after even the youngest has been weaned. So women do their thing, fetch and carry, give birth, suckle, then they can piss off, back to their families in disgrace. So, is Islam a religion of fear for women, or what ?

Oh hello, Yasmeen, I didn't see you there :)

Cheers,

Joe

From the papers,

"A SENIOR Muslim leader has said using violence against women is a “last resort” for men

President of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils Keysar Trad described beating women as “step three” in a process of dealing with issues in relationships, after counselling and buying chocolates or “taking her out on a dinner”.
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/muslim-leader-says-violence-against-women-a-last-resort-for-men/news-story/c45b0b7ec96a203d34936daaecabbf8b

Is the taxpayer contributing to his income?

What does Rosie Batty say about that and 'feminist' Islam?

AJ: and by marginalising them all, you only encourage radicalisation.

Are you saying that in order not to marginalise moslims we should give into their Islamic demands?

If we don’t give into their demands, there will be more moderates who will suddenly become radicals, who will kill us. If we don’t eventually convert, they’ll kill us anyway. Either way We lose. Every day there is a new Imam telling us just that, somewhere. Utube is chockers full of these Imams espousing their intentions towards us Infidels. Especially in Britain & we’re the next target.

Suggest a solution AJ. Nah, that’ll never happen. I’ve asked for contributors solutions before. The reply. “Not my job.”

Foxy, I love you, you are a nice person but, I feel, you can have an, “I don’t want to know that,” mentality sometimes. Is Mise says that there are 109 Koranic Verses calling for the killing of You & me. I have given you a few to look at but you won’t. You say that not every moslim believes in those parts. It “is” compulsory for every moslim to believe every word of the Koran. If a Moderate moslim say they don’t believe in “This bit.“ That’s Blasphemy & that means a very physical death sentence if they are found out. Apostate. Not my Rules, theirs.

Foxy: You can learn a great deal if you keep an open mind.

Yes you can, Foxy. Yes you can.

Graham, you looked up those verses, didn’t you? ;-)

Do not hold your breath for Saint Rosy Batty to buy into any of this. She certainly knows which side her bread is buttered. She earns a fortune and knows as long as she only picks on white men she is safe. If she goes anywhere else Rosy knows she will be completely out of the tent.
Sickening!

leoj: "A SENIOR Muslim leader has said using violence against women is a “last resort” for men.

In the interest of equal rights for moslim women, as espoused by Yassmin Abdul-Magied on Q & A, & this statement by Keysar Trad in the Australian. Highly respected Islamic Spokespeople.

Do the Wives of a moslim man have the equal rights to bash their misbehaving Husband? Personally, I think not. How say the Islamist on this conversation? Yay or Nay.

Dear Jayb,

I'm no sage or expert. I simply take people
as I find them. I don't judge people by their
skin colour, their religion, their gender.
or their race.
I judge people by their behaviour. And so far my
experiences with Muslims has been a very positive
one. My doctors and specialists are all Muslim
(except for one Dane and one Chinese). The staff
looking after my mother in her nursing home - some
of them are Muslim. A more caring, professional
people I would find hard to find. The only violent
Muslims - are the ones I read about or hear about on
the news. And Muslims are not the only ones prone
to violence on the news. We hear about people
being king-hit, beaten up in brawls, and other
violent acts. Anyway, I shan't argue
any further. I'll simply retreat into my world.
A happy place where everyone treats everyone else
decently and shows them the respect that they want
shown to them.

See you on another discussion.

Foxy: I'll simply retreat into my world. A happy place where everyone treats everyone else decently and shows them the respect that they want shown to them.

Even Pit Bulls & Staffys are nice, but suddenly you find yourself with your face ripped off & a dead child. But not all Pit Bull or Staffys have done that, yet.

There's a new movie out now about that sort of attitude. "La La Land" apparently it's very good. I don't know, never go there myself.

Graham,

I would agree with that, although it does somewhat clash with Jesus’ stated intentions.

<<Christianity does not subscribe to Old Testament systems of punishment. It's just undeniable. And it is sad to see people pretending that it does.>>

Another difference between the systems of punishment in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, in addition to the differences mentioned in the link you provided earlier, is the notion of eternal punishment after death, which was only introduced in the New Testament.

The differences between the two Testaments are a serious problem for Christianity, and for an omniscient and omnipotent god. Even the two main schools of thought that attempt to resolve the problem of a god whose temperament appears to change between Testaments (Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism) contain fatal flaws.

--

LEGO,

Well I guess I’m smart too then.

<<… I am sure [Graham] can understand that the principle of equality means exactly that.>>

I’m not sure what your point is here, though.

<<Regardless of whether any group of people united under any ideology call themselves whatever name, then those people who insist that Equality is some sort of fundamental human right are obligated to judge all groups of people in exactly the same way.>>

Agreed. Although it’s unclear as to what you’re referring to when you speak of Equality with a capital ‘E’. That’s a new development.

<<Especially when the Leftist Equality fanatics who claim to be absolutely opposed to racism are faced with judging different groups with similar "demonstrably false and dangerous beliefs", but with different skin colour.>>

Agreed. “Leftist” moderates too.

<<Your problem is, that if you insist upon equality for all, then there is nothing that applies to Muslims that does not apply equally to Nazis and Klansmen.>>

Oh? How is that a problem for me?

<<All of them are groups of people united under their own particular, [widely-accepted] belief system, …>>

No, the latter two also hold offensive UNIVERSALLY-accepted beliefs. Still no double standard.

Oh well, there’s always tomorrow.

--

Jayb,

That’s what you posted yesterday. My response can be found at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18849#336305.

Foxy,

You judge people by their behaviour, and that is undeniably a good thing, so how do you judge the President of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, Keysar Trad?

Or is wife beating OK?

Hi AJ

OK, let's examine your quotes so far and look for the contradictions.

AJ You cannot possibly know what every Muslim believes, LEGO.

But you are God and you know what every Nazi and Klansmen believes.

AJ Except, not all the members of the third group hold dangerous beliefs.

You must be God because you know what every Muslim believes too.

AJ Firstly, it cannot, by definition, be a “stereotype” since it is not oversimplified.*

If you can stereotype all Nazis and Klansmen as dangerous. You can do the same thing to Muslims.

AJ, Secondly, all Nazis and Klansmen define themselves by their horrible beliefs, so there is no double standard.

What defines a good and devout Muslim is written down for them in black and white. That manifesto is not just "horrible", it is extremely dangerous to all non Muslims. I have only the vaguest ideas of what Nazis and Klansmen believe, other than Nazis are dangerous to non whites, and Klansmen dangerous to US blacks. Yet you defend one group and condemn the other two.

AJ Because their membership alone, by definition, provides us with adequate information to determine the harmfulness and dangerousness of their beliefs.

Apply the same logic to Muslims and their beliefs and your argument is bankrupt.

AJ As graham pointed out, Islam is not going away. So you can either encourage radicalisation by marginalising all Muslims, or you can do your bit to not inflame the situation by showing tolerance towards the moderates.

Western civilisation is not going away either. If you display your contempt for white people by constantly attacking our culture, supporting our self declared enemies, and judging us with different standards to non whites, you are succeeding in radicalising us. Pauline got 23% of the Queensland vote. 80% of Europeans polled over 10 countries want Islamic immigration to Europe banned.

AJ Do you know how to discuss anything without putting people into convenient little boxes?

Like you do to Nazis and Klansmen? Or even Muslims? Non white fascists are misunderstood but white fascists are always bad.

Ah, quotes! Let’s see if you do any better this time, LEGO.

<<But you are God and you know what every Nazi and Klansmen believes.>>

“No, I don’t have to be [a god]. Their membership provides us with all we need to know.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18849#336251)

Dearie me! Doesn’t look like the quotes help at all. We’ll press on anyway.

