Froggie,

Well said!

Col Rouge, Fellow Human, Donnie,

Being a new-age “moderate”, why don’t you ask Salam to put all these hysterical posters to rest by condemning the Sharia scriptural penalties?

I guarantee that she, like Keysar Trad has done, would reply: “As a Muslim, I cannot denounce any of the Scriptural penalties and still be a Muslim”

However, like Trad she will probably add some “conditions”: “I can though say that these penalties can only apply when the deterrents are in place and the Caliphate system exists, for example, you cannot penalise adultery [death] unless marriage is easy and affordable for people to enter into. You cannot penalise thieves by cutting off their hands unless you have a welfare state”

Note that whilst homosexual desire might be tolerated (in diasporas within Western nations, that is), there are apparently no conditions for the homosexual “act” itself. “The punishment is death,” as sheik Yassin noted in his so-called “sound bite”. Note: ALL Muslims necessarily want to install the caliphate and Sharia; fact. The problem they have is in HOW, in this climate of liberalism.

That’s why sheik Benbrika said in regards to Australian anti-discrimination legislation: “This is big problem”. That’s also why Trad held a conference with sheik Shady in 2002 UWS (Bankstown), set up to deal with the tensions members of the Islamic community face between Sharia precepts and Australian law. It was entitled: “Islam & Homosexuality: an Islamic, scientific and logical approach”, and Trad there endorsed ignoring anti-discrimination legislation in relation to homosexuals in the workplace, and evoked their stoning to death under Sharia law; fact (see (http://www.zipworld.com.au/~josken/multim~1.htm).

Trad even later defends himself at http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/520/520p8.htm, where he conflates “self-harm” with homosexuality, saying that people should “counsel” their homosexual workplace colleagues “with advice that would help them to break away from that self harm” of homosexual acts/lifestyle. He says, “If this advice is against workplace policy [i.e. law], then you have to determine whether the interest of the person and your principles are greater or the workplace policy”.

Can't opt for secularism, or perhaps a self-critical Islam? (rhetorical question).

Donnie,

It is besides the point that the Cronulla race riot is “a separate issue” with “its own context”. My query regards only whether you’d apply the same methodology in each case: “to look for underlying reasons and try to understand the real causes beneath a problem”. You have not answered me.

Tell me, are we allowed to blame the religion of “Nazism” for the way Hitler’s Mein Kampf is practically interpreted?

Col Rouge,

My point was that you’d make a terrible triage nurse.

Like you, I abhor all religious violence and demand we fight it. But since the vast majority of earth’s nations reflect no issue with such Christian fundamentalists, unlike you I can gauge from the present context that those single-issue anti-abortionist fanatics are, it is shocking to say, hippies relative to Muslim fanatics who abhor democracy itself! It is shocking but true that your list of despicable acts is nonetheless utterly dwarfed by them.

And what makes this all the more serious is that you, Fellow Human, etc., are easy meat for radical Islamists, doing their job for them by (1) replacing “self-defence” and “fair criticism” with the Newspeak “Islamophobia”, and (2) thereby helping in their recruitment process.

In any case, that you even raise the Christian extremist issue at all in this context betrays your groundless assumption that the posters are criticising Islam simply because it’s apparently not connected to THEIR roots, rather than because they have a verifiable, justifiable grievance against the rednecks who practice it.

You mistake the effect (fair criticism) for the cause (Islamic rednecks)! Your whole conception of a “redneck” is upside down mate! I’d wager that you probably think that one’s simply being an “ethnic minority” renders them immune from being a redneck!

David BOAZ,

Your findings lend further support to the view that those on the far left are easy meat for radical Islamists, as I just noted RE Col Rouge and co as easy meat for Islamists, unwittingly doing their work for them.

It's their adolescent conception of freedom that makes them vulnerable.

Mr Man,

Please also tell us you're NOT a Christian. Quoting from the Old testament you did, I wonder if you know the first thing about Christianity. It is so typical of a middle-of-the-road fella passing up as fair-minded... but so misleading.

To paraphrase one quote to highlight my point:

--> Put adulterers to death <--
Christian practice:- Past-->NO, Today-->NO, Tomorrow-->Unlikely
Islam practice:- Past-->YES, Today-->YES, Tomorrow-->Most certainly

As for your false assertion...it amounts to: "The Bible says that all non-believers should be killed."

Hi Fellow_Human,

The rationale on the banning of pictures in Islam is to somehow explain away the violent behaviour by Muslims. It does not make Islam any less contradictory and illogical. For a start, intent is a state of mind whereas pictures are physical objects.

As for your claim Islam 'accepts' other religions... NO, that's a typical deception coming from a Muslim (or a sympathiser).

Non-Muslims living in Muslim countries does NOT equate to Islam being accepting, as much as Mohammed marrying a Christian does NOT logically mean Mohammed is accepting of Christianity.

For we have the big pictures about Islam today. Many little pictures would have been quite similar during Mohammed's time, if one cares to research the details.

And we know what hell it can be living in some Muslim countries, and what transpires when Muslims marry a non-Muslim. So spare us the deception by painting a pleasant image of Islamic humanity and tolerance, which never was... as you can tell the tree by its fruit.

Not to mention self-defense. Islam can never be a religion of peace as it is a religion of submission, not love.

Whew, one thing that this thread is proving, is that with all this vitriol about religion, the notion of a secular state, where religion is no more then a lifestyle choice, makes more and more sense!

I simply don't believe some of the comments on here like "not a single muslim can be trusted".

Get used to it people, most of us were brainwashed as kids, into believing what we do now. Well 90% of us anyhow, as statics show.
Little children with innocent and gullible minds, forced to recite the Koran, scared to death by nuns preaching the hellfires of hell if we don't behave etc. We were told by adults that this was the literal truth! Thats pretty much child abuse IMHO.

In my experience, people around the globe are actually quite similar.
A quite large % don't care too much about religion, there are more important things in life, ie. family, football, fishing, whatever.

But brainwashing kids is brainwashing kids, what we learned at that age does have an effect. Meantime its always the extremists who are the problem.

Secular Jews, secular Xtians, secular Muslims and us secular normal people, all actually get on pretty well and can let reason dominate.

Fanatical types will stay fanatical, be they muslims, christians, whatever.

Yup political Islam is a huge danger, Kohmeini made it clear that
his Islam was a violent religion. But that is just one interpretation of a multi sided religion.

Lets not forget that our own Christian Taliban have been hard at work in our own parliament, trying to deny people their rights
right now over RU 486.

Religious extremists are the real problem, be they catholic or muslim.

Well rainer,if our "ignorance is astounding" don't just make a sweeping statement,address the specifics and give us some examples.Edify us with your wonderous civil libertarian left wing logic.Our civil liberties of free speech are under threat by Muslim censorship.Your logic is very selective when your own fragile agenda is threatened.

Arjay, One would think that posting on this forum would require some intellectual forbearance in history, political theory and have the critical thinking skills required to apply these to different contexts.

Reading more broadly than the latest edition of One Nation's newsletter or listening to the bunk that shock jocks spruke would help don't you think? Or would this be an act of elitist, cafe latte political correctness in your book?

I could recommend books and sites but I cannot provide the will to learn.