Imam Abu Hammid Ghazali says:
"Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible." (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745)
Note that Al-Ghazali is one of the most famous and respected Muslim theologians of all time.

for more on lying go to
http://www.answering-islam.org/Index/index.html

meredith,

Please when we discuss lying or failure to tell the full truth, include lil johnny in the equation.

The principle danger posed by these laws is much larger in scope than anything that terrorists per se could bring to fruition.

The ACTU is already planning to start an Australia wide campaign of 'National Disobediance'. this will spread quickly, particularly as the new IR laws effectively criminalise virtually all forms of protest.

This IS a very predictable response, and the resultant arrests of union officials (and rank & file member's) will further polarise the issue. The greatest civilizing force, is the line between lawful and unlawful - and the lack of motivation of the average person to cross it. However, if all forms of protest are made illegal per se, ordinary people become criminals and no longer have any society imposed restraints or taboos to stop them acting as they please or are exhorted to do.

First the strikes, then the overreaction by authorities, next the violent protest, then what?.........

However, never fear, any worker who is a member of the ALP will be participating in a political demonstration, which the Fed Parliament may not impose criminal sanction upon (constitutionally protected).

please people wake up, the moslems are the least of our worries.

Meredith,

The title of the site you refer to (ie ‘answering-Islam.org’) speaks for its intent and purpose. I read most contents and I am astonished at the amount of resources and professional work dedicated to mislead the naïve and twist the facts about Islam. Otherwise why are they ignoring modern scholars and quoting a man who lived and died 9 centuries ago?

Abu Hamid AI-Ghazzali (1058-1110), created his own philosophy during the times of crusades and wars and most of his efforts were to create the ‘self interest’ and ‘end justifies the means’ to promote the militant Islam, defence of the land, etc... Parts of his ideology are the very reason why we have Islamist terrorism today because a) He allowed what the Quran forbids and b) He painted a picture that “Islam is in a permanent and opened war whether declared (ie the crusades of his times) or hidden (ie anytime, anywhere)”.

First no man have the authority to allow what the Quran forbids and second, lying and forgery is the 3rd top greatest sin in the Quran after polytheism and being ungrateful to the parents. Prophet Mohamed (PBUH) never told a lie.

Anyway, your statement (copied from the site) that he is the most respected and believed scholar today is simply not correct: he is the most quoted by French philosophers in painting their picture of Islam in the 13th century probably because it serves their purpose.
On the conservative/ strict scholars I would say today‘s most popular can be Dr. Professor Yusuf Qaradawi. On the young moderate side Amr Khalid is popular among Muslim youth. Each have from 40-50 million audience (TV interviews, books, and articles).

For the record, I didn't call Leigh an "offensive bigot". Rather I suggest that the comments that he has posted here are bigoted and offensive - as are the comments posted prolifically by others who wish to demonise Islam and Muslims.

The disingenuousness of Leigh's claim that he was merely asking a question to further discussion can be seen in his first post in response to Waleed's article what he actually submitted as the first post in this thread:

"Do we believe Waleed Aly, or do we not. Is he talking a load of 'old taqiyya' or is he not?" (N.B. the difference between what he actually wrote and his sanitised misquotation of himself).

This is clearly a loaded question that is meant to imply that Waleed Aly, and by implication other moderate Muslims who attempt to explain Islam to non-Muslims, is likely to be engaged in deception.

It is the same kind of disingenuous tactic contained in the old chestnut "Are you still beating your wife?".

While Leigh and those who share his bigoted and offensive ideas might prefer it if more reasonable non-Muslims gave them free reign in this forum to voice their hateful ideas without response, that just isn't going to happen. This is particularly the case in the context of the escalation by some forum members of the ignorance and vitriol contained in their posts.

Finally (for now), while Boaz may claim that "this forum is not so much about 'good relations as it is about shining light on serious matters of cultural and national security", that is merely his very idiosyncratic view. I suspect that those who are responsible for national security would regard his rantings with much the same bemusement as we more rational forum members do.

And what on earth is "cultural security"?

Mahatma,you seem to perceive most Muslims as being moderate.Why do we not see moderate Muslims protesting against the the radical lunatics?If radical Islam is rejected by the moderates,why do we not see at least one organised protest in our country by these moderates?I have seen none.Irfan Yusef is the only one I see as a moderating influence.If there are others let their voices be heard in all forms of our media.

The silence by the moderates can be interpreted in two ways,either the radicals are so powerful that they dare not say anything for fear of their lives[which is a real worry]or the moderates are not really that moderate and are having an each way bet.They will take the religious power option no matter what the consequences.

If this impasse is to be resolved,Muslims have to pin their colours to the mast or continue to suffer alienation and derision.

"And what on earth is "cultural security"?

Indeed ! they can't tell us what their culture is or how it makes them think but want security for this mysterious phantom of their opera? Go figure!