<<You must be God because you know what every Muslim believes too.>>

I don’t need to know what every Muslim believes to know that not all of them are fundamentalists. Just one Muslim is enough.

<<If you can stereotype all Nazis and Klansmen as dangerous. You can do the same thing to Muslims.>>

No, because only the former two groups hold offensive, universally-accepted beliefs.

<<What defines a good and devout Muslim is written down for them in black and white.>>

And the ones who are not “good and devout” ignore much of what is “written down for them in black and white”. In fact, given all the contradictions in Islamic scripture, it’s impossible for any Muslim to be perfectly “good and devout”.

<<I have only the vaguest ideas of what Nazis and Klansmen believe, …>>

Same here. We still know enough, though.

<<Yet you defend one group and condemn the other two.>>

No, I’m simply pointing out a fundamental difference.

<<Apply the same logic to Muslims and their beliefs and your argument is bankrupt.>>

No, Muslim “membership” to the Islamic faith does not necessitate a belief in the bad bits of the Qur’an. No bankruptcy there.

<<If you display your contempt for white people by constantly attacking our culture, …>>

I feel no contempt. The point of quoting others is completely lost on you, isn’t it?

<<… supporting our [self-declared] enemies, and judging us with different standards to [non-whites], you are succeeding in radicalising us.>>

Indeed, which is why I don’t do that.

<<Like you [put] Nazis and Klansmen [into convenient little boxes]? Or even Muslims?>>

Only when I have sufficient information to do so without prejudice. And that's the fundamental point that you are desperately trying to gloss over.

.

Dear Graham,

.

You wrote :

« Banjo, I think you have a severe comprehension problem. Jesus doesn't say to take an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth. »
.

I didn’t say he did. It was not in my post. I clearly indicated that “an eye for an eye” was to be found in the Old Testament books of Leviticus, Exodus and Deuteronomy. They are purported to have been compiled by Moses about seven hundred years before Jesus is thought to have been born.

The first five books of the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy – constitute what is known as the Law of Moses, or Mosaic Law.
.

You add :

« Christianity does not subscribe to Old Testament systems of punishment. It's just undeniable. And it is sad to see people pretending that it does »
.

The laws and regulations of all nations are largely inspired by those imposed on us by nature, completed by others founded in religious belief or which were simply the fruit of our developing conscience based on humanitarian considerations. A hallmark of such laws and regulations for most of western civilisation is the Moses code which, of course, includes, inter alia, the ten commandments and proportional punishment (an "eye for an eye").

Paul of Tarsus, who appears to have been the principal promoter, perhaps the founder of Christianity (Jesus and his parents were Jews), following a vision of the resurrected Jesus (whom he never met), exercised a determining influence on the religious belief and philosophy of which we still find trace in modern, man-made law, today (known under its technical term of “positive law”), alongside traditional Mosaic law and Noahide code.

In addition to promoting the Judaic “moral code” with the exception of its ritual and dietary obligations, and the Seven Laws of Noah or so-called Noahide code, Paul was also an adamant proponent of the doctrine of sola fide whereby guilty sinners are purported to be granted judicial pardon “by faith alone”.

.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

It is amusing to note in this respect that so-called modern day laic societies which boast of a secular constitution proclaiming the strict separation of church and state seem to ignore the fact that a good deal of their statute law has been derived from religious code. They point to nations of Islamic tradition where the Sharia has official status as statute law and is applied by Islamic judges or qadis. Some mistakenly imagine that Israel is in a similar situation as regards Talmudic law whereas it is, in fact, a parliamentary democracy with an independent judiciary, closer to the British common law tradition. The difference is not as important as they somewhat naively consider it to be, at least so far as the application of the principle of the “separation of church and state” is concerned.
.

Perhaps you simply misinterpreted what I meant when I wrote : « The adversarial form of retributive or punitive justice, practiced in most parts of the world today, was largely favoured and influenced by the Abrahamic religions which permeated and denatured justice, deflecting it away from its primal objective of pacification and reconciliation and reorienting it towards the pursuit of vengeance, retribution and punishment : “Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot”. »

I did not say that Jesus said we should do that, as you mistakenly indicate. On the contrary, I concluded :

« The action of the legendary Jesus no doubt rendered retaliation less aggressive and more in adequacy with the gravity of the crimes committed, but modern justice continues to represent a regression, in many respects, compared to restorative or reparative justice, due to the historical influence of harsh 7th century BC Abrahamic law and justice. »

I’m sure you’re very busy, Graham, and, no doubt, you read my post too fast. I wonder how you manage to do all your editing work and participate in this forum as well.

Slow down, my friend! OLO needs you – so do we!

.

JB: <I think it means that if we give into a Radicals demands, they win, & if we don’t eventually convert, they’ll kill us. If we don’t give into their demands, there will be more radicals, who will kill us. Either way We lose. Is that right?>

AJ: No, the first part isn't right. Giving into the demands of radicals is never necessary.

I agree, it’s never necessary. If we don’t? What then? They say they'll be radicalise all the time. I take that as a threat.

In fact they blame us for the radicalisation there is now because we haven’t given into the demands they've already made. Their Lone Wolf (Packs) attacks are a result of Australians not giving into their demands. Pressure for gain. If infidels are killed, they celebrate openly.

What eventually did happen with that Town in Victoria they were taking to the Human Rights Commission at the UN over not having segregated days for moslim women & putting a large fence around the pool because the naked (sic) women sunbaking offended them. Just for one example at one place.

AJ: Given the tensions that declaring Australia’s Islamic community to be the enemy would inflame, and the increase in radicalisation that would inevitably follow from that, doing absolutely nothing would be a better option.

So keeping the pressure below radicalisation is a win for us?

The very cause of Far Right Radicalism. If they radicalise then "Out.".

AJ: A more proactive approach, engage with Islamic community, fight intolerance.

Whose intolerance? Theirs or ours?

AJ: implement mental illness prevention measures

It’s not a mental illness, it’s a Government System masquerading as a Religion.

AJ: Things we’ve already been doing more or less successfully for decades now.

Successfully? Surely you jest. Those that have been caught lately have been through the program.

My neighbour Son-in-Law's a Fed dealing with Radicals. He says the program is definitely not working. The Public don’t know just how bad the situation is & they haven’t the resources to track the ones they know about, let alone new ones discovered every day.

To AJ

You are now trying to justify your attitude that the individual members of white extremist organisations can be condemned individually, but that the individual members of a non white extremist organization can not be condemned individually. I think that most people would find such a premise potty, especially coming from somebody who claims to be anti racist.

Because of your unwillingness to write a reasoned argument who's chain of logic we can all examine, I am forced to do the job myself by joining together all of your disjointed ramblings and sneery one liners, which give some indication of your muddled thought processes.

You appear to be implying that Nazi and Klan values and attitudes are monolithic, and every tenet of whatever unwritten ideology they possess is universally accepted by every individual member to exactly the same degree. Which is odd when you admitted that you are not even sure of what it is that they believe in. I think that most people would laugh at that one Most people can understand that within every group of people united by an ideology that has ever existed throughout human history, there has never been universal acceptance of that ideology. Schisms, dissenters and heretics always appear.

There is no "fundamental difference" between any extremist organisation, they are all in fact similar in their authoritarianism, hostility to outsiders, and intolerance of dissent. What applies to Nazis and Klansmen not only applies equally to Muslims, it applies to every group of people united by an ideology, especially an extremist ideology. Therefore, if individual Nazis and Klansmen can be condemned by their group associations, then Muslims can too. Your attitude is a clear double standard anchored in racial discrimination.

To summarise. I may not put people into "boxes", but you can. I may not prejudge and stereotype people, but you can. Muslims do not all think exactly alike, but all Nazis and Klansmen think exactly alike, even though you are not even sure of what it is they believe in. Whites may be condemned by their group associations, but non whites can not

Jayb,

I wasn’t aware that there was an actual program. Can you link me to some information on it? Also, which town is it that you’re referring to in Victoria?

When I speak of intolerance, I refer to intolerance on both sides. I’m aware that radicals aren’t usually mentally ill. In fact, they could be better described as people of perfect faith. However, ensuring that mental illness and depression levels are kept down certainly couldn’t hurt, both directly and indirectly.

<<So keeping the pressure below radicalisation is a win for us?>>

If the alternative is creating more radicals, yes. Over time, however, secularism will further tame (and has already somewhat tamed) Islam, as it has tamed Christianity. Young Muslims are already leaving the faith in droves.

--

LEGO,

“Now”, as if I’ve been forced to change tactic. I like that.

<<You are now trying to justify your attitude that the individual members of white extremist organisations can be condemned individually, but that the individual members of a [non-white] extremist organization [cannot] be condemned individually.>>

You have not yet demonstrated that skin colour has anything to do with it either.

<<I think that most people would find such a premise potty, especially coming from somebody who claims to be [anti-racist].>>

I would too, yes.

<<Because of your unwillingness to write a reasoned argument who's chain of logic we can all examine, …>>

I already have. You keep trying to skirt around it.

<<… I am forced to do the job myself by joining together all of your disjointed ramblings ...>>

How about you try asking me some questions? Now that’s a Novel idea! You won’t, of course, because you would be more compelled to accept my answer, and you don’t want to do that. You need to presume to tell me what I do and do not believe because your rehearsed schtick only works if I’m the caricature Lefty that you need me to be.

<<You appear to be implying that Nazi and Klan values and attitudes are monolithic, …>>

At least one of their values is, yes.

Continued…

…Continued

The same can’t be said for Muslims, though.

<<Which is odd when you admitted that you are not even sure of what it is that they believe in.>>

I only need to be sure of one belief that that all hold: the superiority of whites.

<<Most people can understand that within every group … there has never been universal acceptance of that ideology.>>

Correct. However, they always share one commonality that binds them under the same name, and for Muslims, this is something more benign such as the belief in a god.

<<Schisms, dissenters and heretics always appear.>>

Yes, however, dissenters never break away and form another group over a tenet that would render their new group redundant. Which is why we don’t see ‘Libertarians for Authoritarianism’ or ‘Feminists for the Unequal Treatment of Women’.

<<There is no "fundamental difference" between any extremist organisation, they are all in fact similar in their authoritarianism, hostility to outsiders, and intolerance of dissent.>>

Correct.

<<What applies to Nazis and Klansmen not only applies equally to Muslims, it applies to every group of people united by an ideology, especially an extremist ideology.>>

Agreed. I would never demand special treatment for one group.

<<Therefore, if individual Nazis and Klansmen can be condemned by their group associations, then Muslims can too.>>

No, because Muslims don’t all hold dangerous beliefs. This is where you keep slipping up.

<<Your attitude is a clear double standard anchored in racial discrimination.>>

You haven't demonstrated this yet.

<<I may not put people into "boxes", but you can.>>

No, no one should.

<<I may not prejudge and stereotype people, but you can.>>

No, no one should.

<<Muslims do not all think exactly alike, but all Nazis and Klansmen think exactly alike, …>>

No, no two people think exactly alike. I’ve ready said this.

<<Whites may be condemned by their group associations, but [non-whites] [cannot]>>

It depends on whether or not they share a harmful universally-accepted belief. Skin colour has nothing to do with.

You have a real comprehension problem there, don't you LEGO? Either that, or an honesty problem.

Dear Jayb,

Staffies and pit-bulls are two separate breeds and
they do have a bad reputation. But I think it's as
much to do with their owners. Animals are individuals
and I think it's very much about nurture over nature.

Dear Is Mise,

What do I think of Keysar Trad?

I don't know the man. However if you're referring
to his statement about violence as a last resort
against women. That should have been given in its
entirety. You can Google The Australian newspaper
on that. I can't be bothered - suffice to say that
Mr Trad has released a statement explaining what
it says in the Koran and he categorically condemns
all violence against women. But I suspect that you
already knew that.

Cheers.

Dear Jayb,

I forgot to add that I've seen the movie "la la land,"
It's actually a musical about two people trying to make
it in Los Angeles. One's a musician, the other, an
actress. Both succeed. Great film - having worked and
lived in Los Angeles for close to ten years - the film
brought back so many good memories. My two sons were
born in Los Angeles.

Hi Banjo,

I did read your post, accurately I think. You have this paragraph, which is wrong on two counts:

"The action of the legendary Jesus no doubt rendered retaliation less aggressive and more in adequacy with the gravity of the crimes committed, but modern justice continues to represent a regression, in many respects, compared to restorative or reparative justice, due to the historical influence of harsh 7th century BC Abrahamic law and justice."

So you seem to suggest that he was promoting a punitive regime, just one that was more humane. He wasn't.

Your second point, about Abrahamic law just doesn't stand any scrutiny. Human societies tend to be retaliatory. Abrahamic religions are no more nor less than most others of the time. You didn't want to get on the wrong side of the Romans. And even in recent times there are plenty of tribal examples of retaliatory justice - look at the ritual spearings as punishment still occurring in some contemporary aboriginal communities, and bizarrely approved of by some judges in their judgments.

Religion creates the culture and the culture creates the religion. Western civilisation, generally, has been about personal and societal liberty. Middle-eastern society, all the way back to Sargon the Great and probably before that, has been a subservient society with clear rulers and ruled. The M-E bias is toward adherence to the ruler and whoever that ruler might be gets that subservience. Its why Alexander (and a plethora of adventurers since and before) was able to so easily conquer the whole of the M-E. There is no M-E equivalent to Athens or Republican Rome, Marathon or Xenophon's exploits. No democracy ever grew out of the M-E.

Its little wonder therefore that societies based on different understandings of how society functions, created and were in turn influenced by very different religions. Christ encourages two or three to gather in his name (a personal relationship with the deity). There is no personal relationship with Allah.

Western civilisation has been a struggle for liberty and independence. Its why western civilisation has been paramount in the past 600 years. The formula, as much a product of its religion as its past, has encouraged the individual pursuit of happiness and created the freest most successful societies of all time.

M-E civilisation, as much a product of its religion as its past, stagnates and suppress freedom.

(Note: this is looking a history with broad brushstrokes over a 5000 yr period. I'm sure the usual snipers will want to pick out some period or society that doesn't conform to the above and declare themselves vindicated. So let me say now that I'm fully aware of such things am just looking at the tide of history.)

So asking whether Islam is compatible with democracy is the wrong question.

/cont

/cont

Democracy requires a society open to democratic thinking. So the question is whether most Islamic societies are built to accept democratic norms, remembering that those societies are captives of both thinking that goes back hundreds of generations and of the religion itself. Since we don't see democracy succeeding in most Islamic cultures (fading in Turkey, jury still out in Indonesia) we have to have a bias toward thinking that it won't happen any time soon. Not only does the religion need to change to accommodate democracy but the societies that nurture that religion need to change as well

Democracy must grow organically. It took Athens 100 years to get there even though they only had 20-30000 citizens to 'educate'. Magna Carta to full democracy took 800 years. (Sometimes democracy can be implanted eg Germany and Japan, but only after the society has been utterly destroyed and all its norms thoroughly discredited).

Which brings me to Islamic immigration. When we bring in an Iranian or a Sudanese, we aren't just importing an adherent to a religion. We are importing a cultural way of thinking that is very different to our own, a way of thinking that goes back 100's if not thousands of years. We bring them in, and await the second generation that we think will be purged of the old culture and inculcated with the new. And then are surprised when that doesn't always happen.

When I'm told I'm a racist I reply that I'm a 'culturalist'. I don't say that western culture is better than M-E culture, but I do say its better for me and mine. Hence I'm entirely in favour of stopping Islamic immigration when it includes cultures nurtured by Islam. So I'm sort of comfortable with taking Yazidis and muslim Albanians. But our current policy is a terrible mistake.

Good posts Mhaze.

There is also another aspect of some cultures you may or not be aware of. Western culture celebrates individualism, which is completely different to collective and tribal societies where individualism is ruthlessly suppressed (the nail that sticks out gets hammered back in).

A western person introduces themselves by saying "My name is Fred Nirk, I am an electrician who lives in Sydney, Australia. A person from a collective society introduces themselves differently. "I am sheik of the Howeitats from Mosul, my name is Mahommad."

Authoritarianism comes naturally to Islamic society as the religion itself is basically feudal, where the people are not much more than the property of the Lords, Masters, and religious leaders. This authoritarianism is even reflected in the family. The father is the head of the household and he does whatever he likes. Women and children sit at the very bottom of Islamic society with little or no rights at all.

Islamic societies also tend to be low trust societies where such accepted western concepts such as lending money and even venture capital from banks to entrepreneurs is unknown. Stock exchanges do not even exist in Muslim countries.

One of my sources has told me that banks in Australia are extremely unlikely to lend money to anybody with a Muslim or Arab name unless they can provide collateral. This is because Muslims are astonished that anybody would think that if you lend them money they will pay you back. Muslims (according to my source who socialises with bankers) seem to consider loans as little more than gifts.

Dear LEGO,

This may explain Muslim views on loans:

http://www.finder.com.au/islamic-home-loans

To AJ.

The reason why I don't bother asking you any questions is because I have no confidence that you will answer them with anything more than your customary sneery one liners, or with your sneery two, three and four liners. You studiously refuse to submit stated positions you are prepared to defend, or even reasoned arguments where your premises cross connect and your logic can be examined. This is because you already know how weak and logically bankrupt your positions are. So much easier to just keep up the childish sarcasm, although how you think our audience would appreciate your ideology's validity is beyond me.

You have claimed that Nazis and Klansmen are different to Muslims because their "dangerous and false beliefs" are "monolithic". When you realised that you could not even name what these universally held "false and dangerous beliefs" are, you retreated and instead submitted that "at least one of their values is." But you are not going to name what this mysterious value might be because of your customary fear of saying anything you need to defend. I suppose I could ask you what this value, or values are, but I have no confidence that I will get anything more than obfuscation and sarcasm. However, if always being deliberately vague is how you need to conduct yourself then it is hardly impressing our readers.

After claiming that Nazis and Klansmen share "at least one" unknown value that they all hold universally, you rather astonishingly admitted that my premise, that no ideology has ever been accepted universally. Checkmate. Thank you.

Next you claim that Muslims are different to other extremist organisations because "they don't all hold false and dangerous beliefs." I can think of a dozen dangerous beliefs that are common within Islam and I know countries where they are Sharia Law. Where I admit that I don't know to what extent, or to what degree, all Muslims believe in any of them, they are the core values of Islam and Muslims must believe in some of them or they would not be Muslims.

AJ: I wasn’t aware that there was an actual program.

AJ: <implement mental illness prevention measures, etc. Things we’ve already been doing more or less successfully for decades now.>

I believe this is your quote. Suddenly don’t know about them. Why is that?

AJ: which town … in Victoria?

I can’t think of the Town, it was about 15 years ago. But… (15/02/15)
VICTORIANS ordered by council to cover for pool event to avoid offending Muslims (Dandenong)
The City of Monash has won an exemption from equal opportunity laws to run the sessions outside normal opening hours. The council says the privacy screen is needed for “cultural reasons”. It follows moves by other councils to introduce women-only sessions for the Muslim community,

AJ: ensuring that mental illness and depression levels are kept down certainly couldn’t hurt, both directly and indirectly.

The only way that can happen is if Infidels convert. They get Depressed & Mentally Ill because our values are not Islamic.

AJ: secularism will further tame Islam,

Yair right, BS. Not in Islam’s case.

AJ: for Muslims, this is something more benign such as the belief in a god.

Their belief in Allah is “neve”r benign.

AJ: Muslims don’t all hold dangerous beliefs. This is where you keep slipping up.

If it’s in the Koran then they are compelled to believe it Or they’re apostate. Certain death.

AJ: It depends on whether or not they share a harmful universally-accepted belief.

& Islam isn’t a harmful belief to Infidels?

AJ: dissenters never break away and form another group over a tenet that would render their new group redundant.

The Greens have.

AJ: Which is why we don’t see ‘Libertarians for Authoritarianism’ or ‘Feminists for the Unequal Treatment of Women’.

“I am moslim too” signs everywhere. Libertarian women’s support for Islam, strange?

AJ: How about you try asking me some questions?

Well that hasn’t worked for me, eh, AJ.

Foxy: as much to do with their owners.

True, but they turn bad instantly.

Foxy: Mr Trad has released a statement …

He nearly blew that, but other Imams? (uTube)

Dear Jayb,

But other Imams?

Which ones are you referring to?

I don't know any.

If you do - do tell.

Foxy,

"In February 2017, in response to a question regarding the meaning of Quran Chapter 4, Surah 34, Trad said a husband can beat his wife, but only as "a last resort".[24] He later apologised for his statements conceding Islam does allow for this, but saying he was "clumsy" in the television interview, adding that he condemns all violence against women"

"I condemn violence against women – it is never ok to hit a woman
Media statement
23 February 2017
“Acknowledging my clumsy attempt to explain a verse from the holy Qur’an, I want to categorically condemn all forms of violence, especially violence against women, I condemn and deplore it and stress my continued zeal to support women against violence.” Keysar Trad, president, Australian Federation of Islamic Councils"

"The Quran, chapter 4 (An-Nisa), verse 34:
Men have authority over women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.&#8201;—&#8201;translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali"

Does this mean that Trad opposes the Word of Allah as given to His Prophet, Muhammad?

Foxy: But other Imams? Which ones are you referring to?

I over ran my 350 words in my previous post. But this sounds to me like, “I really am trying not to know,” speak. I put together a list of important Islamic Imams, Mufti’s, Doctors & Scholars for you

Imam Zakir Naik,
Imam Kalid Yasin,
Imam Mahammad Al-Arifi,
Imam Sayed Moustafa Al-Qazwini,
Mufti Ismail Menk,
Mufti Anjem Choudary,
Mufti Abdur Raheen Green,
Mufti Nouman Ali Khan,
Dr. Ghazi Al-Shimari, Saudi expert in Family Affairs.
Dr. Jassem Al-Mulawa, Kuwaiti Scholar.
Dr Mesbah Moosavi, Scholar, Islamic Iranian Centre of Imam Ali. Toronto, Canada.
Dr. Sajid Sajidi, Scholar, Islamic Iranian Centre of Imam Ali. Toronto, Canada.
Dr. Ibrahim Elias, Islamic Lawyer.
Laeeq Ahmad Babar qwan
Louis Farrakhan

Just to mention a few. I don’t want to go over my 350 words again. You understand.

They all claim that beating your wife is a good thing to make her obey her husband & is legal for a moslems to do so. Nearly even convinces me, not. ;-)

You can look up their lectures on uTube if you have a mind too, but of course you won’t.

There is always of course, for you, as Brer Rabbit would say, “The Laughin’ Place.”

LEGO,

I don’t buy that, because my “sneery” responses always adequately address what you say.

<<I have no confidence that you will answer [my questions] with anything more than your customary sneery [one-liners], …>>

No, I think it’s that you are so focused on ‘winning’ debates, ‘defeating’ opponents, and how you appear to “our audience” in the process that you are not interested in a genuine discussion.

<<You studiously refuse to submit stated positions you are prepared to defend, …>>

I already have. You keep sidestepping it. Observe…

<<You have claimed that Nazis and Klansmen are different to Muslims because their "dangerous and false beliefs" are "monolithic".>>

At least one is, yes. The plural in "beliefs" signified more than one group. You're back to misquoting me.

<<When you realised that you could not even name what these [universally-held] "false and dangerous beliefs" are, you retreated and instead submitted that "at least one of their values is.">>

No, but see what happens when you quote-mine? You get yourself all tangled up.

<<But you are not going to name what this mysterious value might be …>>

I already have: the superiority of whites. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18849#336379)

<<I suppose I could ask you what this value, or values are, but I have no confidence that I will get anything more than obfuscation and sarcasm.>>

Well that was a bad prediction now, wasn’t it?

--

Jayb,

Your last post was disheartening. The fact that you bother to ask questions was what gave me the idea of suggesting it to LEGO, and I thought that you and I were making better progress because of it. I mean, you asked me for a solution, and I gave you the best one I could. That's far more than LEGO has managed thus far. He's still busy trying to pin a double standard on me.

<<I believe this is your quote.>>

I know exactly what I said. But you spoke of a specific program: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18849#336370

Given that there are groups of Muslims arguing for LGBT rights in the Islamic community, I’d say that secularism has already started to tame Islam.

AJ: Your last post was disheartening. The fact that you bother to ask questions was what gave me the idea of suggesting it to LEGO, and I thought that you and I were making better progress because of it.

I’m always asking questions, never seem to get a straight answer though.

It is inevitable that small misunderstandings happen between posters on here. It has to do with the way each individual expresses themselves. What goes down on paper doesn’t always reconcile with what is in the mind & the interpreter may not interpret the message in the intended spirit either.

I find that some posters can be intentionally vague or misinterpret & even deflect argument when put on the spot. Deflection is very common with the moslim apologists.

<He says the program is definitely not working.> My neighbours Son-in-Law did not expand on that. The Media talks about various re-educational programmes run by the Greatly Educated & All Knowing Lefties, quite often, especially just after an incident. That’s probably why the Programmes aren’t working. Re-education & Political Correctness not offending the moslim sensitivities. Yair right! I’d a bit too abrupt to run one of those, but then, that’s me. I’d have a bunch of plane tickets on hand for the failures.

AJ: Muslims arguing for LGBT rights in the Islamic community.

It’s a good thing that we don’t have Sharia Law, eh. The LGBT crowd support moslims & Sharia Law, Strange that, eh.

When is Najla going to tell us which parts of the Qu'ran are not binding on today's moderate Muslims?

.

Dear Graham,

.

You wrote :

« "The action of the legendary Jesus no doubt rendered retaliation less aggressive and more in adequacy with the gravity of the crimes committed, but modern justice continues to represent a regression, in many respects, compared to restorative or reparative justice, due to the historical influence of harsh 7th century BC Abrahamic law and justice."

So you seem to suggest that he was promoting a punitive regime, just one that was more humane. He wasn't. »
.

No, I’m not suggesting Jesus was “promoting” any sort of regime. I simply observe that, despite his “encouragement” (as the preacher of the sermon qualifies Jesus’ action) to “resist an evildoer”, modern justice continues to represent a regression … due to the historical influence of harsh 7th century BC Abrahamic law and justice.

You will note that he preacher of the sermon does not suggest that Jesus was “promoting” any sort of regime either. He states that Jesus was simply “encouraging” his disciples (or whoever) to adopt a particular type of attitude in certain circumstances – which goes beyond “passive resistance” to what can only be described as “complicity” with the “evildoer”, as it consists in inviting him to double-up on his violence and giving him more than he takes or demands.

You then observed :

« Human societies tend to be retaliatory. Abrahamic religions are no more nor less than most others of the time. You didn't want to get on the wrong side of the Romans. And even in recent times there are plenty of tribal examples of retaliatory justice - look at the ritual spearings as punishment still occurring in some contemporary aboriginal communities, and bizarrely approved of by some judges in their judgments. »
.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

The various phases in the timeline of the social development of humanity are not as clearly identifiable as they are in our biological development – and even in the latter, they are not identifiable with absolute precision either. The different phases tend to overlap, sometimes quite considerably from one point of the globe to the other.

Historically, morality, law and justice originated within the family unit. From there they extended to the tribe and continued their development within the village, the city and the nation/state, before culminating on the international level.

Offenses, in a family, are for the most part, normal, expected occurrences. Punishment is not something a child receives in isolation from the rest of his relationship to the family; nor is it something which presupposes or carries with it a change of status from 'child' to 'criminal child'. When a parent admonishes or punishes his child, both parent and child know that afterward they will go on living together as before. He is punished in his own unchanged capacity as a child with failings (like all other children) rather than as some kind of distinct and dangerous outsider.

The tribe is an extension of the family but with two major differences: the parents are no longer the sole authority and the relationships with non-family members of the tribe are not the same as with family members. Tribal justice may or may not be exercised in the same manner as family justice. It is a hybrid situation.

Hence, restorative or reparative justice developed originally as tribal justice. But that did not prevent tribes from performing human sacrifices and severe methods of punishment if circumstances (prolonged droughts and crimes such as murder, etc.) commanded.

Also, as I indicated previously, the adversarial form of retributive or punitive justice, practiced in most parts of the world today, was largely favoured and influenced by the Abrahamic religions. Roman law, which dates from the same period, also had an influence, as you seem to suggest.

I think we agree on the basic facts. Perhaps our perspectives are slightly different.

.

LEGO,

In general, I don't disagree with what you say. "Authoritarianism comes naturally to Islamic society as the religion itself is basically feudal" is basically true. But my point is that this authoritarianism pre-dates Islam by several thousand years. To be sure, Islam nurtures that authoritarianism but equally, in its formative stages, it absorbed and fed off that sentiment.

Equally, western civilisation's bias toward person freedom feds off its historic legacy going back to the Greeks. Pericles and Epaminondas would basically understand and concur with Mills and Burke. Demosthenese (the orator) would understand Churchill's fight for liberty. Likewise, Sargon, Cyrus and Xerxes would not feel entirely out of place in Iran or Saudi.

These are very different world-views that, over hundreds of generations, have become part of their society's DNA. Thinking that this legacy can be broken in a generation or two is historically naive.

When we import M-E Islamics, we also import M-E culture. Our surprise that second generation M-E migrants revert to type (sometimes) demonstrates our naivety and how much we misunderstand history. A clash of cultures isn't always inevitable, but a clash of these particular cultures is.

To AJ.

You respond to my reasoned arguments written in clear and concise paragraphs with your customary sarcastic sneery one liners, vague implications, and with disconnected and sometimes contradictory statements that I have to collate over time, and then splice together to get any idea of what your position is,(other than reflexively opposing everything I write) and then you have the unmitigated gall to come on here and accuse me of misunderstanding you?

Thank you for finally informing us of what this supposed "demonstrably false and harmful" belief is that that every single individual Nazi and Klansmen supposedly universally holds which you claim proves that every one of them is contemptible. Please tell us how you know that every Nazi and Klansmen believes in white superiority? Are you God? Has somebody conducted a poll and contacted every Nazi and neo Nazi who ever lived and discovered that every single one of them is a white supremacist?

But the funniest thing is, it does not even matter if you are right. Like all stereotypes, it does not need to be accurate, only accurate enough to form a judgement. Human beings form groups of like minded people. The groups can be politicians, Nazis, Catholics, Surfies, Bikies, street gang members, Muslims, or social justice warriors like yourself. And because we need to socially interact with people we need to form judgements of people. Since we can't personally know everybody on the planet,every one of us routinely judges individuals by their group associations. We prejudge.

Everybody does it. Your ridiculous premise is that when you do it to the groups of people you don't like, you are not really doing it. But when your opponents do it to the groups of people that you lefties protect, they are really doing it, and that is wrong.

Everybody reading this can understand the essential logic of what I have written. Except you. But please keep your ignorance, hypocrisy and double standards up. The stereotype I am trying to present to our readers is how stupid you lefties really are, and your posts are a great help.

I have already addressed your ‘sneery one-liners’ accusation, LEGO.

<<You respond to my reasoned arguments written in clear and concise paragraphs with your customary sarcastic sneery one-liners, vague implications, and with disconnected and sometimes contradictory …>>

I’d also add that you are yet to catch me making a vague implication or a contradictory statement.

<<… you have the unmitigated gall to come on here and accuse me of misunderstanding you?>>

Absolutely.

<<Thank you for finally informing us of what this supposed "demonstrably false and harmful" belief is that that every single individual Nazi and Klansmen supposedly universally holds which you claim proves that every one of them is contemptible.>>

You’re welcome. I’ve done so twice now, and you have the unmitigated gall to say “finally”?

Tsk, tsk.

<<Please tell us how you know that every Nazi and Klansmen believes in white superiority?>>

Through their membership.

http://archive.lib.msu.edu/DMC/AmRad/principlespurposesknights.pdf
http://www.nazism.net/about/nazi_ideology

<<But the funniest thing is, it does not even matter if you are right.>>

Oh?

<<Like all stereotypes, it does not need to be accurate, only accurate enough to form a judgement.>>

If one wanted to stereotype. Sure.

<<Human beings form groups of [like-minded] people.>>

Correct.

<<And because we need to socially interact with people we need to form judgements of people.>>

It certainly helps, yes.

<<Since we can't personally know everybody on the planet,every one of us routinely judges individuals by their group associations.>>

Correct.

<<We prejudge.>>

Not everyone. Some of us are careful enough to avoid hasty and overly simplistic generalisations.

We’ve been through all this before.

<<Your ridiculous premise is that when you do it to the groups of people you don't like, you are not really doing it.>>

Please point to where I have said, or even implied, this.

<<Everybody reading this can understand the essential logic of what I have written.>>

There goes that focus on the audience again. In true narcissistic fashion, you demonstrate that you are not interested in any sort of genuine discussion, only how good you can make yourself look to others.

Well, you’ve got a way to go yet before that happens.

Thank you, AJ. I forgot about how, whenever I paint you into a corner, and your are obliged to give an explanation for one of your stupid assertions, your customary "get out of jail free" card is to simply post up a link to some vague site. And reading back on your posts, I forgot that any statement that you do make is so qualified to death that you can always plausibly deny it.

Your entire method of "debating" is indicative of a person who knows that he is wrong, but he will never admit to it. The reason being, that you are an acolyte to some stupid "we can save the world" ideology which you can never admit, even to yourself, is completely potty. Better to prevaricate endlessly rather than concede that the Sacred Ideals of Equality are wanting.

As for me providing an example of your contradictions, how about he ones where you stated that low intelligence is not a major risk factor in crime, then it was a major factor?

AJ quote 1

However, I would be willing to say that low intelligence is indirectly a major risk factor.

AJ quote 2

But there is not enough evidence to say that it is a “major” factor.

And this after strenuously denying that IQ testing was even accurate. It is impossible to "debate" intelligently with a person like you who changes their position whenever the wind shifts.

Back on topic.

Muslims, Klansmen, Nazis, Trump supporters, and any other group of people loosely united under any belief system are simply groups of people. All groups of people can be examined for their demographic makeup, and the values, attitudes and beliefs which hold them together. No group of people united under any ideology can have universally held beliefs, although some may have core beliefs to which every member must believe in to be accepted within the group. But even there, schisms always appear because people are different. So if Nazis and Klansmen can be prejudged and stereotyped, Muslims can to. Especially since they are all dangerous organisations to somebody.

Well you’ve never complained that a link I provided was “vague” before, LEGO.

<<I forgot about how, whenever I paint you into a corner, ...>>

It is, however, always a sure sign of your panic when you start asserting that I’m pained into a corner.

<<[Whenever] your are obliged to give an explanation for one of your stupid assertions, your customary "get out of jail free" card is to simply post up a link to some vague site.>>

Both links specifically mention belief in the supremacy of whites within the first couple of pages. There’s nothing “vague” about that.

It’s always amusing when you presume to comment on the content of a link that you obviously never clicked.

<<Your entire method of "debating" is indicative of a person who knows that he is wrong, but he will never admit to it.>>

That’s funny, I would say exactly the same thing about a person who simply asserts victory when they’ve used up all their angles of approach.

<<Better to prevaricate endlessly rather than concede that the Sacred Ideals of Equality are wanting.>>

Now that’s what I call “transference” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transference)

<<As for me providing an example of your contradictions, …>>

This’ll be good.

<<… how about [the] ones where you stated that low intelligence is not a major risk factor in crime, then it was a major factor?>>

Yes, the first quote of mine acknowledged that IQ was INDIRECTLY a major factor. There was no contradiction. You’ve tried this one before. It’s the only “contradiction” you can ever find, too, despite them apparently being plentiful.

<<… after strenuously denying that IQ testing was even accurate.>>

"Strenuously"? Well then ..!

I always enjoy the words you insert for dramatic effect.

Correct, too, by the way. They are not accurate. They are, however, accurate enough to develop general idea about the cognitive abilities of individuals.

<<No group of people united under any ideology can have [universally-held] beliefs, although some may have core beliefs to which every member must believe in to be accepted within the group.>>

Yes, making that core belief a universally-held one.

You have already painted yourself into a corner on this topic, AJ.

We were examining three extremist organisations, all of which have "false and dangerous beliefs." They are, Nazis, Klansmen and Muslims. And the double standards by which you, and people who think like you, judge individuals within each group. Your premise was, that all individual Nazis and Klansmen could be condemned because "all Nazis and Klansmen define themselves by their horrible beliefs, so there is no double standard." Applying the same standard to Muslims, then all Muslims must be condemned because, according to their Koran, their particular "harmful and false" beliefs "which define them" are even more "horrible" and more numerous.

Your comeback was, that I "cannot possibly know what every Muslim believes." You are suggesting that Muslims do not all follow the clear and emphatic written directions of their God to the same degree. Applying the same standard to Nazis and Klansmen, you can't know what every Nazi or Klansmen believes either. But you claim you can. You claimed that the universal "horrible" belief of every single Nazi and Klansmen was "white superiority." When challenged to prove it, you wimped out. You provided nothing to validate your claim that every single Nazi who every lived believes in white superiority, all you could do was to provide a link to a Klan Koran which advocated white superiority was a Klan belief.

You are claiming that the instructions from God in the Koran to kill infidels, homosexuals, apostates, and beat their wives, are not universally believed by Muslims, but that Klansmen must universally believe in white superiority because a Klan Koran says they should.

The most interesting aspect of this double standard is, that I don't think you are dumb enough not to clearly see it. You knew all along that it was a double standard, but you hoped you could hide it in the waffle. The most amazing thing about Absolutist mindsets like yours is that they truly believe that their opponents must abide by principles that they have no intention of abiding by themselves

Oops! Foxy we've posted to the wrong Post.

Foxy: Because it is demonstrably nonsense.

Please demonstrate away.

Are you saying what these eminent Imam's, Mufti's, Dr's & others don't believe what are saying in their lectures to the moslim population of the World? Lectures they put on uTube to teach people how to become better moslims. Or, do you believe in, "What the eye doesn't see the heart can't bleed."

Anyway;

Menk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyQahPZmvU0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLflUG0IwQo

Sh. Khalid Yasin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2sZrrXeMZo

Imam Sayed Moustafa Al-Qazwini: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y7GwnzH7GE

Dr. Mesbah Moosavi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9f3bA8wohg

Oh please, LEGO, do tell me how you’ve painted me into a corner. Let us all finally see this double standard of mine, you suspense-builder, you.

<<We were examining three extremist organisations, all of which have "false and dangerous beliefs.">>

Or “belief” (singular), since you wanted to make an issue of that.

<<Your premise was, that all individual Nazis and Klansmen could be condemned because "all Nazis and Klansmen define themselves by their horrible beliefs, so there is no double standard.">>

Correct. However, you shouldn’t use double quotation marks unless you’re quoting verbatim.

<<Applying the same standard to Muslims, then all Muslims must be condemned because, according to their Koran, their particular "harmful and false" beliefs "which define them" are even more "horrible" and more numerous.>>

“According to their Koran”, yes. But not all of them take the bad verses as instructions on how to live now.

Not off to a good start, but we’ll see what else you’ve got...

<<Your comeback was, that I "cannot possibly know what every Muslim believes.">>

Correct.

<<You are suggesting that Muslims do not all follow the clear and emphatic written directions of their God to the same degree.>>

And some don't follow it at. You conveniently omitted that detail.

<<Applying the same standard to Nazis and Klansmen, you can't know what every Nazi or Klansmen believes either.>>

Sure, but your standard omitted a crucial detail, so it’s irrelevant.

<<You claimed that the universal "horrible" belief of every single Nazi and Klansmen was "white superiority." When challenged to prove it, you wimped out.>>

Erm, no. I linked to their ideology that clearly stated it.

<<You are claiming that the instructions from God in the Koran to kill … and beat their wives, are not universally believed by Muslims, …>>

Or followed, correct.

<<… but that Klansmen must universally believe in white superiority because a Klan Koran says they should.>>

No, they “must universally believe in white superiority” because they joined the organisations.

Still no double standard.

Oh well, better luck next time. Which will be your twelfth attempt, I might add.

I sure hope that everybody is reading this, AJ.

You are once again pretending that individuals within different groups of people, all with them with "false and dangerous beliefs" should be judged differently. That is a double standard.

You claim that individual Nazis and Klansmen can be condemned, but Muslims can not. Your justification is that people from these groups "identify themselves by their horrible beliefs". Well, let's look at "horrible beliefs." The "horrible belief" you speak of with Nazis and Klansmen is "white supremacy". That is hardly comparable in offensiveness to a range of "horrible" Muslim beliefs including male supremacy, the concept of females as minors and the property of men, the concept that raped women deserve it, that raped women should be punished, clitoris removal, honour killings, that women captured in war should be sex slaves, that Islam should be spread by force, wives should be beaten, and that non Muslims, homosexuals, critics of Islam, blasphemers, apostates, and Jews should be murdered.

Comparing "horrible beliefs" , I would rate Islam the worst in terms of the quantity of offensive beliefs , Nazism the second (as it also persecuted and murdered Jews, homosexuals and it's critics), with the Ku Klux Klan looking positively benign compared to the other two.

Your next double standard is your insistence that every individual Nazi and Klansmen universally accepts their "horrible beliefs", but Muslims do not. Muslims may not share universal beliefs, even though these are direct instructions from their God, but most our readers understand that all Muslims believe in some of them or they would not be Muslims.

Your supposed verification for the universal acceptance by individuals of Nazi and Klan ideology is "because they joined these organisations." I joined the Labor Party in 1973 and swore to uphold "the democratic socialisation of Australian industry", which I did not believe in one iota. I joined because I did not want to be conscripted and have my head blown off in Vietnam. Many young Europeans joined the Waffen SS because it was a way of saving Europe from the Communists.

Oh, I know you do, LEGO.

<<I sure hope that everybody is reading this, AJ.>>

It’s characteristic of narcissism. Let’s see if it’s twelfth time lucky…

<<You are once again pretending that individuals within different groups of people, all [of] them with "false and dangerous beliefs" should be judged differently.>>

No, I’m not pretending anything. Which group are we talking about, and what are we judging them on?

<<You claim that individual Nazis and Klansmen can be condemned, but Muslims [cannot].>>

Correct.

<<Your justification is that people from these groups "identify themselves by their horrible beliefs".>>

The first two, yes.

<<Well, let's look at "horrible beliefs.">>

Yes, Let us…

<<The "horrible belief" you speak of with Nazis and Klansmen is "white supremacy".>>

Correct.

<<That is hardly comparable in offensiveness to a range of "horrible" Muslim beliefs …>>

But not all Muslims believe in those. You have the memory of a fish.

<<Comparing "horrible beliefs" , I would rate Islam the worst in terms of the quantity of offensive beliefs …>>

Agreed.

<<Your next double standard is …>>

Hang on, you haven’t demonstrated one double standard yet. How did we get to the "next"?

<<… your insistence that every individual Nazi and Klansmen universally accepts their "horrible beliefs", but Muslims do not.>>

If (as you have quoted of me) they "identify" themselves that way, yes.

<<Muslims may not share universal beliefs, … but most our readers understand that all Muslims believe in some of them or they would not be Muslims.>>

Not all of them.

<<Your supposed verification for the universal acceptance by individuals of Nazi and Klan ideology is "because they joined these organisations.">>

And by the way they "identify" themselves, yes.

<<I joined the Labor Party in 1973 and swore to uphold "the democratic socialisation of Australian industry", which I did not believe in one iota ... because I did not want to be conscripted ...>>

Well then you did not “identify [yourself] by [Labor’s] horrible beliefs” and could not, therefore, be judged based on anything the Labor party did.

Can we hope for a thirteenth time lucky?

I’ve gotta say, LEGO, your most recent attempt pin a double standard on me was the most disappointing and dishonest of the lot.

We have limited words to work with on OLO and being someone who is as thorough as I am, and does not want to leave a single point to go unaddressed (lest I appear to be deliberately evading that which is inconvenient), I have the additional disadvantage of quoting most of what you’ve said in my post.

(You, on the other hand, use the cloak that the total absence of quotes provides you with to misrepresent what your opponents say, conveniently overlook their arguments that you cannot twist to your advantage, and pretend that your stuff ups didn’t happen.)

That being said, I am not always going to be able to add every qualification that exists for everything I say (and yes, there’s usually a lot of them - as there would be for any intelligent, informed, and sophisticated position). Therefore, I rely - in fact, we all rely - on those with whom we communicate here to remember what we have said earlier, and make reasonable assumptions about what’s probably not being said as well.

Yet you take advantage of this by simplifying my position to portray me as someone who is so stupid that they would either include (in their condemnation) people who are only members of a group on paper but do not agree with any of the tenets, or not realise that such people may exist. This all goes back to your lack of question-asking for clarification from others. Who cares what other's ACTUALLY believe, eh?

Go ahead, LEGO. Brush off what I have just said by referring it as ‘standing on my dignity’. You’re damn right I’m standing on my dignity. As should anyone when they’re not being treated with respect. But as you re-read this post of mine to look for words that you can twist to your advantage (yes, you know you’re about to do it), ask yourself why it is that you need to do that.

Hi AJ. Finally got you writing paragraphs? That only took me about 400 posts.

I have got you right where I want you, and you know it. When it comes to judging individuals by their group associations, everybody does it. Everybody decides whether or not a particular group of people are allies, competitors, dangerous, harmless, trustworthy or untrustworthy. And they project that broad judgement onto the individuals who compose that group. Reasonable people will know that some individuals within these groups may not fit the stereotype, but whether that matters depends upon the level of threat the group poses. Everybody prejudges and everybody forms stereotypes of the typical member of every group. The main reason for that is, because human beings form stereotypes of everything just to think.

No matter how you cut the cake, Nazis, Muslims and Klansmen are all just groups of people united in an ideology. There is nothing that you can say about one group of people which can not apply to others. All three of them have dangerous ideologies with Islam's being the most dangerous. All three of them have groups of people within them who do not accept every tenet of dogma that the leadership expects a "good" member of the group should have. That is because leaders of unelected groups over time tend to become more extreme, while the membership of groups are composed of both extremists and moderates.

All of these facts are provable premises to anybody with average intelligence who has anything close to an open mind. But you can never prove anything to ideologues who really do believe that truth should be secondary to ideology, not the other way around. You can't prove Evolution to a Creationist, and you can't prove that everybody prejudges and stereotypes to a person like you who routinely does it himself and then denies doing it. With Creationists, and Ideologues like you, all you can hope for is a wide audience of nominally open minded people, keep submitting a logical chain of reasoned arguments, and then let your opponents make a fool of himself.

Oh, so is THAT why you were being dishonest, LEGO?

<<Finally got you writing paragraphs? That only took me about 400 posts.>>

I’ve already explained why your paragraphs are not a good thing. You have not posted 400 times here either. Or did you forget about all the times I wrote in paragraphs in previous discussions?

<<I have got you right where I want you, and you know it.>>

I do?

Let’s see if we can make it ‘thirteenth time lucky’ then, eh?

<<When it comes to judging individuals by their group associations, everybody does it.>>

Correct. Although some are of us are careful enough to avoid hasty and over-simplistic generalisations.

<<Everybody decides whether or not a particular group of people are allies, competitors, [etc.] …>>

Correct.

<<And they project that broad judgement onto the individuals who compose that group.>>

Depending on the group and what the judgment is, yes.

<<Reasonable people will know that some individuals within these groups may not fit the stereotype, …>>

More or less.

<<Everybody prejudges and everybody forms stereotypes ... The main reason for that is, because human beings form stereotypes of everything just to think.>>

Not everyone all of the time. We’ve already had this discussion: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17995&page=0

<<All three of them have dangerous ideologies with Islam's being the most dangerous.

“Except, not all the members of [Islam] hold dangerous beliefs.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18849#336311)

<<All three of them have dangerous ideologies with Islam's being the most dangerous.>>

More or less, yes.

<<All three of them have groups of people within them who do not accept every tenet of dogma that the leadership expects ...>>

Correct.

So where was this double standard then?

<<… all you can hope for is a wide audience of nominally open minded people, keep submitting a logical chain of reasoned arguments, and then let your opponents make a fool of himself.>>

Okay, I’ll look forward to this “logical chain of reasoned arguments” then. Perhaps you can start them in your fourteenth attempt? C’mon, LEGO, show me how you’ve “got [me] right where you want [me]”, already. The suspense is killing me!

What was the topic?

Reverted to type again, eh AJ? I knew you couldn't last the distance.

And I see that now you are trying something new? Instead of just stonewalling and sneering at every single sentence I write, you are even agreeing with most of my post? I presume the reason for that is, my premises make so much sense to our readers that you would look like a complete fool to keep on denying them?

You have now been bludgeoned and hammered into the point where you agree that everybody judges individuals by their group associations. OK, the act of doing that creates a prejudgement of those individuals, and that prejudgement becomes part of the stereotype that every person has of the individuals within that group. So your first double standard is your insistence that when I prejudge and stereotype, I am utterly wrong, but when you do exactly the same thing, it is OK because your prejudgements and stereotypes are accurate. Good luck selling that one.

I think our audience would conclude that the reason why you keep denying it is because it has long been a saying among Trendy Lefty Humanitarians that prejudging and stereotyping is absolutely evil. And even though that is demonstrably idiotic, you don't want to be a heretic, do you? Especially since you and your friends routinely do it yourselves, so you need to come up with something, anything, to explain why you and your friends can do it, but your opponents may not.

I thank you for admitting at last that "more or less", of all three ideologies, Islam is worse than the Nazis or the Klan. That being so, I am amazed that you still persist with the double standard that it is alright to condemn individual Nazis and Klansmen by their group associations, but not Muslims. Your potty excuse is because the beliefs of Nazis and Klansmen are universally held by every individual Nazi and Klansmen, but Muslims do not have universal beliefs. Good luck selling that one too. Especially since you already agreed that no ideology is universally accepted by it's members

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Q&A in Australia,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQJy8GDqM0o

Hi Is Mise,

I think it was about the difficulties for Muslims of reforming Islam. That was my take on her article.

Cheers,

Joe

Peak Muslim male dominance in Australia's Muslim community has been revealed. This puts the lie to the OLO author's picture of liberated woman being the norm in Australia's Muslim communities.

SBS reported 24 Feb http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/02/24/keysar-trad-apologises-for-clumsy-domestic-violence-comments

"The President of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, Keysar Trad, has apologised for condoning domestic violence as a 'last resort', calling his explanation of the Quran 'clumsy'.

On Wednesday night, Mr Trad told Andrew Bolt on Sky News that beating a woman was "step three" in a process to deal with relationships."

Unlike the ABC's constant picture of liberated Muslim women in head coverings http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-13/jacqui-lambie-and-yassmin-abdel-magied--in-fiery-qanda-debate/8267212

It is the SBS article - http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/02/24/keysar-trad-apologises-for-clumsy-domestic-violence-comments that presents a disturbing different picture of older male fundamentalist dominance of Australia's Muslim community.

Even more difficult, where virtue-signalling 'do-gooders', cynical politicians among them, undermine the courageous ex- and continuing Muslims who strive for the reformation of Islam and endure abuse and risk death in the process.

Here is a timeline of major crimes in Australia:

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

Anybody watch "Sixty Minutes" on Sunday evening,
26th February 2017?

16 month old Mason Parker was
bashed to death by his mother's boyfriend - Troy Reed.
Mason's only one of many children in this country that
have been killed. I wonder what if any religious
practices influence the monsters who commit these
heinous crimes? And that's not counting the other acts
of violence and murder that are committed daily by pathologically
sick people in our society.

Foxy the Apologist.

Dear Is Mise,

No.

I'm simply a believer in a "fair go" for all.

I don't see the world in very rigid and stereotyped
terms.

To Foxy.

Then a non rigid view of the world is your particular stereotype of the world is.

Dear LEGO,

No.

I'm not a therapist.

People have to solve their own problems.

Dearest Foxy,

Can you say 'neither' ? That 'Neither is acceptable' ? 'Neither bashing children nor bashing women is acceptable' ? It's not some sort of (excuse me) pissing contest, or ranking with a prize at the end. Criminal behaviour AND vile cultural practices and beliefs, any behaviour which terrorises anybody into behaving as someone else wants, may be equally abhorrent. Maybe such behaviour which falls back on some cultural and/or religious justification is worse, partly because it implicitly calls on an entire community to support it.

Can you bring yourself to say that ? Perhaps a bit more articulately than me ?

Love notwithstanding,

Joe

Dear Joe,

Go back and read my post on page 38 of this
discussion. I did try to cover violence and
murder and everything else that pathologically
sick people committed.

Foxy,

Muslims who follow the Qur'an to the letter are normal people and their Holy Book inspired killings, honour killings and wife bashing are not, in their culture unlawful, so they do not fit,

"Go back and read my post on page 38 of this
discussion. I did try to cover violence and
murder and everything else that pathologically
sick people committed."

Dearest Foxy,

No, not many of us do, we struggle to differentiate between ideas and people, between religion and ideology, religion and culture, etc. But what if violence is condoned, even urged on, from the pulpit ?

My understanding is that this is happening against Rohingya Muslims in Burma, with Buddhist mobs being incited to attack and destroy villages and people. If it be so, then surely we mustn't hide behind 'tolerance' and 'neutrality' and 'evenhandedness' and pretend that it isn't the case. And 'tu quoque' - 'you too' - doesn't cut it either.

Meile,

Joe